RUTH AND ESTHER SIMILARITIES

Ruth and Esther

I always find it fascinating to take seemingly unrelated events and lives in the Bible and show the sometimes great number of similarities between them. It witnesses to me concerning the unity of Scripture on yet another level. As one example, look at my post on “Genesis 37” for a short list at the end enumerating but some of the parallels between the lives of Joseph and Jesus. In that particular case, we would call Joseph a “type” of someone to come later. In the two individuals I would like to discuss here, the similarities would probably not be considered as a type-antitype pair, but the parallels are enlightening nonetheless. 

The most obvious similarity between the two OT books going under their respective names is that they are the only canonical writings in which a woman is the main character. The next closest example would probably be the Song of Songs since the two lovers are costars in that case. Another superficial association resulting from that gender emphasis is that you will often see Bible study guides that deal with both books, generally intended for women's Bible studies. But the correlations between the stories of these two heroines' lives goes a little deeper than that.

Of course there are major differences between the two. For one thing, the book of Ruth takes place way before the Monarchy and the Divided Kingdoms and even further removed in time from the later Persian exile which serves as the setting for Esther. Also, the setting for Ruth is a small agrarian community while the book of Esther takes place in a cosmopolitan capital of a great empire, mainly in the royal palace area itself.

The first commonality of note is that both women found themselves stranded in an alien land far away from their homes. And the cause of this exile was due to disasters in their lives: the loss of a husband for Ruth and the destruction of her homeland by conquerors in Esther's case.

But the chain of events begins even earlier in history for both women. Working our way backwards, these women find themselves caught up in the consequences of past examples of disobedience to God's commands. First, let us consider Ruth's situation. She is in her predicament because her husband, brother-in-law, and father-in-law have inexplicably all died, leaving her without any protection. Although it is not expressly stated in the text, three deaths in a family like this are probably indications that more than a coincidence is at work. Instead, we are probably made to conclude that God was displeased with these men for some reason. In the case of Naomi's husband Elimelech, it is not hard to discern what his sin was. Instead of staying in Bethlehem when a famine hit (also a probable indication of God's direct action) and trusting to God to provide (as apparently most of his neighbors had done), he left for Moab with his family. And his sons followed in disobedience by marrying Moabite women.

But now we must go even further back in time to see why their actions would have aroused the wrath of God. It stems from early disputes of the Jews with the Moabites that caused a great deal of enmity between the two groups. For evidence of this, see Numbers 22-25; Judges 11:17; Isaiah 15-16,25; Jeremiah 9:26; 25:21; 27:3; 48; Amos 2:1-3; and Zephaniah 2:8-11. Things between the two groups got so bad that God had forbidden any Moabites from entering the assembly of the Jews (Deuteronomy 23:3-6), a command revived after the return of the Jews from the Exile (Nehemiah 13:1).

Turning next to Esther, it is obvious that she only finds herself in the Persian Empire along with so many other Jews is because her forebears again and again had ignored the warnings of God given through the prophets. But there is even more to the story. The arch-villain in this book, Haman, is introduced in Esther 3:1 as an Agagite. This fact may not seem very important, but if you read the story of Saul's battle with the Amelekites in I Samuel 15, you will see that although he was commanded by God to wipe out all the Amelekites, Saul instead decided to spare their king, Agag. Haman is one of his descendants. And we also find out that one of the “good guys” in the book of Esther is Mordecai, who happened to come from the tribe of Benjamin, as had Saul (see Esther 2:5). So the immediate disdain they show one another has a long history behind it.

Going on with the two stories, we see that both heroines have an older “mentor” with them to guide their actions. In the case of Esther it is her adopted mother Naomi; with Esther it is her adopted father Mordecai.

The first pieces of advice that these mentors give their charges could be understood as very unwise from a spiritual point of view. Thus, Naomi urges Ruth to stay in Moab among people of that religion instead of going with her back into a Jewish environment. Fortunately, Ruth chooses to ignore that advice. In Esther's case, after she has taken part in the cattle call to chose a new queen and please the king, Mordecai urges her not to reveal her Jewish origins. We don't know why Mordecai said this to her, but perhaps he had some sort of word from God. From our human point of view and a bit of hindsight, it would seem that if she had told the king right off the bat, there is no way he would have signed the death warrant for all the Jews later on.

Taking things a little out of chronological order, consider the second piece of major advice that these two adopted parents urge. In both cases, their counsel could easily have led to disaster. Mordecai tells Esther that she must gain an audience with the king even through she has not been summoned by him. This sort of action might have led to the death of a queen so bold to do it, or at least to her being deposed. Remember the start of the story in which the previous queen Vashti was removed for being “an uppity woman” who didn't keep to her proper place.

The advice that Naomi gave Ruth was just as risky since she suggested that Ruth sneak off in the middle of the night and lie down with Boaz at the threshing field, an area well known as being a common trysting spot for couples. If Boaz had taken sexual advantage of her or they had been discovered by someone else, it would have meant the end of Ruth's reputation and the possibility of her remarrying. Fortunately, there were no unintended consequences for either woman.

This last parallel brings up another one. In both books, the heroine finds herself in a sexually suggestive situation which is in fact a totally innocent one. Ruth's example has already been described, but with Esther it occurs when Haman gets down on his knees before the queen to plead with her. The king catches him in the act and misconstrues it, to Haman's regret.

Getting back to the two mentors once more time, we note that both of them appear to have been cheated out of what they deserve in life. Naomi complains more than once how God has treated her in depriving her of any offspring. But by the end of the story, she actually becomes a surrogate mother for Ruth and Boaz's son. In Mordecai's case, he had actually saved the life of the king from a plot against him but hasn't even gotten a word of thanks for his timely action. Instead, Haman is the one reaping all the rewards. Of course, that situation will also be addressed by the end of the story when Mordecai replaces Haman's place in the king's esteem.

Although the personal characteristics of the (perspective) husbands in the story are quite different, both of these men hold a very high position in the society in which they live.

In both stories, there is someone standing in the way of the happy union of the man and woman. That person is obviously Haman in the book of Esther. If he has his way, the queen will in fact be executed for being a Jew. The impediment for Esther and Boaz is the unnamed closer relative who has the first right of refusal to Esther's hand. The open exposure of Haman's villainy brings him down. Similarly, the redeemer-relative is shown up to be the greedy person he is when he refuses Ruth after realizing that the field he will gain in the bargain will end up being inherited by Ruth's children under her first husband's name instead of going to him.

This particular episode taking place at the city gates and involving a shoe reflects some obscure legal practices in Israel at the time including the levirate custom involving a dead man being able to have his name carried on when his widow has a child by a close relative. I won't go into all the details since they are a bit vague and ill-defined, but the important point is that the plot of the book of Esther also depends on some strange points of law. One concerns the necessity, as mentioned earlier, of a person entering the king's presence being summoned first or potentially facing dire consequences. The other Persian law requires that a king's decree, once made, can never be undone – although fortunately it can be later amended.

As close as these above parallels are, they are really only superficial compared to some more substantial similarities. In the first place, both stories are intimately related to feasts and festivals, especially Jewish ones. The book of Esther is glutted with feasts found at the start, middle, and end of the book. Most importantly, however, is that the whole story later becomes the last official Jewish festival, the feast of Purim. There is one more, Hanukkah, but that celebrates events from post-OT Israel.

The four chapters of Ruth are actually structured around the agricultural calendar in Israel, as most commentators will point out (see the post on “Esther: Introduction to the Literary Structure”), just as are two of the three annual feasts in the Jewish festival calendar: the Feast of First Fruits (also called Weeks or Harvest Feast) and the Feast of Booths/Tabernacles (also called Feast of Ingathering).

Another thematic similarity lies in the fact that the somewhat local events occurring in both books are shown to have wide ripple effects that end up having major significance for a number of people in a much wider geographical area. By the conclusion of the book of Esther, the action has spread throughout the Persian Empire, and has the effect of preserving Esther's peoples, the Jews. The last chapter of Ruth has even more widespread consequences in showing that her descendants will eventually include King David and Jesus himself, who will come to offer salvation not only to Esther's adopted people the Jews, but also her people by birth, the Gentiles.

Throughout both stories, as often noted by scholars, God is seemingly absent from the action. But His presence in the form of Divine Providence is quite obvious in the form of the famine that begins the story of Ruth, the strange death of all the men in her life, and the fact that Ruth happened to pick the field of Boaz in which to glean. It is even more obvious in the case of Esther in the main episode where the king “happens” to have insomnia, “happens” to go to the royal archives to read something to put him to sleep, and “happens” to read the account of Mordecai's unrewarded actions.

God may appear to be absent in our lives and in the events of the nation and the world, but that is just an illusion. In fact, his actions lie behind both the earth-shaking and the mundane in one way or another that we will certainly not comprehend in this life.

 

II CORINTHIANS 3:17-18 AND THE TRINITY

How does this passage fit in with the concept of the Trinity?

There are many times in the New Testament where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned or appear side-by-side. Paul uses the terms Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Holy Spirit and Spirit interchangeably with seemingly no distinction, and even the interesting phrase “The Lord (is) the Spirit” found in these verses.

We are also commanded to baptize in the NAME (not names) of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

John 1:3 states of Jesus, “All things came into being (i.e. were created) through him” (not “all other things were created by him.”). And since Yahweh is consistently portrayed as the creator of the universe, and Genesis 1 states that it was the Spirit moving on the waters who created the universe, this includes the entire Trinity in the process.

God as a plurality is not an unknown concept, even in the Old Testament. Genesis 1:26 has God saying, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” The other possible interpretation is that God is referring to the angels, assuming that (1) they were also created in God's image and (2) that they had an integral part in the creation (two concepts that I don't believe are stated anywhere in the Bible). One of the Hebrew words used repeatedly for God is elohim, which is literally “Gods” and usually explained as a plural of majesty, much as we use the words “scissors” or “pants” in English, words that are plural in grammatical construction but refer to a singular item consisting of more than one part.

The Holy Spirit While some of the language used to describe the Holy Spirit can be interpreted as an impersonal force or property of God, other language definitely suggests that He is a person. So for the Jehovah Witnesses to claim that the Holy Spirit is only a force, all Scriptures that speak of him as a person must be explained away. A trinitarian, on the other hand, does not have to explain away the Scriptures that speak of Him in terms of force or energy since that is part and parcel of His particular function within the Godhead.

The Holy Spirit is one who testifies (John 15:26); he doesn't speak about himself (John 16:13-14); he helps us in our weakness and intercedes with the Father on our behalf (Romans 8: 26-27); he can be lied to (Acts 5:3); he can be grieved by our actions (Isaiah 63:10 and Ephesians 4:30); he is patient (Micah 2:7); and he can be blasphemed against (Matthew 12:31). This last example is particularly instructive since, by its very definition, blasphemy is only directed against God.

The Holy Spirit possesses intellect (I Corinthians 2:11), will (I Corinthians 12:11), and emotion (Romans 15:30 – the usual definition of a person or personality.

Jesus as God First of all, for a Jehovah Witness to state categorically that Jesus is not God, all references to the contrary (and only some of them are given below) must be explained away to a high degree of probability since even a low degree of probability of such an interpretation for each individual verse eventually adds up to a high probability that at least one of these passages does teach that Jesus is divine in every sense of the word. However, the many verses usually quoted by the Witnesses to show that Jesus holds an inferior status relative to God are all openly accepted by trinitarians as either (1) reflecting Jesus' temporary status while in earthly form or (2) as descriptions of Jesus' unique role within the Godhead.

For example, I Corinthians 15:28 talks about the Son being subjected to the Father. As Gordon Fee explains regarding this verse (and he is one of the world's accepted experts on New Testament interpretation), “the language of the subordination of the Son to the Father is functional, referring to his 'work' of redemption, not ontological, referring to his being as such. The unity of God lies behind all such language.” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987, p. 760.) Similarly, Orr and Walther (I Corinthians, Anchor Bible, pp. 329-334) point out that this statement should not be read “from a subordinalist christology” but that it was used to possibly refute gnostics who actually taught that Christ was superior to the Creator God. Grosheide (NICNT, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 369) explains it to mean that “the Mediator will lay down His office at the feet of the Father.” The International Bible Commentary (pp. 1383-1384) concurs that “the question here is one of function... Their [Father and Son] essential equality and unity remain.”

    A. John 1:1 does not merely state that Jesus was divine (i.e. godlike) since, if that were so, the adjective theios would have been used instead of the noun theos. The universally accepted explanation for the lack of a definite article before theos is that in the Greek language predicate nouns (i. e. nouns following the verb “to be”) do not need to contain the definite article and often don't throughout the New Testament. This is especially true when the definite article has already been used for the same noun earlier in the sentence, as in this case. (See any standard commentary on the Greek text of John)

    B. In John 20:28, after Thomas confesses that Jesus is God, Jesus commends him for his belief rather than correcting him.

    C. John 14:9 reports Jesus saying, “Who has seen me, has seen the Father.”

    D. Romans 9:5 is probably one of the most difficult passage in the New Testament, but one of the two most likely readings of this verse states that the Messiah is God over all things (Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1971, pp. 520-523).

    E. The phrase “First-born of Creation” in the Greek of Colossians 1:15 can mean either that Jesus was created first or, more likely, that He is Lord over all Creation (see Richard Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, pp. 214-217). Paul immediately confirms the second option and rules out the first option by continuing to say in the next verse that Jesus Himself created all (not “all other”) things. Similarly, “image” in this verse may mean in Greek a mere representation or an actual manifestation of God himself. Parallel NT references indicate that a reality, not a picture, is in mind here (see Melick).

    F. Colossians 1:19 says of Christ, “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,” not just some portion of divinity.

    G. Philippians 2:5-11 is vital in understanding that Jesus emptied himself of the equality he had with God in heaven, assumed a temporarily subordinate position while on earth, but eventually will be worshiped by all (an action only appropriate if He is indeed God). The New World Translation of Philippians 2:6 stating that Jesus never even aspired to a divine position, has been universally denounced by liberal and conservative scholars alike as an impossible rendering of the original Greek.

    H. Hebrews 1:8 addresses the Son as “O God.”

    I. II Peter 1:2 may have other meanings but probably refers to Jesus as God and Lord, in parallel with the end of the epistle where he is called Lord and Savior. This is especially possible since Jesus was commonly called God by the late 1^st century-early 2^nd century (Jerome Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, pp. 147-148), well before any “official” conferences proclaimed the deity of Christ.

    J. John 5:18 states that Jesus was making himself equal to God by his statements. This is not at all equivalent to the John 10:19 account of the people thinking that Jesus was possessed by a demon. In the latter case, John clearly states, without further comment, that this is what the people were thinking. By contrast, in 5:18, it is John's own explanation of Jesus' words that He was declaring equality with God.

    K. John 8:58 “Before Abraham was, I am.” Raymond Brown (The Gospel According to John I-XII, Appendix IV) thoroughly discusses all of Jesus' usages of the phrase “I Am” in John's Gospel and which ones only make sense grammatically and logically only if they refer to His equality with God.

    L. Some of the more pertinent references to Christ's full divinity are found in the Book of Revelation:

        (1) Revelation 20:6 talks about those who will be priests of God and Christ.

        (2) Both Christ and God state, “I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.” (Revelation 20:21:6, 22:13). By contrast, Jehovah Witnesses teach that Jesus' beginning was after that of the Father.

        (3) Revelation 21:22 states that God and Jesus together make up one temple.

        (4) Revelation 22:3 shows that there is only one throne, not two, in heaven and that it belongs to Jesus and God.

        (5) Revelation 22:2-3 has singular pronouns apparently referring to both Jesus and God at the same time (see G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1999, p. 1113). However, if the pronouns refer to only one person, it must grammatically be Jesus, in which case it states that He will be worshiped even though the angel in Revelation 22:9 clearly states that only God must be worshiped.

        (6) Revelation 22:12 quotes Jesus as saying, “Behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me to render to each as his work is.” This is the almost identical wording of the prophecy in Isaiah 40:10 (Septuagint) applied to Yahweh. (Beale, p. 1136)

    

 

NUMERICAL SAYINGS IN THE BIBLE: X/X+1

“Numbers play a prominent and varied role in the Bible. They appear throughout both Testaments, even though no part of the Bible has a purely scientific or mathematical purpose...Numbers are not only prevalent in the Bible, but their use is varied.” These uses include the conventional, rhetorical, symbolic and mysterious or hidden. (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

As for the rhetorical utilization of numbers, one type found in the Hebrew Bible is known as x / x+1 poetic parallelism. This sounds like a rather technical term, but it represents a rather simple concept.

In the Bible, this translates to expressions such as “Three things are too wonderful for me; four I do not understand.” (Proverbs 30:18) This phrase is followed in verse 19 by a listing of four examples that the poet has observed on earth. Did the poet start out with only three items in mind and then happen to remember a fourth one to add at the end? Obviously not since that same type of expression appears again and again in the Bible.

Note that “too wonderful for me” is another way of saying “I do not understand.” Thus, it falls into the general category of biblical parallelism of thought typical of Hebrew poetry. But since there is no synonym for the number “three,” to put in the second line of poetry, the poet utilizes the next highest number there. But what is the overall intent of expressing an idea in that manner?

G.V. Smith outlines three different understandings of the x/x+1 pattern in Amos 1-2:

    A. “Numerical sequences refer to a large indefinite number of sins. It is an idiomatic or rhetorical device which should not be taken literally.” Thus, perhaps it is another way of expressing the idea that the author could have listed many more if he wished to do so. Stuart translates the beginning of each oracle in Amos 1-2 as: “For multiple transgressions of [nation named], I will not restore it.” Smith rejects this explanation with the words: “Certainly the use of numbers indicates more than just an indefinite number.”

    B. “The actual listing of the items after some sequences has led other to conclude that the highest number should be understood literally.” For example, Smith quotes the Babylonian Talmud which says that God can forgive a sin up to the third time it is committed by a person, but not on the fourth time. That explanation may apply to the sins condemned in the “3 / 4” oracles found in Amos 1:3-2:5, since only one sin is actually mentioned there, but it fails in other cases found in the Bible.

    C. “Three and four are components of the number 7, which symbolizes completion.” Thus, Smith and others count exactly seven sins against Israel in Amos 2:6-8. However, Carroll notes that other commentators only count four.

    D. In addition to those three possibilities, most other commentators start out by stating that the main rhetorical function (i.e. how it affects the reader or hearer) is that it leads to an increase in intensity with each subsequent phrase. A rough equivalent in English might be the expression: “One for the money, two for the show, three to get ready, and four to GO!” In this case, there is no particular significance to the numbers themselves except for the fact that they get higher each time. The same rhetorical effect can be brought about by numbers recited in reverse order:

                    “Ten-Nine-Eight-Seven-Six-Five-Four-Three-Two-One”

                    followed by “BLAST OFF” or “HAPPY NEW YEAR!”

In two separate articles in DBI, authors attempt to explain the exact meaning of this phenomenon, but they do not quite agree with one another. Thus, one says that “the intended effect of the parallelism is to impress the reader that there are many other unspecified [items] at issue here.” (Explanation A) But another commentator states that “the move from the lower to the higher number is not for the purpose of arriving at the 'right' number, but to intensify the thought” (Explanation D)

For one thing, consider the symbolic meaning of the number four. Without going into much detail, it is generally agreed that “four” is often a number associated with God's creation, as in “the four winds,” “the four corners of the earth,” or even Peter's vision of a four-cornered sheet containing all manner of animals (Acts 10:11-12).

So if we couple this symbolic meaning of “four” with its appearance in some x/x+1 sayings of the 3 / 4- type, we come up with Hubbard's contention: “Numerical sayings are illustrations drawn from creation to shed light on the behavior of creation's most puzzling creature: the human being.”

By contrast, Andersen and Freedman say concerning the first seven oracles in Amos 1-2, “The oracles themselves contain no indication of why these particular numerals [3 + 4] are used. The indictment sets forth only one crime, perhaps the last and worst (the fourth after three bad ones, or perhaps the seventh).”

To explore these possibilities, look at what some commentators have to say regarding other specific examples of x/x+1 sayings in the Bible:

Job 5:19   Hartley discusses this case, which reads “He delivers you from six sorrows, no harm shall touch you in seven.” He states that the stress is on the latter number, which stands for completeness in this case. This explanation seems to make sense since, according to his count, seven sins are then listed. However, he must admit that it is not quite clear exactly how many plagues are enumerated.

Proverbs 6:16 says, “There are six things that God hates, seven that are an abomination to him,” followed by a list of exactly seven. In this case the final number is definitely the important one. But it is also obvious that there are many other items that could have been listed; these are only representative examples. Thus, Explanation A may be the best one for this verse.

Proverbs 30 contains a series of four numerical sayings. They beginning at verses 15, 18, 21, and 29, respectively. Each introductory statement is of the “3 / 4” type, and each one lists exactly four following examples. These enumerate both good (wonderful things, small but wise things, and stately things) and bad (things that are never satisfied and things the earth cannot bear) characteristics. Both animal and human examples are included, all part of God's creation (thus the use of the appropriately symbolized number “four”).

Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your means into seven ways, or even eight for you do not know which earthly disaster may happen.” The general idea is not to put all your eggs into one basket in case you drop one. Since the number “seven” means perfection or completeness, the number “eight” figuratively expresses the idea of “more than enough.” Thus, “be extra careful” or “take more than adequate precautions” regarding the future.

Micah 5:5 also contains another “7 / 8” saying: “We shall set up over him seven shepherds and eight leaders of men.” This should not be construed to mean 15 people altogether. “This is a Hebrew literary device to indicate that an indefinite yet adequate number of leaders will arise to overthrow the Assyrians.” I would amend that statement to say “a more than adequate number.”

Some Dubious Examples

Weinfield and others consider with the authentic sayings that utilize this rhetorical device the comment appended to the Second Commandment saying that “God will remember the fathers' guilt against the sons of the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” (Exodus 20:5; 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 5:9) Cole says, “This is a typical Semitic phrase denoting continuity, not to be understood in an arithmetical sense.”

However, both Mayes and Clements feel that there is a a literal meaning to the phrase. Thus, Mayes explains that the third and fourth generation “reflects the greatest probable extent of the range of members of any one family actually living together in one household.” And C.J.H. Wright states that expression “must be understood in the context of the solidarity of extended families (of three or four generations living together), in which the sin (especially idolatry) of one generation would affect the others detrimentally.”

The literal KJV rendering of Job 33:14 states, “For God speaks once, yea twice, yet man perceives it not.” That would make it appear to be an obvious example of the figurative type we are discussing. However, Pope translates it as “God may speak in one way or another, and one not perceive it.” indicating that no x/x+1 pattern may be intended at all.

Psalm 62:11-12 is a quite similar saying which also may or may not be a true example of an x /x+1 saying. A literal rendering of the Hebrew reads: “Once God has spoken; twice I have heard this [followed by two statements].” That doesn't make a whole lot of sense as is. So here is what some translators do with it:

    NEB: “One thing God has spoken, two things I have learnt...”

    The Message: “God said this once and for all; how many times have I heard it repeated?”

    TEV: “More than once have I heard God say...”

    The Living Bible leaves out the whole phrase and skips directly to the “two things.” And Beth Tanner paraphrases it as “first God spoke, two things I heard...”

Hosea 6:2 reads “After two days he will revive us, on the third day he will lift us up.” But Davies notes that this is nothing but a simple case of synonymous parallelism in which “he will revive us” is the same as “he will lift us up.” And “after two days” is just another way of saying “on the third day.”

Related Examples

Somewhat associated numerical sequences are found in the Bible that are not strictly x, x+1 in nature, but are built on other methods of mathematical progression such as multiplying the first number by ten, writing the first digit twice, etc. These include Lamech's “7 / 70” boast in Genesis 4:24; the song praising the relative exploits of Saul and David (1,000 / 10,000) in I Samuel 8:7; and Jesus' comment to Peter regarding the times you should forgive your brother (7 / 77; the second number is given as 7x70 in some manuscripts) in Matthew 18:22. In each case, we should recognize that non-literal language is being employed.

I have known a number of Christians who have been especially confused regarding the last example above. That is probably because Peter starts out talking on a strictly literal level wanting to know if seven times forgiving someone is enough before he can stop doing it. But Jesus, as he often did, immediately jumped to the figurative level to get at the root of the question. Whichever of the two textual traditions one chooses, 77 or 7x70, it is obviously not a number that is to be taken literally. “Seven times” in biblical symbolism simply means “completely.” You need to completely forgive the other party.

 

"COME RAIN OR COME SHINE"

Metaphors and similes in the Bible, as elsewhere, are very culturally determined and can lead one astray in trying to decipher them. Consider the simple images of sun and shadow. If you look at the lyrics to many popular songs, present and past,, you will note cheering advice such as “Gray skies are going to clear up; put on a happy face;” “Let a smile be your umbrella on a rainy, rainy day;” When April showers may come your way, they bring the flowers that bloom in May;” Just direct your feet to the sunny side of the street.” On the other hand, we gladly greet the sun by singing “Blue skies shining on me, nothing but blue skies do I see;” “Good day, sunshine;” “Good morning, mister sunshine, you brighten up my day;” “Mr. Blue Sky;” “Good day, sunshine;” and “Here comes the sun.”

Rare is the person who actually enjoys “singin' in the rain.” Generally, we would rather agree with the sentiment “Don't rain on my parade.” And even the diverse characters living on Sesame Street sing, “Sunny day, sweepin' the clouds away.” This apparent universal love of sun and hatred of overcast skies is mirrored in popular jargon such as when we talk about people who have a sunny disposition in distinction to gloomy, shadowy, or shady characters and those who are under a cloud of suspicion.

But there was a Palestinian friend of mine who disliked one of our managers at work named Dr. Ward, and so he nicknamed him Dr. Warm instead and took great pleasure in referring to him by that name. I couldn't get him to believe me when I explained that in our American culture calling someone “warm” was actually a compliment. The reason for his cultural bias was that in the often oppressive Middle- eastern sun, anything associated with heat had negative connotations for him. One the other hand, I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of lyricists for the above-quoted songs came from regions where rain was seldom lacking.

So when we read a passage such as Matthew 5:45b stating that God “sends rain on the just and the unjust,” it is easy to take that as meaning “Into every life a little rain (meaning disappointments and unpleasantness) must fall.” But to those who live in drought-prone regions, that comment would have the diametrically opposite connotation: God imparts common blessings on all humanity whether they happen to deserve them or not. And in fact, that is precisely how the original audience for those words would have understood them.

To someone living in the area of Palestine, clouds, rain, and shade were eagerly greeted, anything to relieve the constant dry heat of the sun. Except for the Flood, rain was looked on as one of the main blessings that God supplied to the earth. The only time the verb “rain” is not used in a favorable sense is when the word is used as an indication of the quantity of woes God visits on the wicked with something other than water, such as raining down from heaven: anger (Job 20:23), coals of fire and sulfur (Psalm 11:6; Ezekiel 38:22; Luke 17:29); hail and lightning (Psalm 105:32), etc.

Look at the occurrences of the words for shade or shadow in the Bible, which speak of:

    Lot placing the angels under the shadow/shelter of his house (Genesis 19:8),

    a slave longing for a shadow to escape from the sun (Job 7:2),

    the Psalmist asking God to hide him in the shadow of His wings (Psalm 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 63:7),

    the Psalmist living under God's shadow (Psalm 91:1)

    the LORD acting as a pilgrim's shade to protect him from the hot sun (Psalm 121:5-6),

    the woman in Song of Songs 2:3 sitting with delight in her beloved's shadow,

    the tabernacle serving as a shade from the daytime heat (Isaiah 4:);

    the people of Judah being asked to provide shade during noon for the Moabite refugees (Isaiah 16:3);

    God providing shade for refugees I(Isaiah 25:4-5),

    Israel being criticized for relying on the shadow of Egypt for protection (Isaiah 30:2-3),

    future righteous leaders who will arise in Israel to be like the shade of a great rock in a weary land (Isaiah 32:1-2), and birds who will raise their young in the shadow of a deserted city (Isaiah 34:15),

and many more examples.

In the New Testament, we find much fewer references to “shadow” and they appear to be more neutral in tone. For example, OT regulations and sacrificial practices are said to be helpful but only as shadows of the reality that was to come (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 8:5; 10:1). And then we have the unusual story of people who sought to be healed of their afflictions by letting the shadow of Peter fall on them (Acts 5:15). This is a testament to their great faith, but at the same time, the text does not actually say that they were healed by that means.

The term “shadow of death” (appearing 20 times in the Bible) would seem to be a glaring contradiction of this generally positive image found elsewhere in the Bible. But it turns out there is some controversy regarding the proper translation of the Hebrew word translated in that manner. On the one hand is the explanation given in the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery:
    “Salmawet is not a compound of 'shadow' and 'death' but is based on the root 'lm, meaning 'deep darkness.' But through the LXX [Septuagint] of Isaiah 9:2 'shadow of death' has found its way into the NT (Mt 4:16; Lk 1:79)...”

Price and others dispute this particular etymology and come up with alternative translations such as “the village of death” or “the strength of death.” But they all agree that “shadow” is probably not in mind here at all.

Bible commentators confirm the fact that these images employed for weather and temperature are often at odds with our own cultural biases:

    “The absence of dew and rain...signifies a most severe drought of divine displeasure. But the presence of rain from the celestial waters is the epitome of divine blessing.” (Futato)

    God is closely associated with clouds in diverse passages such as His appearance at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19:9). He rides on the clouds in II Samuel 22:11. Futato also notes, “the majority of the occurrences of 'anan [cloud] (58 out of 87) are used in relation to God's theophanic presence.”

    “The provision or withdrawal of water / rain constitutes an element in this covenantal principle of blessing for obedience and cursing for disobedience (Lev 26:1; Deut 28:12,23-24; Amos 4:7-8).” (Grisanti)

    R.P. Gordon points out, “Occasionally 'good' appears to function as a surrogate for 'rain'...Thus, according to Ps. 85:12, 'The LORD will indeed give 'good' (lit.) and our land will yield its harvest.'” Also see Deuteronomy 28:12 and Jeremiah 17:6 for this same identity in terms.

Finally, just a few comments on “cloud” in one OT and one NT passage:

Exodus 13:21

Clouds are naturally positive indicators due to their association with rain. “He covers the sky with clouds ('ab); he supplies the earth with rain and makes grass grow on the hillsides.” (Psalm 147:8) The most noted mention of a cloud in the Bible is probably the pillar of cloud that guided the Israelites through the wilderness. It first appears in Exodus 13:21 where “the 'pillar of cloud' and the 'pillar of fire' are signs of God's presence to guide their travels while shielding them from the sun by day and giving them light and warmth at night.” (Sanderson)

Cole adds another possible function of the cloud in Exodus: “The Hebrew means properly 'something standing', and therefore is more 'column' than 'pillar'...This symbol of God's presence may either guide and illuminate the way (as here) or protect from enemies (Ex 14:19,20).”

Although there are scattered references to Moses bringing water to the Israelites from the rocks, it is interesting to speculate that yet another function of the divine cloud was to provide rain on occasion as well.

Hebrews 12:1

“In surveying the men and women whose faith was exhibited so signally in pre-Christian ages [see Heb. 12], our author has said repeatedly that they 'had witness borne to them' by virtue of their faith; to them all, as to God, God Himself bore witness. But now they in turn are called witnesses. A 'cloud' of witnesses is a good classical locution for a 'host' of witnesses.” (Bruce)

Ellingworth adds that the word is used in classical Greek “of a crowd surrounding the readers, as in a stadium...watching an athletic contest.”

Finally, Buchanan says, “The word 'cloud' (nephos) was used metaphorically giving expression to the immense size of the group. Herodotus also described an enemy's army as 'so mighty a cloud (nephos) of men.' No intention was implied that these heroes were in heaven like a cloud.”

Thus, the consensus is that this particular mention of “cloud” in the Bible really has nothing to say to us regarding sun and rain imagery in the NT.

 

GENESIS 1-11: PART 2 -- QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Genesis 5:1-31 What do you think of the miraculous fact that the meanings of the names listed in 

Genesis 5 make the following sentence if read together in order? “Man is appointed mortal sorrow. 

Blessed God shall come down teaching and his death shall bring the despairing rest and comfort.”

I think it is more forced and fanciful than it is miraculous. To arrive at this sentence, one

must add verbs not present and change some of the nouns into adjectives or verbs. In

addition, the names have entirely different original meanings in most cases according

to Strong’s Conordance :

Adam                 man

Seth                   compensation, sprout

Enosh                mortal

Kenan               one acquired or begotten

Mahalalel         God is splendor

Enoch               tuition, teacher

Methuselah      man of the spear

Lamech            overthrower, wild man

Noah                rest, comforts

Jared                contend

Genesis 6:1-4 Who or what are the NephIlim?

Start with the immediate context. The chapters preceding give Cain and Seth’s genealogies while the 

chapters following deal with God punishing man for disobedience. This immediate context doesn’t 

give much help because individual verses may have nothing to do with surroundings other than 

belonging to the same chronological period. Many translations even put these verses in parentheses.

Three major possibilities:

Sons of                                   Daughters

Elohim                                   of Men                                             Nephilim

a. Angels (sons of God)         women                                             giants,

or demons (sons                                                                             Neanderthals

of gods)

b. Godly line of Seth             line of Cain                                      heroes

c. local tribal rulers              harems                                              princes, great men, aristocrats

First view – pro

Sons of God = angels in Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 29:1 and other OT passages.

Literally, it reads “sons of gods (elohim)” so it may refer to demons (not that different from angels led 

by Satan).

Septuagint translates sons of God as “angels.” This view has been held by most commentators up to the 

present time. The intertestamental books I Enoch and Jubilees elaborate on the angels' sin. The former 

book states, “Come, let us select wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children...Then they 

took wives, each choosing for himself...”

Ronald Hendel (Bible Review, Summer 1987) points out the parallel language (“multiply”) in Genesis 

6:1 and Genesis 6:5. The Flood is the last time God will intervene to prevent a “cosmic imbalance,” the 

other times being the prevention of Adam and Eve from eating of the tree of life and preventing the 

Tower of Babel from “reaching heaven.”

First view – con

Some reject it as being too bizarre and too much like Greek and Roman fables. They would be happier 

with a more “rational” explanation.

Mark 12:25 (Matthew 22:30) states that angels do not marry. But this is the situation in heaven and not 

necessarily on earth, and refers to present and future, but not to times past.

The main sin here is the unnatural coupling of angels with men. But why would mankind be punished 

for the angels' sins? Only if it included demon-possessed mankind or mankind which was overly 

influenced to sin by the straying angels. Others point out that animals and plants were also punished in 

the flood even though they were innocent.

Genesis 6:4 would seem to argue against this view since a mixed breed race would have been wiped 

out in the flood. But (a) the order of verses makes it not really clear that the Nephilim were actually the 

offspring being talked about. (b) Also, it may only mean that the name lived on to be applied to any 

large or powerful men. (c) A third possibility is that it referred to the angels themselves since the root 

meaning to Nephilim is “to fall.” Numbers 13:32-33 is only other reference to Nephilim, where it 

apparently referred to people of large stature (through association with Anakim). But there is the very 

real possibility of discounting the evidence of the spies as negative hyperbole (“men as grasshoppers 

and a land that eats people”).

A variation of this theme found on the Internet has Neanderthal men as the offspring of angels and 

women. The problem is that they were rather short in stature, not giants at all.

Second view

This is not as popular as it once was, mainly due to lack of any evidence linking sons of God and 

daughters of men with any genealogical line.

But it does fit best with the context of the preceding chapters.

If it refers to Seth's line, then the sin is the unequal yoking of believers with non-believers.

This could explain survival of wholly human offspring through the flood, as does the third view..

Third view

“Sons of gods” is a term used in pagan cultures to denote princes or kings. Ancient rulers often claimed 

divine status. If so, then the earth is being partially punished for the sins of bigamy, forceful taking of 

women, and pride of its rulers.

The offspring are apparently called gibborim, which means a person of mighty valor or wealth. Nimrod 

was called a gibbor in Genesis 10:8, and he was obviously just a human king or ruler.

New Testament Evidence

2 Peter 2:4 alludes to angels who sinned, but does not point out the nature of their sin. This could 

possibly be associated with war in heaven between loyal angels and angels who followed Satan (as in 

the Book of Revelation) and have nothing to do with Genesis 6.

See also Isaiah 24:21-22, which may refer to evil spiritual forces mentioned in Ephesians 6:12.

Jude 6-7 seems to be more applicable. It has similarities to a passage in I Enoch referring to Genesis 6.

In verse 6, some of the angels are said to have left their proper place. This could mean that they 

attempted to take over God's place in heaven, or that they left heaven to go live on earth. Much hinges 

on what the word “they” in verse 7 refers back to-- the angels or Sodom and Gomorrah. If the latter, 

then there is a strong parallel between Genesis 6 (angels lusting after humans) and Sodom and 

Gomorrah (humans lusting after angels).

Genesis 6:3 The Lord said man’s days would be 120 years. I have typically understood this to mean 

man would no longer live past 120 years. However, the Bible records numerous figures living past 120 

years after this time. What does that mean?

The Daily Bible notes explain this to mean that God would wait 120 years before destroying all 

mankind (except for Noah's family) in the flood.

Alternatively, it may be a prophecy that lifetimes on earth would gradually decrease until they 

eventually reached a maximum of 120 years. If this is the proper understanding, then it would be 

similar to God's prophecy to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden that they would die on the day they 

ate of the forbidden tree. On the day they did eat, they not only experienced a form of spiritual death, 

but the aging process began in their bodies that would lead to their physical deaths many years later.

 

Genesis 6:5 Is this the only reason for the Flood or do the previous verses in chapters 5 and 6 have 

anything to do with it?

One of the biggest problems regarding the Flood Story is determining its proper context, i.e., what led up to it. There are actually three different passages preceding the actual account beginning in Genesis 6:5, and each of them at one time or another has been claimed to somehow be the precipitating factor. But keep in mind that none of these may have directly contributed to God's decision; it may have been solely because of mankind's general sinfulness, as stated in this verse.

1. The genealogy of Seth's line is given in 5:1-6:8. To see why it is placed there, consider the overall plan of Genesis, which alternates between genealogies and narratives:

I. Narratives (1:1-4:26)

    II. Genealogy of Chosen Line (5:1-6:8)

III. Narrative: The Flood (6:9-9:28)

    IV. Genealogy of Chosen Line (10:1-31)

VI. Narrative: Tower of Babel (10:32-11:9)

    VII. Genealogy of Chosen Line (11:10-26)

VIII. Narrative: Abraham (11:27-25:11)

    IX. Genealogy of Divergent Line (25:12-18)

X. Narrative: Isaac/Jacob (25:19-35:29)

    XI. Genealogy of Divergent Line (36:1-43)

    XII. Narrative: Joseph (37:1-50:29)

From this overall pattern you can see that it is unlikely that mere mention of Seth's chosen line before the Flood has no more to do with that particular event than the continuation of that line in Section IV is somehow responsible for the Tower of Babel incident that follows it. Similarly, it is obvious that the non-chosen lines described in IX and XI have little to do directly with the narratives that follow them.

2. Following the genealogy of Seth is the highly cryptic story of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men intermarrying. This story has been interpreted in various way, none entirely satisfactory. Those who feel that it involves angels cohabiting with human women say that this horrible sin was directly responsible for God purging the earth. I don't really follow the reasoning since it appears that the human beings involved had little choice in the matter, and God is specifically said to be punishing mankind (not angels) for its sin.

Others feel that “Sons of God” means powerful warlords and other rulers who took by force any women (of Seth's line particularly) that they desired. If so, that would fit God's stated reason for the Flood a little better as one example of mankind's sin, but why punish the women also? A minority view actually treats the Sons of God as those of Seth's line who were marrying women outside of their own clan. If so, it is strange that there is no prohibition by God given up to this point (that I am aware of) against this sort of intermarriage.

3. The next brief account in Gen. 6:4 involves the Nephilim. Those who connect these people with 

what has directly preceded assume that they were the offspring of the Sons of God and the Daughters 

of Men. This is not necessarily so and some translations actually place this verse in parentheses as an 

indication that it is an unrelated comment by the author. If the two facts are related, then the Nephilim 

are either powerful ruling classes of the time or mutant half angel-half humans. In the latter case, some 

have even equated them with Neanderthal men to explain their disappearance in the subsequent Flood. 

In either case, verse 4 states that they were still around after the flood, so they must have been pretty 

good swimmers. That fact alone is possible evidence for a limited flood.

 

Genesis 8:21 Does this verse teach that God reversed the original curse on the land found in Genesis 

3:17?

That is a minority opinion among scholars. Victor Hamilton (The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, p. 

309-310) notes that there is no evidence that the other aspects of the original curse, such as toil in 

childbearing or manual labor in agriculture, were eliminated at the time of Noah. Also, this view 

demands that a key Hebrew word be translated as “view as accursed” instead of “curse,” which has no 

justification elsewhere. Also, completely different Hebrew words for curse appear here and in Genesis 

3.

A third argument in favor of Genesis 8:21 having nothing to do with the Genesis 3 curse is that the 

following verses (21-22) explain exactly what God means when he says he will not curse the land 

again – there will be no major upset in the normal balance of nature and the order of creation with its 

seasons will continue (also in International Bible Commentary, p. 122 and Allen P. Ross, Creation and 

Blessing, p. 198)

Michael Grisanti (Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol. 1, p. 272) points out that 

the similar language between Genesis 6:5b and 8:21c refutes the idea that the Genesis 3 curse is in 

mind in the latter verse. M. G. Kline (New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 89) agrees with this 

argument.

A further explanation behind God's promise in 8:21 is given in Genesis 9:11,15, as Victor Hamilton 

(Handbook on the Pentateuch, p. 72) points out.

The strongest argument, however, to support the idea that the curse of Genesis 3 is still in effect is 

found in Romans 8:18-23. This clearly points back to the Genesis 3 curse, as noted in three one-

volume commentaries I consulted, three devotional commentaries by influential authors (John Stott, 

William Barclay and Warren Wiersbe), and in four scholarly commentaries from differing theological 

perspectives (by Leon Morris, Joseph Fitzmyer, Ernst Kasemann, and John Murray).

 

Genesis 9:3-4 – This passage states after the flood God gave man everything for food. Was man 

originally vegetarian prior to this? If God gave them everything to eat after the flood, why did the 

Israelites observe some animals as being “unclean” and not permitted to eat?

Concerning the first question, most commentators feel that mankind was vegetarian before the flood, as 

referenced in Genesis 1:29. The only problem that some people see with this interpretation is that the 

same language (having green plants for food) is applied to all animals in 1:30, even those that are 

strictly carnivores today. Thus, others explain the Genesis 1 references as just meaning that all animals, 

even carnivores, ultimately depend on plants for food since that is the food utilized by the animals they 

in turn eat.

As far as the second question goes, remember that this was a covenant given to all mankind—the so-

called Noachian Covenant. At this point in history, there was no such thing as an Israelite people at all. 

Much later, when God chose one particular family to be the basis of the Jewish race, a holy nation 

separated unto himself, further restrictions on which animals were clean to eat were imposed on them 

to help emphasize their distinction from the rest of humanity. (The earlier mention of clean and unclean 

animals in Genesis 7 probably refers only to which animals were acceptable for sacrificing to God.)

This is the background for the decision of Jerusalem Conference described in Acts 15:19-22 whereby 

the Christian Gentiles were freed from the Jewish dietary laws but told to still keep the command given 

to Noah to refrain from eating animals from which the blood had not been first drained.

 

Genesis 8:4 When the water was gone where, geographical, did Noah end up?

The ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat, which are located right at the border between present 

day Turkey and the Republic of Armenia.

Genesis 9:5-7 I don't understand the Laws of Life.

The life-for-a-life law, or principle, is a strict prohibition against murder. Since all human life is sacred to God, He will require an accounting of every human life taken. The prohibition stands today for all mankind; but God, not man, is the ultimate judge for those who disobey this commandment, whether or not the State literally enforces the prohibition.

It is somewhat related to the later eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth legislation given to Israel. This legislation is often maligned as being contrary to Jesus' command to love our enemies, but the original intent was to strictly limit any retribution one person or family might require of another to prevent clan warfare which would have disrupted the unity of the Twelve Tribes.

Genesis 9:18-27 I understand that the curse on Ham has been used to justify subjugation of black peoples. Is that what these verses teach?

Those who used to quote these verses in that manner were being very selective in their reading. First, note the interesting fact that every time Ham is mentioned in these verses, he is called “the father of Canaan.” And in fact, Noah only brings down curses on Ham's son Canaan in verses 25-27, not Ham himself. So who was Canaan the ancestor of? It was obviously the Canaanites, as spelled out in Genesis 10:15-20. This explains and justifies to some extent why Israel was later given the command to subjugate or destroy the people occupying the Promised Land. By contrast, those peoples occupying Africa are said to be the descendants of Ham's other sons, who had no curse pronounced on them by God.