DEUTERONOMY: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Deuteronomy 1:6 Would all of the names of people and places have made sense to Jews living in the 

Roman times, or would we have to go back further for them to be familiar with the places being 

mentioned?

There is really no way to tell. However, it has been suggested that the confusion as to whether the 

mountain was called Sinai or Horeb (see Exodus 19) was purposeful so that future generations would 

not know exactly where God had revealed himself.

Deuteronomy 2:4-5 Two questions: (1) The descendants of Esau that live in the hills would essentially be blood relatives of the people wandering around in the desert. Why would they see themselves as different? (2) Why does God keep having to tell the Jews not to pick fights with everyone they come across? 

In regard to the first question, even though their founders Jacob and Esau were brothers, years earlier there was not always peace between them. Secondly, Esau had married a Hittite woman and settled in the region of Edom, where his family intermarried with the local inhabitants.

To answer the second question: They had to learn that the sole purpose of fighting was to possess the 

land (Deuteronomy 2:5,18-19), and that they would only win when God was their strength (see 

Deuteronomy 1:41-45). God is pictured as their military commander, and they needed to obey orders.

Deuteronomy 2:6 The Jews are to give silver for the food they eat. Where exactly did a group of slaves 

who just ran away and have been wandering in the desert acquire silver?

They were given it by the Egyptians. See Exodus 12:33-36. This also explains where they got the 

jewelry to melt down into a golden calf.

Deuteronomy 2:22-23 I have heard that this prophecy of death by crucifixion is an amazing prophecy 

since this was a form of punishment totally unknown to the Jews. Is that historically true?

Unfortunately, these verses do not say that this was a means of killing someone, only a way of 

disgracing an already dead body. This practice was well known to the Jews (see Joshua 8:29; 10:26-27).

Deuteronomy 7:17-24 What is the hornet that God will send among their enemies?

Here is a long and confusing answer to a short, simple question:

The word translated “hornet” in the NIV translation represents an obscure Hebrew word that only occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible – Deuteronomy 7:20; Exodus 23:27-28; and Joshua 24:1-2. The first two references give God's promise that he will send “hornets” to aid the Israelites in their conquest of Canaan, and the last reference demonstrates that he did indeed do so.

The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Translation & Exegesis (vol. 3, p. 847) explains that the most likely literal translation of the word in question is as hornet, hornet's nest, wasp or wasp's nest. One could understand the references therefore to say that God sent stinging insects to soften the enemy up before the attacks by the Israelites and to finish off the remnants of the enemy after the attack. However, that is not the only understanding of these verses.

Taking a more figurative meaning to the word, it has been variously translated as “pestilence” (NRSV), panic (NEB, TEV), plagues (TEV alternative translation), and madness/frenzy (A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, p.188). DOTTE adds, “Yahweh's sting may well have been the dread/fear of him upon the inhabitants when they heard of what he did to Egypt. The report psychologically incapacitated them much as a wasp's/hornet's sting does (Joshua 2:10-11).”

As if that were not enough opinions, Weinfeld (Deuteronomy 1-11, p. 375) states, “The insects here serve as metaphors for invading armies.” In this context, J. A. Thompson (Deuteronomy, pp. 132-133) expresses the opinion, shared by others, that the hornets were actually Egyptian troops who invaded Canaan before the Israelite conquest and softened up the enemy's resistance.

In any case, “What is stressed is that the victory was [to be] gained not by force of arms but by God's miraculous intervention.” (New Bible Commentary, p. 25)

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 If a husband slanders his wife and claims she was not a virgin when they married, the girl’s parents are supposed to bring “proof” of her virginity in the form of a cloth they display to the elders of the town. What is the formal process for the parents to acquire this “proof?”

This regulation was designed to protect newly married women from being slandered by their husband. The issue was so important that the bride's parents would take great pains to insure that their daughter's reputation was not injured by such accusations. There was also an economic incentive for the parents to get such proof so that they would not have to refund the dowry money and have a subsequently unmarriageable daughter on their hands. The main question is: What kind of proof was required? And here scholars differ.

The usual answer is that the proof consisted of blood-stained bed linen following the first night of intercourse. In some Mediterranean cultures even today, the bed linen is publicly displayed right after the wedding night as proof of the bride's virginity. Alternatively, the linen could have been given by the bride to her parents to keep for future proof, if needed.

The problem with such “proof” is that it is not really an infallible test, as pointed out by several commentators. Therefore other possibilities for the so-called proof have been proposed:

    1. George Wenham feels that since the key word simla in the text usually refers to a garment, it cannot be a bed sheet. He suggests that it may be an undergarment worn by the bride just before or soon after her marriage showing menstrual stains, thus proving that she was not pregnant by another man at the time of marriage. (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Vol. 1, p. 784)

    2. J. A. Thompson, however, mentions the possibility that the girl's hymen was ritually broken right before the marriage, with her bloodstained clothing then serving as the needed proof of virginity. (Deuteronomy, Tyndale Commentaries, pp. 235-236)

In all of these possibilities, it would be up to the bride and/or her parents to obtain and retain the required proof.

 

C.S. LEWIS' TRILEMMA

Much as I admire the writings of C.S. Lewis both for his memorable way of putting things and his impeccable logic, I must admit that I have always felt that his simple argument for the deity of Christ found in Mere Christianity (The trilemma: Jesus was either Lord, a liar, or a lunatic) was a bit lacking in persuasiveness. It failed to address a fourth option; namely, that the apostles and other New Testament writers simply made up the story or, at the least, stretched the truth concerning Jesus' life and teachings considerably.

I have dealt with that basic issue briefly in my post entitled “Answering Atheists: The Bible's Flawed Origin,” concentrating on the historical issues surrounding the writing and canonization of the NT writings. But actually, the best argument of all is simply to read some of the apocryphal Christian writings from the 2^nd century AD through the Middle Ages and compare them with the Gospels. You will find yourself transported from the straightforward, even dry, accounts of the Bible into a world of flowery, romantic writings and fairy tales.

But I was still concerned as to why Lewis did not realize the glaring blind spot in his argument. Therefore I was pleasantly surprised to read a recent interview on mereorthodoxy.com carried out by my friend David G. Moore with Randy Newman, Senior Fellow for Evangelism and Apologetics at the C.S. Lewis Institute in the Washington D.C. Area regarding Newman's book Mere Evangelism. Here is a brief excerpt from that interview, which I found very helpful.

Moore: In his famous “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?” argument, Lewis left out the Legend option. How big a blind spot is that omission?

Newman: I don’t think it was a blind spot. I think it was a matter of how much time he had for his 15-minute radio broadcasts that later became the book Mere Christianity. They had to edit his manuscripts rather drastically to meet time limitations as well as other factors. But we have accounts of how those broadcasts came to be and there’s evidence that he did want to include the “legend” component in that objection. In brilliant Lewis-style, he wanted to explore the argument, “Maybe Jesus never claimed to be God and his disciples made all that stuff up.” Lewis countered with this quip: “The theory only saddles you with twelve inexplicable lunatics instead of one.”

And actually, this was the one point that convinced the prolific classical historian Michael Grant in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels to seriously consider that maybe the resurrection of Christ was factually true. Otherwise, he reasoned, why in the world would his closest followers who were obviously quite disillusioned and afraid for their lives suddenly make an about face and risk everything including their lives to spread the Gospel? And the same goes for the archenemy of the early Christians, Paul. These early followers were either reporting the historical truth in their writings or they were all lunatics.

 

THE BIBLE IN JAMES JOYCE'S FINNEGANS WAKE

 

I must admit first of all that there are probably very few of you who will be interested in what I have to say here unless you happen to be both a Christian and an English major. But since I spent a good portion of my spare time while in college studying Joyce's failed masterpiece, I wanted to share at least a little of my findings. And it may be helpful in demonstrating how even some people who do not consider themselves believers still thoroughly acquaint themselves with the contents of the Bible and appreciate it for its outstanding literary qualities. In fact, one could say that many unbelievers appreciate it in ways that most Christians don't.

The book starts out: “riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Evirons.” Why isn't the first word capitalized, why does it say “brings us back,” and what in the world do the other words mean? The river is the Liffey River in Ireland; and it runs by Adam and Eve's Church; commodius is a combination of at least three different words, including commode (with its circular flow of water); and vicus is an allusion to Vico (explained in the paragraph below). By the way, I forgot to tell you, although you may have guessed it by now, that Finnegans Wake is not really written in standard English at all.

After over 500 pages of this sort of writing, at last we come to the end of the book, or do we? “The keys to. Given! A way a lone a last a loved a long the” The first words are an allusion to an Irish song: “I will give you the keys to heaven.” So it starts and ends just like the Bible, beginning with Adam and Eve and concluding with the keys to heaven being given, but with a huge difference. The partial sentence at the end is completed by the partial sentence that starts the book. No end to the book and no progress, unlike the Bible. This is because Joyce was influenced by Italian philosopher Vico's cyclic view of history-- Theocratic (Age of God), Aristocratic (Age of Heroes), Democratic (Age of Humans), Chaotic, and back to Theocratic, etc. This demonstrates that even if writers happen to utilize the trappings and details in the Bible, often they pervert the overall meaning to fit their own purposes.

In between those opening and closing lines of the book I have detected approximately 1,600 references to the Bible in the novel, and the most repeated image is that of death and resurrection. This is not surprising considering the Roman Catholic background of the author and the title of the book, taken from an Irish drinking song in which a drunken Irishman becomes a dead Irishman, but then revives to become a drunken Irishman again. Again, this is a sort of parody on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You will be pleased to know that I will not subject you to all 1,600 references. But just to give you a flavor of the types of biblical allusions that are in this massive and confusing book, here are some examples taken from the first three pages:

“nor avoice from afire bellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick”

In this phrase alone we have references to God speaking to Moses from the burning bush combined with His revealing his name as I AM who I AM (mise mise in Gaelic). Then it morphs into an allusion to another theophany at the baptism of Jesus (taufen is “baptize” in German). And finally, there is Jesus' proclamation in Matthew 16:18: “Thou art Peter,” which now is applied to St. Patrick instead.

“not yet, though venissoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac, not yet, though all's fair in vanessy”

Note how Joyce combines the word “venison” with “very soon” in order to get “venissoon.” As to why “venison” appears here, it is explained by references to “kid” and “old isaac.” Anyone familiar with the Bible will immediately recognize these three words belong together as a citation of the story of Jacob fooling his elderly father Isaac into giving him the blessing instead of to Esau.

“were soiesesthers wroth with twone nathandjoe.”

Here we have references to women who were all in love with older men or were loved by older men: Susannah (in the Apocrypha), Esther, and Ruth. The last compound word in this phrase may refer to Nathan (with his denunciation of David taking Bathsheba) and Joseph, husband of Mary. In both these cases, there has been the assumption, unproven, that the wives were much younger than their husbands.

“Rot a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface.”

Once one realizes that rory=rosy in German, regenbogen=rainbow in German, and ringsum=around in German, then this becomes a reference to both the Spirit moving on the face of the water (aquaface) in Genesis 1 and to the rainbow God provided at the end of the Flood. In both events, the surface of the earth was covered with water. However, at the start of the sentence above we have an allusion to the sad event after the Flood involving Noah getting drunk (Pa's malt) and being exposed to his son Ham (Jhem or Shen is a combination of Ham, Shem, and Japhet).

“The fall [at this point follows a 100-letter word signaling the end of another cycle of rise and fall. Other such words appear throughout the book] of a one wallstrait oldparr is retaled early in bed and later on life down through all christian minstrelsy.”

Without going into excruciating detail to explain each phrase in the above passage (including the fall of Wall Street), I will just point out that the references refer to the Fall in the Garden of Eden which has been told over and over again by Christians.

“What true feeling for their's hayair with what strawng voice of false jiccop!”

This is another allusion to Jacob deceiving Isaac by putting goat's hair on his arms.

“how hath fanespanned most high heaven the skysign of soft advertisement?”

The rainbow sign given to Noah of sweet promise.

“in his rushlit toofarback for messuages before joshuan judges had given us numbers or Helviticus committed deuteronomy”

Here are highlighted the first six books of the Old Testament, which happen to be the biblical books most cited in the first few pages of Finnegans Wake.

“by the might of moses, the very water was eviparated and all the gueneses had met their exodus so that ought to show you what a pentschanjeuchy chap he was!”

We have in this phrase not only Moses and the parting of the Red Sea, but also “Genesis,” “Exodus,” and the “Pentateuch” (cleverly mixed in with Punch and Judy).

“a waalworth of a skyerscape of most eyeful hoyth entowerly, erigenating from next to nothing and celescalating the himals and all hierachitectitiptitoploftical, with a burning bush off its baubletop and with larrons o'toolers clittering up and tombles a'buckets clottering down.”

This wonderful conglomeration of words combines a description of the Tower of Babel (baubletop) reaching to the heavens (himals in German) with Jacob's ladder on which angels were ascending and descending. Sandwiched in between are references to the Woolworth skyscraper, the Christian heretic Erigena, the saints Lawrence O'Toole and Thomas Becket, and the common practice of placing a tree on top of a high building when construction is complete. Soon after the above passage are references to other religions such as Hinduism and Islam, in case you think that Joyce is only perverting Judaism and Christianity.

By this point, I think that you all get the definite idea that this is not a book of light reading. In fact, it is more like trying to do a crossword puzzle without knowing exactly what language it is written in. Joyce has tried to pack in all the history, religion, culture and language of every nation into one book. It is a noble attempt but generally only accomplishes leaving the reader confused. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit has given us a much more straightforward revelation to follow, even if there are still enough veiled material to keep an avid Bible scholar busy for a lifetime trying to fully comprehend it in all its aspects.

THE CYRUS CYLINDER (EZRA 1:1-4; II CHRONICLES 36:20-23)

 

The Bible records an edict that King Cyrus sent out in the first year of his reign reading, according to Ezra 1:2-4, as follows:

“Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all of the kingdoms of the earth, and he has instructed me to build him a dwelling in Jerusalem of Judah. For any among you of his people (may God be with you): let him return to Jerusalem and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel (He is the God who is in Jerusalem) and let each survivor be assisted by the men of their place with silver and gold, goods and beasts as well as offerings for the house of God which is in Jerusalem.”

There were at least two issues which bothered early Bible critics concerning this passage. Was it likely that Cyrus would have claimed that he ruled the whole world? And would he really have been so foolish as to allow captured people groups to freely return to their own land, support them by returning their holy objects, and give them aid to rebuild their temples?

In 1879, H. Rassam excavated a 10-inch, barrel-shaped clay cylinder in Babylon. It is now housed in the British Museum.. The inscription on it tells the story of Cyrus becoming the king of Persia and conquering Babylon in 539 BC. It reads in part:

“He [the god Marduk] pronounced the name of Cyrus, king of Anshan, and declared him to be the ruler of the whole world. As to the region from...to..., I returned to these sacred cities...the sanctuaries of which have been in ruins for a long time, the images which used to live in them, and I established for them permanent sanctuaries; I also gathered all their former inhabitants and returned them to their habitations.”

If you compare the italicized phrases in both these document, you can see, in answer to the first concern, that Cyrus did indeed make such a bold claim. After all, “At the height of its power, Persia ruled a vast territory stretching from Greece in the west to India in the east.” (Knoppers)

Concerning Cyrus' rather enlightened policy (compared to that of the Babylonians) of allowing the exiles to return to their native lands, that also appears to be part of the Persian strategy in order to build up a loyal following of people throughout the whole empire. Longman explains that “the Persians operated with the idea that happy vassals would serve their best interests. A peaceful and supportive Judah, for instance, would make it easier for the armies of Persia to march to one of their most desired destinations for expansion, Egypt.” Timm has interpreted some other cuneiform tablets to state a similar repatriation of Aramaens during Cyrus' reign.

More recently, “many scholars have questioned the Hebrew version of Cyrus' s decree because of the biblical, even prophetic expressions in the text. New evidence indicates that Assyrian royal scribes were familiar with Hebrew. It may also be argued from the analogy of the trilingual Xanthos inscription that Jews could have aided the chancellery in adapting the king's proclamation for the intended audience as the Lycians did.” (Yamauchi)

More recently, “many scholars have questioned the Hebrew version of Cyrus' s decree because of the biblical, even prophetic expressions in the text. New evidence indicates that Assyrian royal scribes were fam

AN INADVERTENT HEALING? (MARK 5:30; LUKE 8:46)

 

The account of the healing of the woman with the issue of blood is recounted by both Mark and Luke using basically the same wording. This unusual miracle gives rise to several questions, which are addressed briefly below.

Why is this healing sandwiched in between the account of Jairus' daughter's healing?

This literary technique is actually quite common in Mark's Gospel and forms part of its method of organization. See my post “Gospel of Mark: Introduction to the Literary Structure.” Luke's account appears to be patterned directly after Mark's Gospel.

Wouldn't the woman's touch have rendered Jesus ritually unclean?

This is one of the powerful theological points made in this miracle story. Instead of uncleanliness flowing from the woman to Jesus, Jesus' holy power went in the other direction to make the woman clean.

Why does the “power” leaving Jesus appear to have a life of its own?

That is because in essence it does, as a number of commentators have noted:

    Fitzmyer: The cure of the woman “is recounted as an exercise of Jesus' dynamis, 'power' (Luke 8:46), which has to be understood as 'the power of the Spirit' learned about in 4:14 or the power of the Lord...to heal' spoken of in 5:17.” A similar reference to healing power leaving Jesus is found in Luke 6:18-19.

    W.L. Lane explains that the word “must be interpreted from the context of 'the power of God' in the Scripture. Power is a constitutive element in the biblical concept of the personal God. Jesus possesses the power of God as the representation of the Father. Nevertheless, the Father remains in control of his own power. The healing of the woman occurred through God's free and gracious decision to bestow upon her the power which was active in Jesus.”

    Betz states that in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, 'dynamis' denotes the power of God..., miraculous power...and the power which brings salvation to completion.”

    Stubbs says that “this power breaks out from Christ unintentionally, simply through the contact of the woman with the holy hem of Christ's robe after she intentionally 'encroached' into Christ's space and touches it.”

    Horsley: “The initiative and action are entirely hers, Jesus being the passive conduit through which the healing power goes forth.”

Isn't this story closer to magic than to a miracle?

There is one point upon which all commentators seem to agree – this act was not at all a case of magical healing.

    Lane: “By an act of sovereign will God determined to honor the woman's faith in spite of the fact that it was tinged with ideas which bordered on magic.” And one could certainly say the same thing regarding the miracles carried out through Paul's handkerchiefs (Acts 19:12) or those at least attempted through the medium of Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15). Kistemaker puts it this way: “There is a difference between cloth and confidence, fabric and faith.”

    Craddock: “In no sense are we dealing here with the practice of magic. The encounter was personal: Jesus knew he had been touched, that power had gone out of him, and he wanted to meet the one who had received his healing. And the encounter was prompted by faith.”

    Ellis agrees that “the healing is not to be understood as a mechanical or magical result but as the confirming evidence of grace given to the woman.”

    Marshall: “Jesus is not to be thought of as involuntarily dispensing healing power; the power is that of God (Lk 5:17), and it is thought of as flowing from Jesus to the healed person, but this happens in response to faith.”

Doesn't Jesus' display of ignorance portray him as being less than omniscient?

    Swift says that “although He was aware that the power proceeding from Him had gone forth in conscious response to the touch of faith, there is no need to suppose that he exhibited supernatural knowledge where information could be obtained without it.”

    “This is the only Gospel miracle that takes Jesus by surprise, triggered entirely by another's initiating act.” (F.S. Spencer)

    Parsenios: “Mark's image of Jesus reflects a dialectical tension between knowledge and ignorance, power and weakness, and so forth.” He also cites Mark 10:40 and 13:32 which reveal limits to the earthly Jesus' knowledge.

A dissenting voice from the above opinions comes from two Dallas Theological Seminary professors who do not care for the idea of the earthly Jesus exhibiting anything less than omniscience.

    Grassnick admits that some feel “God the Father healed the woman and Jesus was not aware of it till afterward.” But his own feeling is “that Jesus Himself, wishing to honor the woman's faith, willingly extended His healing power to her. The latter view is more consistent with Jesus' healing ministry. Power did not leave Him without His knowledge and will. However, He exercised it only at the Father's bidding (cf. Mark 13:32)...” Curiously, the very verse that he cites actually demonstrates that the earthly Jesus was not privy to all the knowledge possessed by the Father.

    In a similar manner, J.A. Martin deals with the subsequent question posed by Jesus: “Who touched me?” “Jesus' question...does not imply that He was ignorant of the situation. He wanted the woman to reveal herself and openly express the faith which caused her to touch Him.”

BOOK OF DANIEL: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Daniel 1:8 Did Daniel reject wine due to kosher food regulations spelled out in Leviticus 19:23?

We can't go at all by current Jewish practices regarding wine consumption since the Levitical laws were greatly expanded and re-interpreted throughout the ages. For example, kosher wine, according to some schools of thought, must be made in a factory where no Gentile looks on the wine until it is bottled. Instead, we must try to determine what the Jews during Daniel's time thought about the regulations, and that is not easy.

The first thing to note about the command in Leviticus 19:23 is that it is not placed with the other kosher food regulations in Leviticus. This is probably because it is, strictly speaking, not a kosher regulation at all, but a rule involving a first fruit offering instead. As such, it was to be practiced by the Jews when they entered the Promised Land for the first time and planted their first crops. The first good crop (usually not until the fourth year after planting) was to be given to God to thank him for leading them there. This sort of thanks offering would be totally inappropriate for Jews being led into exile.

Even if the prohibition against drinking wine from the first few years' crop did carry over into the Exile, two commentaries I consulted noted that the Babylonians at that time had an identical regulation in which the first three years' grape crop could not be used. Thus, Daniel would have had no problem drinking any Babylonian wine.

The third major question is whether the fruit trees in Leviticus 19:23 refer to grape vines at all. I did a fairly extensive examination of all the passages in the Old Testament where tree, fruit, grape, wine or vine occurs. In the vast majority of these passages vines and trees are distinguished from one another by being listed separately (for example, Haggai 2:19, Amos 4:9, Psalm 105:33, Isaiah 36:16, etc.). In two stories especially, Judges 9:8-15 and Ezekiel 15:1-8 (where “vine tree” is better translated “wood of the vine”), the meaning in each passage revolves around the crucial differences between a tree and a vine.

The only place where a grape vine might possibly be called a fruit tree is in Nehemiah 10:35-37. Some translations of verse 37 read “and to bring the first of our dough, and our contributions, the fruit of every tree, the wine and the oil, to the priests...” With this punctuation, it implies that both olive oil and wine come from tree fruit. However, there was no punctuation in the original, and others translate it as “and to bring the first of our dough, and our contributions, the fruit of every tree, the wine, and the oil to the priests...” This understanding clearly separates the fruit of the vine from the fruit of trees.

Even if Nehemiah 10:35-37 does imply that grape vines are fruit trees (and thus fall under the regulation of Leviticus 19:23), it only shows that this was the new understanding in Nehemiah's time (many decades after the events in Daniel 1).

The final argument involves the events in Daniel 10:3, years after Daniel's initial entry into the Babylonian court. In that verse, Daniel again vows that no wine will touch his lips, the implication being that he had been drinking wine up to that time. Putting these two verses together, we can conclude that in both cases Daniel was entering into a time of voluntary fasting, such as practiced at Lent, for a particular reason. It therefore has nothing to do with any dietary restrictions spelled out in Leviticus.

Daniel 1:15-16 How could only 10 days on a different diet have made a visible difference?

As it is doubtful that it would have done so, we should probably take this as evidence of God miraculously working behind the scenes.

Daniel 2:4-11 The footnote on this passage in The Daily Bible says “The text from here through chapter 7 is in Aramaic.” Is Daniel believed to have originally been written in partial Aramaic? Is it possible a later scribe wrote/translated this part in Aramaic? Why would the original author or a later scribe write a portion, or specifically this portion, in Aramaic as opposed to the Hebrew in which the rest of the book was written? Very curious. Look forward to your response.

This is an intriguing question, and one that has puzzled scholars for years. In fact, Daniel is not the only book in which this phenomenon occurs. There is the same mixture of languages in Ezra and Nehemiah (which I will deal with when we get to those books). I believe that the best explanation for the use of dual languages in all these books is a literary one. So below are some excerpts from my unpublished book The Structure of Scripture that attempt to deal with this question (I have eliminated all the footnoted references for convenience sake, but can supply them to anyone who is interested).

One feature of Daniel is the way in which the book is divided by original languages of composition. Verses 2:4b-7:28 are in Aramaic while the rest is in Hebrew. Gammie declares, “Scholars have not yet come up with an altogether convincing explanation for the two-fold languages in the book.” Similarly, after reviewing several theories, Young concludes, “There does not appear to be any truly satisfactory explanation of the two languages.” Many scholars posit an original Aramaic document to which additional Hebrew writings were appended or which was partially translated into Hebrew. But why was the entire document not translated into the same language? Alternatively, it has been suggested that the Aramaic portions of the book are those most suited for a non-Jewish audience or that they are most appropriate for those stories that focus on international events.

Looking at the general subjects and genre that occur in Daniel, one comes up with a slightly different division for the book. Namely, the first six chapters are widely recognized as court tales (similar to the Book of Esther) involving Daniel and his friends while the rest of the book consists of various visions and revelations usually classified as apocalyptic literature. Also, chapters 1-6 refer to the heroes in the third person while chapters 7-12 are narrated by Daniel himself.

“The most perplexing anomaly lies in the fact that the division on the basis of form and date does not coincide with the division on the basis of language.” In other words, why is Chapter 1 in Hebrew instead of Aramaic as are the other court stories of Daniel, and why isn't Chapter 7 in Hebrew with the other visions of the second half of the book?

The answer to the first question is that Chapter 1 is written in Hebrew to highlight its unique function. As Collins has noted, “The position of ch.1 is ambiguous.” It is not only a court tale as are the stories in chapters 2-6, but also serves as an introduction to the entire book. This chapter links the reader, through the character of Daniel, to the exile at start of the chapter and to the return with its mention of Cyrus at end.

Similarly, the retaining of Chapter 7 in Aramaic acts as “an interlocking device” to tie together the two halves of the book. As Sims states, “Chapter 7 has been widely recognized as the structural link between the two parts, so strongly binding the two that efforts to separate them are futile.” Baldwin puts the case even more strongly: “There are good reasons for thinking that ch. 7 is the key to the whole book, even its focal point.” This pivotal role of Chapter 7 is also seen in the way its ambiguity allows the pictured four-kingdom scheme to either refer backwards to the four sovereigns who have already appeared in the first six chapters or forward to the future realms of chapters 8-12. Similarly, Stead notes that “both the stories and the visions of book of Daniel are read together as providing complementary perspectives rather than opposing viewpoints.” A final indication of the structural importance of Chapter 7 is the fact that the attribution of the words of the book jointly to God and the prophet is not given until Daniel 7:1. This is unlike the other prophetic books, whose similar attributions are given in the opening verses.

The two halves of the book are further united in a more general and basic fashion, as pointed out by several commentators:

"...the evidence of verbal and thematic interlocking between the narrative and apocalyptic parts of Daniel works against the view that the book consists of two distinct genres unequally yoked together...clear visions and confused history [are] followed by clear history and puzzling visions.”

"The first part of the book prepares for the second, and the second looks back to the first.”

"...both parts of Daniel have the same purpose: to reveal heavenly realities and events that are to come in the world. In this sense, both are apocalyptic."

"In effect, the book records both the external [chapters 1-6] and the internal [chapters 7-12] history of Daniel."

"Throughout the book the kingdom of God provides the frame for human history. In the tales this is acknowledged primarily in the doxologies."

"...the stories, like the visions, portray a God who rules in heaven who is also sovereign over the realm of death, who is active in the past and trustworthy for the future...It is a mixed form, as much a series of short stories to which visions are attached as a series of visions prefaced by some stories."

Daniel 2:5,8 Why did he demand that they first tell him the dream?

For the same reason that fortune-tellers often start out by telling some verifiable fact to a person before telling their future. It builds confidence in the future predictions. This indicates also that the king did not really trust the “experts” in his court (v. 9).

Daniel 2:37 Why would the king have been chosen by God when he wasn't even a Jew?

OT prophets mention that Babylon was chosen by God as his instrument to punish the Jews. However, it in turn will be judged by God.

It serves God purposes by bringing the Jew's history into world history

Cyrus was even called Messiah by God for his role in returning the Jews to Israel. Read Isaiah 45:1-7.

Daniel 2:46-47 Why would Daniel take part in a pagan worship ceremony?

The situation is actually worse than that. The worship was actually to Daniel. This is perhaps a warning to us that no human being, even Daniel, is perfect. It could be that Daniel didn't make a big deal over it since (a) he had carefully told the king ahead of time that it was God who did the interpreting and (b) the king did give credit where credit was due in verse 47.

Daniel 3:19 What does it mean that the furnace was heated to seven times its usual heat? The only way this would make sense is if the temperature was measured from absolute zero.

One possible answer is that seven times the usual amount of fuel was used. A more likely explanation is that this is one of many OT and NT examples where the number seven is used in its symbolic sense of “complete” or “perfection.” In other words, the oven was heated as hot as it could possibly get.

Daniel 3:25 Who is the fourth person?

The text literally reads “son of God,” which is used for angels elsewhere in the Bible. See verse 28 for 

the king's opinion. Some see him as Jesus, which would be appropriate since Jesus came down to earth 

and suffered alongside of us. That adds additional significance to the statement,“Only their bonds were 

burned.”

 

Daniel 4:1-3 This chapter is narrated by Nebuchadnezzar himself, but he uses almost biblical language

 here. Would he have likely spoken that way?

One possibility is that this may be good evidence of Daniel's witnessing to him.

Daniel 4:6-7 Why didn't King approach Daniel first?

Possibly the king already knew roughly what the dream meant and didn't want to have anything to do 

with Daniel and his God until forced to as a last resort. Also, he hoped his other counselors would give 

a more favorable interpretation. We want people to tell us what we want to hear, not what we need to 

hear.

Daniel 4:19 We can understand why the king is terrified, but why Daniel also?

We can only speculate here. Possibilities are that Daniel is afraid for his life if he tells the truth (“kill 

the messenger” syndrome), he is genuinely concerned for the king's welfare, he is in awe of God's 

power, or he is afraid of what will happen to the Jews if the king is removed from power.

Daniel 4:33 I have read that the author of Daniel confused Nabonidus (father of Belshazzar) with 

 Nebuchadnezzar.

There is a Dead Sea Scroll fragment from about 50 BC which tells a similar story about Nabonidus. 

Conservative scholars say that it is more likely that the author of the fragment was the one confused. 

However, there are cuneiform records which mention Nabonidus being incapacitated for a while. Josh 

McDowell's Daniel in the Critics' Den deals with this and other historical issues in detail. There is of 

course also the possibility that God may have similarly afflicted both kings.

Daniel 9:24 Why doesn't the spectacular fact that this verse predicted to the day when Jesus entered 

Jerusalem convince more people of the truth of the Bible?

Payne’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, pp. 384-385 shows that there have been several other 

accepted ways to understand this prophecy that differ completely in regard to the proper starting event, 

method of assigning “weeks,” and nature of the actual fulfillment. There are several problems with the 

method usually employed to come up with this understanding. The main one is that a 360-day year is 

needed for the dates to come out right. Although Jews used a 30-day month in their calendar, their 

calendar year was, of course, 365 1/4 days just like ours (They added make-up days periodically so that 

their winter months didn’t slowly turn into summer months, etc.) Commentators have noted that it is 

highly unlikely that such a calculation (360 days = one year) was intended.

 

THE HORNED ALTAR (EXODUS 27:1-3; II KINGS 23:8)

 This story begins with one of the great finds of the 20^th century when the Israeli archeologist Yohanan Aharoni was excavating at the ancient site of Beer-Sheba in what was Southern Judah. He noticed some unusually shaped rocks in the remains of the city wall. They were also made of a different type of limestone. He took those particular stones out and managed to piece them together like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. They took on the form of an 8^th century BC Jewish altar with four horns as described in Exodus 27:1-3. It even met the description given there in terms of height. The original location for this altar was never located, and it had apparently been torn down during one of Israel's periodic religious reforms intended to centralize worship of Yahweh only at the temple in Jerusalem.

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery explains, “The sacrificial altar, similar to other ancient Near Eastern altars, had four horns, which were projections on the four corners on the top, on which blood was smeared...The horns of an altar, whatever their original purpose, probably came to symbolize the power of that altar...so the cutting off of the horns of the altars of Bethel symbolized the destruction of their religious or cultic power. (Amos 3:14).”

The ordination ritual for priests given in passages such as Exodus 29 identifies the altar's horns with “the key projecting parts of the human body, and therefore represent the essential nature and power of the Lord. The horns were the holiest part of the altar, just as the priests were the holiest people in the 'holy nation.'” (Averbeck)

That is where the situation stood until around 1975 when another famous archeologist, Yigael Yadin, happened to be reading about King Josiah's reforms described in II Kings 23. He came to v. 8, which reads:

    “He brought all the priests out of the towns of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beer-sheba; he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the city, which were on the left at the gate of the city.”

The last portion of that verse had earlier been felt to refer to the city of Jerusalem. But Yadin asked himself why if that were true, would it have been necessary to point out where the high place (site of an altar) was located since everyone in Jerusalem would have already known that fact. But what if II Kings 23:8b referred to the city of Beer-sheba instead?

At that point, he went to the already excavated remains of Beer-sheba, turned left upon entering the remaining city gates, and found a room there which contained a small and unusual set of stairs which led to nowhere. It turned out that the 5-foot high demolished altar Aharoni had found in the city walls fit perfectly up against those stairs, and there was even a drainage ditch originating at that site to carry away the blood of sacrificed animals.

This story is a good example of how archeological findings can not only confirm the historicity of biblical writings, but it can also help in their more exact interpretation.

JONAH AND THE ICHTHYS (ICHTHUS)

 

The exact origin of the common symbol of the fish (ichthys or ichthus in Greek) in Christian art and literature as early as the 2^nd century AD has been much debated. Does it perhaps relate to Jesus' miracle of multiplication of the loaves and fishes, a precursor to the Holy Eucharist? Or was it because a fish was an ancient fertility symbol, as some liberal scholars propose? Another more likely biblical source might be Jesus' calling his disciples to become “fishers of men” (also reflected in Jesus' parable in Matthew 13:47-50 concerning the Final Judgment). In fact, this reference can be coupled with the narrative in John 21 where Jesus prepares a meal of grilled fish for his apostles followed by the instruction to Peter: “Feed my sheep.” These two events, one occurring at the very start of Jesus' earthly ministry and the other at its conclusion, act as bookends to enclose the whole of the Gospel story.

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215 AD) suggested that Christians engrave their personal seals with the image of either a dove or a fish. During the same time period, the Christian historian Sextus Julius Africanus wrote down a narrative supposedly going back to the time of the Magi in which Mary's womb was said to contain “a stream of water containing a single fish, taken with the hook of Divinity, and sustaining the whole world with its flesh as though it were in the sea.” One Roman Catholic source feels that this is the earliest recorded example equating Christ to a fish. But the Church Father Tertullian is more likely to be the first. In his treatise on baptism (ca 160-220 AD), he writes: “We little fishes, as the image of our ichthys Jesus Christ, are born in the [baptismal] water and are only safe when we remain in it.”

About 200 years later, Augustine clearly explains the following acrostic as the symbolic meaning behind the image of a fish:

    i = ieous = Jesus

    ch = christos = Anointed

    th = theou = of God

    u = (h)uios = Son

    s = soter = Savior

The question remains as to whether the acrostic came about as an afterthought after the image of the fish had already been chosen or whether it was the actual reason that the fish image was chosen in the first place. I tend to think that the image came first and that it arises from a much earlier source than any mentioned above.

Since we are talking about an early (perhaps the earliest) sign of Christianity here, it is pertinent to consider what Jesus said would be the only sign of his authenticity given: the sign of Jonah (Matthew 12:38-45, 16:4; Luke 11:29-32). This is the most powerful symbol by far behind the choice of a fish as a symbol of our faith since Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days before he was resurrected, and Jesus' resurrection is the whole basis for our faith, as Paul explains in I Corinthians 15.

Douglas Stuart feels that “there may have been a sort of popular notion or cliche of expression in ancient times that the journey from the land of the living to Sheol (or vice verse) took three full days...the author expresses the duration [in Jonah 2:6] by a wording which suggests all the more strongly to the hearer/reader that the fish represented actual divine rescue back from the Underworld, i.e., death.” Thus, Stuart appears to treat Jonah's prayer in Chapter 2 not as the prophet poetically saying that he approached the gates of Hell, but to indicate that perhaps Jonah did literally die and was literally resurrected from the land of the dead.

Jacques Ellul says, “the strange references to 'the roots of the mountains' and the 'bars' of the land (v. 6) are not just poetic phrases but bear a specific sense for the Israelites. For Sheol, the realm of the dead, is in fact situated in the mountains and is closed off by a gate with bars (Isaiah 38:10; Job 38:17), and by bolts. Thus Jonah confirms the traditional meaning of water in his song. The saying in verse 4: 'I am cast out from thy presence' is a final proof, for the reference here again is to death.”

But according to Ellul's interpretation, it is not just the water that represents Jonah's death; it is also the fish itself: “The intervention of the great fish, then, is not at all a sign of grace, of Jonah delivered from the waters. On the contrary, it is the climax of the condemnation, the seal on the act of death, the presence of what is beyond remedy. It is damnation. The fish is in fact hell.”

In contrast, Phillip Cary is one of the many commentators who take Jonah's words in 2:1-2 in three different ways: “for the third time, the book describes the deep place from which Jonah calls upon the LORD: from the guts of the fish (2:1), from his trouble (2:2a), and now [2:2b] from the belly of Sheol. The first description is the literal level of the story; the second is the bland, abstract language of feeling (applying to all of us who are in trouble, no matter what our story); and the third is a vividly poetic description that reveals the true meaning of the trouble in which Jonah finds himself.”

But even Cary treats the story as a strong parallel to the story of Christ and every Christian: “Buried in the heart of the sea, he shouts from Sheol, where Jesus is to come and conquer. Jonah is baptized here, buried in a death that is not merely his own but Christ's, so that he may be raised to a new life that is not merely his own but the LORD's. Praying from the belly of Sheol means praying from within the waters of baptism, where we die with Christ – where the LORD, which is to say the Lord Jesus Christ – has already heard the prayer of the dead.”

In conclusion, whether one chooses to believe that (a) Jonah was rescued from a death in the sea by the miraculous fish or (b) Jonah did in fact die (represented by both the sea and the fish) and was brought back to life, the empty fish is demonstration of God's mighty saving power over death itself. So in that respect, the image of the ichthus expresses exactly the same thing as the symbol of the empty cross – Jesus is not dead but alive, and those who believe in Him are are also alive in Him and no longer dead in their sins.

SEEING AND SIN

If you look at an analytical concordance of the Bible and turn to the word “see,” you may find yourself amazed at the number of times the word appears. Many of these occurrences, of course, refer to physical sight, but even some of those contain spiritual overtones. “Sight belongs to the common stock of spiritual imagery, perhaps because of its obvious connection to light.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery) I think that the best biblical passage illustrating this fact is found in John 9:1-41, where a blind man is healed by Jesus and not only has his physical sight restored but also slowly begins to “see” who Jesus really is. But at the same time, enemies of Jesus refuse to accept the evidence of their own eyes and become progressively more recalcitrant toward His message.

This introduces the specific subject of this short post – the relationship between the physical act of seeing and subsequent sin that can result from it. This theme is so pervasive in the Bible, that the pattern for subsequent examples is well established in the first six books of the Old Testament. Thus, for convenience sake, I will concentrate on examples from the Hexateuch.

The pattern begins in Genesis 3:6. We think in terms of the serpent's words as luring Eve into temptation, and they certainly had something to do with it. However, this verse says in part, “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to to the eyes...she took of its fruit and ate.” Parenthetically, this is almost a parody of the refrain in Genesis 1:4, etc. in which “God saw that it was good.” Eve's actions set the stage for a host of other examples in which the organ of sight becomes the instrument leading to coveting something that is ultimately not good instead.

Genesis 6:2 provides the next example of such a connection between sight and sin, this time of a specifically sexual nature. “[T[he sons of God saw that they [women] were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose.” Whether this describes intermarriage between (a) sons of Cain and daughters of Seth's line, (b) powerful rulers taking wives by force, or (c) angels and human women, in any case it was of a forbidden nature.

We see the same sight-sin connection later on in II Samuel 11:2-4 – “David....saw from the roof a woman bathing; the woman was very beautiful...So David sent messengers to get her, and she came to him and he lay with her.” But getting back to the Hexateuch, there are still more examples of sexual sin brought about by seeing.

Genesis 12:5 represents an example of an inadvertent and unconsummated sin caused by seeing: “When the officials of Egypt saw her [Sarai], they praised her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken into his house.” Only when God visits plagues upon Pharaoh's house does he begin to suspect that there may be something that he has done wrong.

Genesis 38:15-16 – When Shechem...saw her [Dinah], he seized her and lay with her by force.

Genesis 38:15-16 – “When Judah saw her [his daughter-in-law Tamar],...he went over to her and said, 'Come, let me lie with you.” There was a subsequent law against a man uncovering and seeing “the nakedness” of a close relative. (Leviticus 20:17) However, that was not the case here since Judah didn't know who she was. His sin was in not giving her in marriage to his youngest son as he had promised, as well as his consorting with a prostitute.

Samson – Considering the highly developed sensual drives of the prophet Samson, it is not surprising that his wandering eye would get him into trouble. First, he almost gets himself captured by the Philistines when he sees a Philistine woman of Timnah and demands that his parents get her as a bride for him. (Judges 14:1-2) Later, he sees a swarm of bees in a lion's carcass and can't resist eating honey out of the comb, even though to do so causes him to become ritually unclean. And to compound the problem, he gives some of the honey to his parents to eat. (Judges 14:8-9) This demonstrates, as does the case of Eve and the fruit, that food can be a forbidden object as well as improper sexual encounters. Then again, he goes to Gaza, sees a prostitute, and lies with her, thus almost getting himself captured. And at last, with the help of Delilah, the Philistines capture him and appropriately blind him. Paradoxically, it is only in that physically sightless state that Samson turns away from the sin of coveting and toward the God who helps him in his need.

Unfortunately, Samson was not the only one during the time of judges who lived by his own desires and concerns. As it says in Judges 17:6 and 21:25, “In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes.”

Returning to the theme of sight leading to sexual sin, there are also some variations. For example, after the Flood, Noah gets drunk and passes out. At that point, his son Ham “saw his father's nakedness” and is subsequently cursed for his action by Noah. (Genesis 9:22-25) This episode has been much discussed by Bible scholars, among whom there is the strong suspicion that something more serious than just viewing took place.

And before one gets the idea that it is only men who are led astray by their sexual desires, consider Genesis 39:7 in which the wife of Joseph's master casts he eyes on Joseph and says, “Lie with me.”

Then to round out the subject of sins of desire being brought on by seeing, In Genesis 13:10 Abram and Lot need to separate their growing flocks and so Abram gives Lot the first choice of pasture land. But instead of Lot being generous and taking the less favorable land, “Lot looked around him and saw that the plain of the Jordan was well-watered everywhere...so Lot chose it for himself.” Of course, that will prove to be an unfortunate decision since it brought Lot and his family into direct contact with the unsavory inhabitants of Sodom.

Other types of possession can be a stumbling block to those who gaze on them. Just look at Achan, who took some of the treasures from Jericho when it had been strictly forbidden by God. (Joshua 7:21) Even spiritual treasures can be an object of coveting, as demonstrated by the NT example of the Simon the magician. “Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying of the apostles' hands, he offered them money saying, 'Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:18)

The bottom line is expressed best by James (in 1:14): “But one is tempted by his own desire, lured and enticed by it.”

But the above does not nearly exhaust this theme in the Hexateuch because there are two other unusual ways in which sight leads to sin. The first is illustrated by Pharaoh, who repeatedly witnesses horrific plagues on his land and then promises Moses that his people can leave.

    “But then Pharaoh saw that there was a respite [in the plague], he hardened his heart...” (Exodus 8:15)

    “But when Pharaoh saw that the rain, hail and thunder had ceased, he sinned once more and hardened his heart.” (Exodus 9:34)

Interestingly, in this case it was not what Pharaoh saw, but what he no longer saw, that caused him to sin. The same was paradoxically the case for the Israelites themselves when, as it says in Exodus 32:1, “the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered around Aaron and said, 'Come, let us make gods for ourselves...'” In both cases, the people take an absence of visible evidence to be evidence for absolute absence, thus discounting God's threats in the case of Pharaoh and God's promises in the case of the Israelites.

Finally, there is the sad example of the spies who scout out the land of Canaan. They actually see something but it causes them to exaggerate the dangers they can see and discounting the promises of the invisible God. (Numbers 13-14) This also points to the fact that the sin caused by what one person or a few people see can lead a large number of people to sin also.

 

THE ALPHA AND OMEGA (REVELATION 1:8; 21:6)

No, I am not referring to two variants of COVID-19. This is actually the phrase that appears twice in the Book of Revelation.

    “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8)

    “Then he said to me, 'It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.'” (Revelation 21:6a)

Above you can see two examples of a type of figurative speech called a merism, in which two contrasting parts of a whole are used to refer to the whole. Other examples would be: “That is the long and short of it,” “I searched far and near,” “for better or for worse,” and “flesh and bone.” The main point of such figurative language is to indicate that whatever is being described includes both extremes as well as everything in between.

This is an important point to grasp. If we, for example, take the expression “the beginning and the end” literally, then it means that indeed God was present in the beginning and will be present at the end, but perhaps excuses Himself in the here and now. In fact, that is the basic view of the Deists who picture a sort of divine clock maker who fabricated and wound up the clock of creation but is not really involved in human history in the meantime. But we can't take that easy way out once we realize that a common figure of speech is being used.

The other type of figurative speech, present in both quotations from Revelation, is a little more obvious to grasp as being non-literal. It is obvious that God is not saying that He is the first and last letter of the Greek alphabet. It is just another way of stating that He is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. But since these are merisms, He is also all the in-between letters. This figure of speech also appears in the Old Testament in the alphabetic acrostics, the most famous of which is Psalm 119, an extended praise of God's laws. There, each line of the first sub-section begins with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet going right on through to the last letter of the alphabet. The basic underlying meaning is that the totality of the subject has now been covered. We use the letters of the alphabet in the exact way today when we say “everything from A to Z.”

In Revelation 1:8, for example, the phrase “Alpha and Omega” is part of God's self-description, and so it is an especially powerful statement that figures into the formulation of one of the standard doctrines in orthodox Christianity; namely, that God is omnipresent. “He is in no way limited by the universe nor by the time-space boundaries.” (Ryrie) This attribute of God is closely related to the fact that He exists endlessly, being “elevated above all temporal limits and all succession of moments, and possesses the whole of His existence in one indivisible present.” (Berkhof)

Turning to the almost identical formulation in Revelation 21:6, we run into an amazing phenomenon. For this time it is the risen Christ who describes Himself in the exact same terms as did God the Father. This, along with John 1:1, is probably the most direct statement of Christ's complete divinity found in the New Testament. And Beale states that the two statements in Revelation “were among those that gave rise to later trinitarian formulas.”

At this point, a short review of the various times that equivalent statements are made concerning God in the Old Testament is in order:

    “I am He; I am the first, and I am the last.” (Isaiah 41:4b)  Whybray says, “The Babylonian and other new Eastern religious could not match such a claim, which was inconceivable in a polytheistic religion. Even in Israelite belief this had never before been so clearly understood and expressed.”

    “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.” (Isaiah 44:6b) Here is an indication that this attribute of God puts Him in a unique category compared to all other so-called gods.

    “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen and Amen. (Psalm 41:13) The phrase “everlasting to everlasting” clearly includes all time stretching infinitely backward and forward, and it appears in three additional psalms. Psalm 106:48 reads almost identically to this one, and Psalm 90:2 states, “From everlasting to everlasting, you are God.”

    “Are you not from old, O LORD my God, my Holy one? You shall not die.” (Habakkuk 1:12 NRSV) “He speaks of his God as the one who will not die (in contrast to the other gods who are already dead).” (Oswalt) Parenthetically, other translations say, “We will not die.”

    “The love of God is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him.” (Psalm 103:17) In this case, the key phrase does not cover all eternity, but instead zeroes in on God's care for each of us who believe. In that respect, it is a close equivalent to what the author of Hebrews talks about in 12:2 concerning “Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith...”

Considering just God's beginnings, Genesis 1 describes the origin of everything and everyone in the created universe but does not explain how God Himself came into being. The simple answer to that phenomenon is that God has no temporal beginning. That is very hard for us to grasp, but the complicated relation of God to the whole concept of time is hinted at in both the OT and NT.

    Psalm 90:4: “For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past, or a watch in the night.” And this perspective may be shared by believers in the afterlife: “For a day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere.” (Psalm 84:10)

    II Peter 3:8: “But do not ignore one thing, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.”

Finally, returning to the relation between God the Father and Jesus Christ, we have the evidence of John 1:1-2 regarding Christ's presence at the Creation: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” The echoes of Genesis 1:1 are unmistakable. In John 8:58, Jesus tells the hostile Jews, “Before Abraham was, I am.” In saying this, he is clearly identifying himself with the great I AM who appeared to Moses in Exodus 3:14, a designation closely related to His personal name YHWH, given in vv. 6,15 and usually rendered as LORD in English translations. But H.R. Jones notes that “the verb could equally mean 'I was' or 'I will be...the name is deliberately mysterious.” Another explanation, in light of the other passages in this short essay, is that the name was purposely chosen to describe God's eternal nature and unique relationship with the whole concept of time.

Of course, there is a clearer description of Jesus' pre-existence in Philippians 2, describing a time before he came to earth, when he had full equality with God.

And finally, in Psalm 93:2, the Psalmist says to God, “Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting.” But in a similar vein, The messianic prophecy in Micah 5:2 speaks of “one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days.” This kingdom theme is completed in the last chapter of the Bible when we see the eternal throne “of God and of the Lamb.” (Revelation 22:3)

As Beale says, “That both are sitting on only one throne and together form one temple (21:22) enhances their perceived unity.”