BARAK, BIERCE, DEBORAH, AND GOLDING (JUDGES 5)

No, that isn't the name of a law firm or a singing group. It is the combination I arrived at when I was ruminating over my two passions: Bible study and love of good fiction writing. For similar musings, see my posts “Finnegans Wake” and “The Literary Influence of the Bible.” Let me explain the title above, if I can.

One of the classic modern novels is The Lord of the Flies by William Golding. However, this author also wrote a very interesting 1956 book titled Pincher Martin. Both of these works have underlying religious themes with Pincer Martin having implications regarding the persistence of hope and the afterlife. I will briefly describe the plot of this book, but I would not like to ruin its ending if you haven't read it before and might be planning to do so in the future. So this is a spoiler alert cautioning you to stop at this point.

O.K, I warned you. In Pincher Martin, the hero finds himself suddenly thrown into the ocean when his ship is hit by a U-boat attack during WWII. He finds that he is the only survivor of the catastrophe, but he has the presence of mind to immediately kick off his heavy seaboots and inflate his life jacket. He manages to make it to the shore of a deserted island, and the rest of the novel concerns his Robinson Crusoe-like existence there for a number of years during which he starts to hallucinate from the enforced isolation.

The last chapter of the book switches its perspective entirely to two men on a jetty looking for survivors from the U-boat attack. They find the hero's quite dead body still in his life jacket washed up on the rocks. One of the men wonders if he suffered much, and the other one replies, “Then don't worry about him. You saw the body. He didn't even have time to kick off his seaboots.”

When I read this surprise ending years ago, I was immediately reminded of the same technique used much earlier by the Civil War correspondent and short story writer Ambrose Bierce. Some of you may have read his classic 1890 story “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” while in school. If not, I again urge you to stop reading this post if you don't want the ending spoiled. Although if you have gotten this far you will probably suspect that it has a similar surprise twist at the end, and you would be correct.

A Southern plantation owner named Peyton Farquhar is captured by Union forces during the Civil War, taken to a bridge where his hands are tied behind him and a noose placed around his neck. He is dropped off the bridge to be hanged, but the rope breaks, he lands in the stream, manages to free his hands, is not touched by the bullets fired at him from the bridge by the troops, escapes into the woods and eventually makes it back to his home 30 miles away where he runs toward his wife and family waiting there. The justly famous last sentence in the story reads, “Peyton Farquhar was dead; his body, with a broken neck, swung gently from side to side beneath the timbers of Owl Creek Bridge.”

This identical plot device has even been utilized more recently in the movies in Stay, Jacob's Ladder, and the excellent but chilling Terry Gilliam creation Brazil. It has been suggested that it goes back in time even earlier than Bierce's story, perhaps originating with Charles Dickens' “A Visit to Newgate.” But I think that the first germ of that plot device, in which the illusion of hope existing only in a character's mind is dashed for the reader by the breaking in of grim reality at the conclusion, goes back thousands of years earlier to the Book of Judges.

Judges 5 consists of a song by Deborah and Barak which retells the prose story (Judges 4) of a battle between the Israelites and the Canaanite army which is commanded by Sisera. The poetic account in chapter 5 is noted for its strikingly modern storytelling techniques, most notably when it breaks away from the encounter between a fleeing Sisera and a woman named Jael in order to explore the mind of Sisera's mother waiting at home for her son to return from the battle with valuable spoils for her to enjoy. We have here many of the elements present in the later creative works mentioned above, but presented in a slightly different manner.

As a literary exercise, I decided to see what would happen if I just changed the order of the verses a little and made a few minor alterations to the wording. The purpose of this exercise is not at all to improve on the original biblical text, but to demonstrate how this account may have been in the subconscious mind of much later writers who proceeded to make it their own. You can compare my own “version” below with the original biblical text of verses 24-31 which tells of Sisera's fate as he fled as a lone survivor from the battlefield into the tent of Jael. I will rely on the NRSV for most of the wording and include the explanatory verses from Judges 4 where appropriate to clarify the plot:

4:17-18 “Now Sisera had fled away on foot to the tent of Jael wife of Heber the Kenite; for there was peace between King Jabin of Hazor and the clan of Heber the Kenite. Jael came out to meet Sisera, and said to him, 'Turn aside, my Lord, turn aside to me; have no fear.'”

5:24-25 “Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, of tent-dwelling women most blessed. He asked for water and she gave him milk, she brought him curds in a lordly bowl.”

4:21b “He was lying fast asleep from weariness.”

5:28-30 “Out of the window she peered, the mother of Sisera gazed trough the lattice: 'Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why tarry the hoofbeats of his chariots?' Her wisest ladies make answer, indeed, she answers the question herself: 'Are they not finding and dividing the spoil” – A girl or two for every man; spoil of dyed stuffs for Sisera, spoil of dyed stuffs embroidered, two pieces of dyed work embroidered for my neck as spoil?'”

5:26-27 “She [Jael] put her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workman's mallet; she struck Sisera a blow, she crushed his head, she shattered and pierced his temple. He sank, he fell, he lay still at her feet; at her feet he sank, he fell; where he sank, there he fell dead.”

5:31 “So perish all your enemies, O LORD! But may your friends be like the sun as it rises in its might.”

Whether one rearranges the elements in the biblical story or not, note some of the correspondences with later stories which may have drawn inspiration from it:

    It takes place during wartime.

    The action follows the adventures of someone on the losing side of the conflict who is in fear for his life.

    Just when you think that the protagonist is safe, you realize that it is just an illusion.

    Much of the story is told in a stream-of-consciousness manner from the point of view of an untrustworthy narrator.

    The secret is only revealed at the very end of the story.

One could even imagine that the wishful musings of Sisera's mother only happen in the unconscious mind of Sisera as he lies down to sleep in the seconds before he is killed, just as in Pincher Martin and “An Occurrence on Owl Creek Bridge.” By the way, a similar depressing ending was in the original version of the movie “Brazil” which I saw, but I believe that it has since been totally re-written to a happy conclusion due to tremendous pressure from disappointed fans.

 

MATTHEW 24 MISUNDERSTOOD

This chapter is probably one of the most misunderstood and abused chapter in the whole Bible. Some of the main skewings, whether deliberately or unknowingly, arise from not taking into account the following factors:

Jesus in this passage is responding to two (or possibly three) different questions asked by his disciples, not just one.

Verses 1-3 make this fact abundantly clear. Now some interpreters might point out that the disciples may have associated all the events they mention as taking place immediately one after the other. Even if that were so, that would certainly not have been enough cause for Jesus to buy into their mistaken ideas. And if it were true, isn't it more likely that they would have phrased their queries in a little more understandable way, saying something like, “When will this be (i.e. destruction of the temple) as a sign of your coming and the ushering in of the new age?

Another tack is taken by the full preterists who do not believe in a future coming of Christ. They lump all of the questions together as one in order to explain that the Second Coming actually happened when the Romans destroyed the temple in AD 70, and that event brought the old era of the law to an end.

Paradoxically, many premillennial dispensationalist also treat the questions and response in Matthew 24 as dealing with but a single event. But to do this, they need to somehow get around the hard fact that the temple was destroyed back in AD 70. The obvious way out is to treat that event the way they also interpret most of the Old Testament prophecies of the future. In other words, they ignore the more immediate fulfillment of earlier prophecies of events such as the Exile and Return or the first coming of Christ in favor of a fulfillment yet to happen in the future. If someone points out the close correspondence between a given pronouncement by a prophet and one of these earlier events, they then invoke (a) the principle of multiple fulfillments and/or (b) point out that a certain prophecy was not actually literally fulfilled, and therefore it must have been referring to a yet future event. To do the latter, however, they have to ignore, among other things, the fact that almost all OT prophecy was written in poetry, not prose.

That still leaves the dispensationalists the problem of an absent temple, but that is no difficulty at all for them since their theology requires a rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple in the future so that animal sacrifices can be resumed during the Millennial Reign of Christ on earth for 1,000 years. This alone is a concept which many other Christians regard as utter nonsense and almost heretical. But in addition to the possible theological it raises, those who take this approach have to totally ignore the fact that Jesus says in verse 2 that the temple they were viewing at that time is the one that will be destroyed, not some hypothetical future temple to be built on the same site.

So is there any evidence in Jesus' response to their questions in the rest of the chapter to actually support my contention that more than one event is being talked about? There is actually quite a bit of evidence supporting that thesis. The more elaborate proof requires a detailed analysis of the literary structure of Chapter 4. My own treatment is almost exactly the same as that of the noted New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce, although I arrived at my conclusions independently. For those who are interested, see my post entitled “Matthew 24: One or Two Questions?”

But at this time, I will content myself with a few simple observations indicating that Jesus switches back and forth in Matthew 24 between discussing events in the near future associated with the Roman destruction in AD 70 and more future eschatological happenings.

In verses 15-20, Jesus gives practical advice to his followers in Judea (v. 16) on specific indications that a certain future event will take place and leaves them with specific measures they can take to avoid the catastrophe in their own lives if they act promptly. It also contains the hope that it will not take place during the winter, when conditions will be unfavorable for escape. Of course, when it is winter in one part of the globe, it will be summer in another. All of this indicates a localized event from which it is possible for the believers to escape if they heed the warning signs and get out of town. And the historical record indicates that some Christians did indeed manage to escape Jerusalem before the Romans surrounded the city.

The timing of the above event is narrowed down in v. 34 to an event taking place before all of Jesus' audience has died off, a perfect fit for AD 70.

In stark contrast, vv. 29-31 talk about what will happen when the sign in heaven appears, all the tribes of the earth mourn, and Christ appears with a trumpet blast to gather his elect to him. And all of this will occur at a time when no one expects it (vv. 42-44). This last statement is especially enlightening in light of all the “certain prophecies” made by modern interpreters of this chapter who at try to at least narrow the date down to a few years, but still deny that they are date-setting. The more people, of course, who buy into their specific prognostications, the less likely it will occur within that time frame, according to Jesus. And this appears to be an inescapable fate for all, one way or another, not one that can be avoided by keeping awake to the signs and taking certain practical measures ahead of time.

Matthew 24 provides a number of non-signs of the future events happening so that his followers do not get too excited when they occur.

This is a point that is totally ignored by those who are intent in reading signs of the future in every daily event that takes place. Just a passing knowledge of history will show how religious fanatics over the centuries have inflamed the populace into believing that the end was upon them. But for those who have no absolutely no appreciation or understanding of any history prior to their own lifetime, every “important” thing that they observe tends to be blown up out of proportion to the point where they “know” that Christ must be coming in the next year at the latest. An interesting exercise sometime for those who think that this is the worst of all times ever is to read the history book entitled A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman about the situation in Europe in the 14^th century.

I am old enough to have witnessed what happened in Christian circles when The Late Great Planet Earth came out and that was all they could talk about. One woman in our Sunday school explained that she used to worry about her children getting a proper Christian education, but now she realized that Christ was coming again before they would reach the age of accountability. And my wife ran into another believer who said that she had maxed out all of her credit cards buying many of the luxuries she had always been wanting and stated, “The great thing is that Christ is coming before I will have to make any payments on them.”

To counter this sort of nonsensical thinking, Jesus warns his followers of a number of signs they may encounter in the future which are in reality non-signs. These include false messiahs and prophets (vv. 5, 11, 23-26), but “see that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet” (v. 6) and “do not believe it” (vv. 23, 26) because when Christ comes it will be obvious to all (vv. 26-30). In addition, v. 7 states that there will be wars between nations, famines, and earthquakes in various places, but all this is but the beginning.” (v. 8) It is only by purposely ignoring the underlined words above and the caveats to which they refer that one can construe these events as sure signs of the imminent events of the last days.

It is not possible for us to manipulate the timing of the Christ's Coming by our actions, at least not in any measurable way.

As one example of what I am talking about here I will first cite the attempt by independent oil companies to raise money from Christians for oil drilling in Israel. The “altruistic” motive given by these companies is that when oil is found, that will make the Arab countries so jealous that they will attack Jerusalem, triggering the Battle of Armaggedon and accompanying eschatological events. Or one could point to the equally harebrained scheme to find Noah's Ark and measure its dimensions in order to determine the true length of a cubit since that is necessary to know in order to rebuild the Jerusalem temple.

But v. 14 has been used by much more responsible Christian groups such as Campus Crusade (now CRU) and some Bible translators as one of the proof texts for the utter necessity of evangelizing every people group on earth since only then “the end will come.” The problem with this well-meaning and noble goal only comes if and when these groups (a) begin to use this as the prime motive for their efforts rather than love for the world or (b) when they feel they can chart their progress mathematically to determine when their job is complete. Several attempts to do the latter have been tried. But these groups soon found that even reaching all the nations did not mean reaching every language group within these nations. And if that goal is ever accomplished and the end still fails to materialize, then they will probably have to regroup and set ever more stringent goals in which each dialect or tribe within each language group is reached, etc.

Increased violence and wickedness of earth is not the sign being talked about in vv. 36-42.

I have seen in print a completely warped interpretation of Jesus' words: “For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark.”

This reading goes as follows: If you turn to Genesis 6:5 for what conditions were like right before the flood, you will see that there was wickedness everywhere. And that is exactly what is happening at this very minute. Therefore Christ is coming very soon. And in addition, in the description given by Jesus of those times, you will see that additional indications are given of what we should look for since in Noah's day the people were obese from over-eating and becoming alcoholics. But the worst thing was that they sanctioned same-sex marriages. These behaviors are all around us as signs that the end is near.

It is hard to know where to begin in poking holes in all this “logic.” But the main points to keep in mind are that it (a) brings in Genesis 6 to explain what Jesus was talking about rather than listen to His own explanation, (b) misinterprets the descriptions of normal human activities in vv. 37-38 as if perversions of those activities were being talked about, and (c) completely ignores those verses which explain that the whole point of Jesus' analogy is to demonstrate that the eschatological events will come with absolutely no warning (see vv. 36, 39-44).

We are not encouraged to spend our time trying to figure out God's time-table for the future.

I realize that this statement flies in the face of teachings found in much of the Christian world as well as among the cults. The reasons that sincere believers often buy into this idea and end up ignoring much more important things while they puzzle over the eschatological details are many. Some do it because it helps them escape their present responsibilities; others do in out of a desire to be the one “in the know” who can instruct the unenlightened; and others honestly feel that Christ taught that it was our duty to be on the constant lookout for the latest signs. And part of this belief comes from a misunderstanding of the teachings in Matthew 24.

For one thing, by not understanding that those of Jesus' teachings which do give actual signs to look for (e.g., vv. 15, 32-34) are those very verses referring to events in AD 70 which some of his immediate audience would actually experience, not signs of the end times. There is also a clear warning against being so presumptuous as to feel that we today can know the times better than the angels or Jesus himself (vv. 36, 44). But those who fancy themselves prophecy experts get around that one by pointing out that Jesus only said that we could not know the day or hour, not the week, month or year. This literalistic understanding falls flat on its face, however, when one considers the parallel teaching by Jesus to the apostles found in Acts 1:7 – “It is not for you to know the times or seasons.” That pronouncement alone should be enough to discourage anyone who feels that it is vitally important that we keep track of the signs so that we will be prepared for the future.

The last point above brings up another passage in Matthew 24 that we haven't yet mentioned: verses 42-51 which tell us, along with some of Jesus' other parables, that we are to keep awake and watchful at all times. They especially point to v. 43 which states that if the householder had known when a thief was going to break in, then he could have been prepared. But this ignores the fact that it is impossible to know when that will happen, therefore he (and we) must be prepared always for that eventuality (v. 44). The question to ask then is: What does Jesus mean when he warns us to be prepared, awake and watchful?

The answer is found in the parable itself in vv. 45-51. We are to be found at work for the Lord at all times (v. 46), not just right before we realize he will be returning. And that activity includes continuing to exhibit the mind of Christ always in all that we do (vv. 48-49) and not count on straightening up our act at the last minute.

HANNAH'S SONG (I SAMUEL 2:1-10)

These verses have been labeled in various ways in addition to a “song.” For example, Boda calls it a “prayer of reorientation...that is, the prayer thanking God for salvation from distress.” And Verhoef points out, “The prayer of Hannah is not a petition that asks anything. It is rather 'descriptive praise of God,' telling who God is, what he is like, and what he has done in the past.”

Let us first deal with the most controversial issues regarding this hymn. Childs points out, “Literary critics have long observed that Hannah's song interrupts the narrative sequence of the chapters. Its strikingly different poetic form, its peculiar vocabulary, and its reference to the king as the anointed one, have caused many to regard it simply as a disturbing interpolation”

One way of dealing with this issue is that taken by Howard, who says, “It may very well be that Hannah did not compose this prayer herself but rather, prayed a prayer that already existed, or that Eli or someone else suggested for her. Its contents only very generally fit her situation, but it was appropriate enough.”

And Childs notes, “Significantly those very elements which the older literary critics regarded as incompatible with the intention of the Samuel cycle are picked up in the final chapters of Samuel.” Thus, Long says that “the books of Samuel are framed fore and aft with poetic pieces [the other being David's song in II Samuel 22-23] providing thematic orientation for the reading of the intervening narrative episodes.”

In addition to this general function, several scholars have enumerated exact parallels or reversals between these two songs:

Theme                                                                         I Samuel 2      II Samuel              Commentator

All appearances of “rock” in the Historical Books     v. 3                 5x in ch. 22             Black

The mighty are fearful / David is girded mightily      v. 4                 22:33                      McCarter

Exalting and abasing by God                                      v. 6                 22:28                      Childs

Killing and making alive                                            vv. 6-8             22:17-19                 Childs

Dual references to the anointed one                          vv. 10,35          22:51; 23:1             Hill

Language usual to an epiphany                                  v. 10                22:8-10                   Childs

Blessings to the king                                                  v. 10                22:51                      Childs

This importance of Hannah's Song to the combined books of Samuel is highlighted by other commentators:

    Enns: “Hannah's prayer, where much of the theology of 1-2 Samuel is anticipated,...is recorded not simply to recount a mother's prayer of thanksgiving for a male child. This prayer serves a larger theological purpose. Hannah's child is the first phase in a series of acts by God to bring Israel back to covenant faithfulness.”

    Howard: “By inserting this hymn with its references to the king at the beginning of the book, the author is signaling at the outset one of his dominant themes.”

And there are echoes of this song in both the OT and NT. Thus, “many commentators connect Ps. 113:5:7-8, and 9 with vv. 2, 8, and 5b of Hannah's Song in I Samuel 2. The story of God's care for Hannah becomes a model for God's care for Israel...” (deClaisse-Walford)

Similarly, Hannah's song and the early events in Jesus' life as recorded in Luke's Gospel have notable parallels, as recognized by many scholars. Here are some listed by Long:

Theme                                                         I Samuel 2                 Luke

Rejoicing in the Lord's deliverance            v. 1                            1:46-48

God's uniqueness and holiness                   v. 2                             1:49-50

Proud boasting condemned                        v. 3                             1:51

Reversal of human fortunes                       vv. 4-8                        1:52-53

Expressions of confidence in God's care   v. 9a                            1:54-55

Before turning to comments on the individual verses, the immediate context of Hannah's words must be considered. M.J. Evans describes the background: “I Samuel 1 makes it abundantly clear that regular worship, prayer, sacrifice and the making and keeping of vows played an important part in the life of this family...The structure of I Samuel 1:2 implies that Hannah was the first wife, and that in spite of Elkanah's love for Hannah, Peninnah had been married as a result of Hannah's barrenness. Whether or not this is so, it is clear that both women were unhappy with their situation.” We can compare this with the earlier conflict between Abraham's two wives, Sarah and Hagar.

I Samuel 2:1

The Hebrew word 'ls (“rejoice”) appears only here in I-II Samuel.

M.L. Brown prefers 'mighty champion' “in spite of its imprecision...to the almost universal, but too literal 'horn of my salvation,' which fails to translate the meaning of the metaphor.” Note how this same image which begins the hymn also closes it in v. 10. The same can be said for comments regarding the downfall of her enemies here (probably referring to her rival wife) and God's enemies in that later verse.

I Samuel 2:2-3

C.J.H. Wright writes that “the Historical Books affirm that Yahweh is unique and universal...that he is beyond comparison, for none is like Yahweh (I Sam 2:2). The effect of these convictions on ethics includes the awareness that Yahweh is inescapable as the God who knows the truth in spite of temporary circumstances (I Sam 2:3).”

“None of the gods is holy as he [the Lord] is, for none casts down the exalted and raises the humble as he does.” (Neude)

I Samuel 2:3

“God precisely judges all human actions according to his regulating standard.” (R. Fuller) This same sentiment is voiced by Fretheim: “The Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.”

“The adj gaboah ('haughty' or 'proud') can also be used in conjunction with one's eyes (Is. 5:15), heart (Prov. 16:15) and human spirit (Eccles. 7:8).” (Smith and Hamilton)

I Samuel 2:4

K.L. Younger detects “clear treaty terminology” in this verse.

“The most common use of the word [i.e. “mighty”] is in texts dealing with military activities. It can designate a man who is eligible for military service, is able to bear arms, has combat experience, or who has acquired a reputation for outstanding bravery...Yahweh intervenes to alter the disproportion of power in human relationships by ensuring that the bows of the mighty are broken whereas the stumbling (i.e., the weak) gird on strength.” (Wakely)

I Samuel 2:6

P.S. Johnston notes that Sheol is hardly ever mentioned in the Historical Books of the OT. This is one of the exceptions, and it teaches that it is “ultimately within Yahweh's power.” There is a similar statement found in Moses' song (see Deuteronomy 32:29).

The verb form used here “suggests that people go to Sheol against their will; they are brought down to that place...Ultimately, it is Yahweh who causes them to go down, but he also has it in his power to bring them forth again.” (Merrill) For that latter thought, see Isaiah 26:19 – “Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise...and the earth will give birth to those long dead.”

I Samuel 2:7

“In all twenty-nine instances of the vb. [i.e. 'become low']...the vb. has a negative connotation; viz., something or someone is low or brought low because of its unwarranted elevation.” (Dumbrell)

I Samuel 2:8-10

Some hymns “supply a theological 'moral' to the stories that turns artistic literature into religious instruction.” (Watts) He cites these articular verses as a prime example of that statement.

Writing on this passage, McCarter notes that a comparison of the text with the Dead Sea scroll shows that both the standard Hebrew and Greek texts “have suffered losses of material here...The full original reading cannot be recovered from this evidence.” For this reason, the reader should not be surprised to encounter English translations that vary somewhat from one another in their rendering of these verses.

I Samuel 2:8

8a. See Psalm 113:7, as noted earlier, which states: “He raises the poor from the dust, and lifts the needy from the ash heap.” Another parallel passage in which someone is raised from the dust is I Kings 16:2.

8b. Williamson notes that in passages such as this one the word 'eres (“land”) “sometimes carries global or cosmological connotations.”

The noun tebel ('world') “is used frequently in contexts that associate it with Yahweh's creative act and that, as a result, express the stability or durability of the earth.” (C. Wright)

The word masuq (“pillars”) only appears once more in the OT, at I Samuel 14:5.

I Samuel 2:9

Van Dam states that “'darkness' is probably best taken here as a poetic name for Sheol as a place of punishment, darkness, and gloom.”

Contrast Ecclesiastes 4:1 which, more realistically or cynically, says that worldly oppressors have all the power on their side. (A.E. Hill)

I Samuel 2:10

10a. See Isaiah 8:9 – “Raise the war cry, you nations, and be shattered.”

Referring to 'thunder', Futato says, “This general statement finds specificity in [I Samuel] 2:10, where the Lord thundered against the Philistines.”
10b. “Certainly Hannah's song in 2:1-10, in which the reversal of human fortunes through the intervention of God is the dominant theme, has more than the turnaround in her own fortunes in mind when it concludes with the confident assertion that God would 'give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed.'” (Gordon) This more literal rendering of “horn” is replaced by “power” in the NRSV and others since in the Old Testament, horns symbolized power and strength.

“Hannah's embedded oracle celebrates Yahweh's control over all, both human and cosmological, ending with the confident declaration 'Yahweh will judge the ends of the earth'...This oracle creates anticipation, inviting the reader to conceive of a theocracy with a special human figure at the head representing Yahweh.” (Block)

 

I KINGS 18:21

 

Right before the famous contest between Elijah and the 450 prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, Elijah says to the people: “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him, but if Baal is God, follow him.” (NIV)

In this manner, Elijah stands in the company of two other great leaders of Israel, Moses and Joshua who posed similar challenges:

    “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life that you and your descendants may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19)

    “And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15)

The general gist of Elijah's statement in I Kings 18:21 is quite clear, especially in its second sentence. It is the first half of the verse, however, that has caused a bit of trouble. Look at how some other translations handle it:

    “How long halt ye between two opinions?” (KJV) At the time of this translation, the meaning of the verb “halt” was “limp.” Thus, both RSV and NRSV go with that basic meaning.

    “How long will you waver between two opinions?” (Living Bible)

    “How long are you going to sit on the fence?” (NEB, The Message)

    “How much longer will it take you to make up your mind?” (TEV)

    “How long do you mean to hobble first on one leg then on the other.” (JB)

    “How long will you keep hopping between two boughs.” (AB)

LaSor says, “This was possibly a popular expression of the day, lost to us now. It seems to be literally, 'Till when are you hopping at two forks?'” The main problem in translation is that the two key words in this sentence, “limp” and “opinion” are quite rare within the Old Testament, and the proper understanding of either one influences how we translate the other. Let us first concentrate on the noun at the end of the sentence, generally understood to mean “opinions.” Unfortunately, it is an hapax legomenon, a fancy word indicating that it only appears once in the Bible, and thus we have no other passages with which to compare it.

Cogan takes the first step in explaining the etymology of the original Hebrew word. He says that “the noun refers to boughs of a fruit tree as well as the clefts of rocks.” But that is just the first, literal meaning of the word. Hostetter then helpfully explains that the noun “has at least two potential meanings. It could denote 'crutches' made out of tree limbs, or it could indicate 'alternatives' set forth as choices...”

To understand the logic behind that progression, just imagine a primitive crutch fashioned from a straight tree limb that has forking branches off of it. It can easily be cut in a Y-shape with an elongated branch going downward and a short top that can fit underneath one's armpit. On the other hand, look at the way we figuratively use the concept of a river or road that “forks” so that one has the option of taking either route – thus giving rise to the use of “fork” as one of two possible alternatives or options. So this explanation now gives rise to three different ways to render the Hebrew thought behind the noun: (1) literally, as tree branch, (2) the derived meaning of a crutch, or (3) symbolically and figuratively as an “alternative.” The choice between the three depends greatly on one's understanding of the verb in the sentence:

The Hebrew word translated as “limping, etc.” appears two additional places in the Old Testament. One is to describe the crippled Mephibosheth in II Samuel 4:4. Thus, some translators and commentators stick to that general concept. C.G. Martin chooses as one of the ways to explain its appearance in I Kings 18:21 as a description of “a cripple making his uneasy way on two crutches.”

However, the word appears even closer to the present context in I Kings 18:26. There it is used to make fun of the way the priests of Baal dance around the altar.

Stinespring says that “they performed a kind of limping dance, bending first on one knee and then the other. This form of ritual is well known from a number of sources.” Cogan compares it with “later sources of ceremonial encompassing of a sacred stone, especially the perambulation of the Ka'aba in Mecca.”

Although most scholars feel that the above three passages are the only ones in which this particular Hebrew verb appears, C.G. Martin claims to see it also in Isaiah 31:5. In that verse, God is portrayed as a bird hovering protectively over Jerusalem. But even more strangely, Martin then couples the picture of a bird hovering with a literal rendering of the noun denoting the branch of a tree to come up with the image of “a bird flitting from branch to branch.” I think that we are safe to disregard that unique interpretation.

The bottom line regarding this verse has been summarized well by a number of commentators:

    The people's sin was syncretism. “Such syncretism is always considered to be broad-minded, whereas the other is narrow-minded. But Yahweh of Israel left no room for other gods.” (La Sor) Similarly, C.G. Martin says that Elijah's words “struck at the root of the broadminded, inclusive culture Ahab had been fostering.” In this regard, I am reminded to two quotations by my favorite Christian authors:

            “An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations of either Theoretical or of Practical Reason is idiocy. If a man's mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut.” (C.S. Lewis)

            “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” (G.K. Chesterton)

    “They could not bring themselves to renounce entirely all allegiance to him [Yahweh]; therefore many of them probably sought to persuade themselves that they were not idolaters in reality, but worshippers of the true God, under the name of Baal...What awful self-delusion, what pitiful double-mindedness.” (Krummacher)

    “The people are non-commital at best. They 'limp' along without conviction.” (House)

    “From the very start of its portrayal of human life...the Bible concentrates on the person at the crossroads; and as we read, the godly life emerges in our imaginations as above all, a life of choice.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

    “Elijah's rhetoric on Mount Carmel is intended precisely to turn people both from outright apostasy and from mere hesitation between two ways (I Kings 18:21). The possibility of repentance is held out virtually to the end.” (McConville)

BOOK OF JOB: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The Book of Job In The Daily Bible introduction to the Book of Job, the commentator notes “Although there is a wide difference of opinion about the date, one of the most outstanding masterpieces in all of literature is possibly written during this period.” During a recent Sunday School series it was mentioned that Job is possibly the oldest book of the Bible and that the events described may have occurred as early as the Patriarchal period (prior to 2,000 B.C.). Yet The Daily Bible has chosen to insert this chronologically after Israel’s return from exile (roughly 550 B.C.). That is a “wide difference of opinion.” Can you please detail some of the evidence in regard to (1) when it was written and (2) when the events detailed may have actually occurred?

The slightly easier question to answer is the second one. For several reasons, the setting of the events appears to be in the Patriarchal period. J. H. Walton (Dictionary of Old Testament Wisdom, Poetry and Writings, p. 344) summarizes the evidence as follows although he admits that there are valid objections to each item:

    Wealth measured by cattle and flocks

    Patriarch serving as priest for the family

    Job's longevity

    No reference to covenant,Torah, exodus, etc.

    The presence of roving Sabaean and Chaldean tribesmen

    A particular unit of money in Job 42:11 only found elsewhere in Genesis 33:19 and Joshua 24:32

It might be asked how an early non-Israelite like Job could possibly worship the true God, but the same situation occurs with Melchizedek and Jethro. “And as with these two... we do not know how Job came to know and worship him...it may be easier to understand Job in the context of a pre-Abrahamic period before the narrowing of the covenant.” (T. Longman III)

Regarding the time of composition, the following arguments have been made (and refuted) in favor of a fairly late date:

1. Some scholars (such as the editor of The Daily Bible) propose that the book would have made the most sense and been of the most use to a people in exile or in a post-exilic period. Such a view hasn't been as much defended as it has been simply stated. (Walton) As C. Hassell Bullock says, “we have entered here into a region which is not that of argument but of impressions.” (An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, p. 71-73) Marvin H. Pope adds, “If the author of Job had experienced the national tragedy [i.e. the exile], his reaction is strange for he betrays no nationalistic concerns.” (Job, xxxv)

2. The speculative, questioning nature of the dialogues in Job have been ascribed to influence from later Greek philosophy. However, very similar stories from the Middle East have been found dating as early as 1700 BC.

3. Job 12:17-19 is quoted as evidence that the author of Job was acquainted with the events of the Babylonian conquest and exile. A look at this passage will show that the words are nowhere near specific enough to make that contention.

4. Use of Persian loan words in the text would be strong proof of a late date of composition. None have been found. In fact, there are many obscure words that do not appear in standard Hebrew. This is evidence for either a very early date of composition or the fact that a dialect closer to ancient Ugaritic was used in writing the book. (John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, pp. 17-18)

5. Themes such as belief in an afterlife, concern with the individual and the presence of Satan have all been used to show that these were all more prevalent in post-exilic times. But there are valid rebuttals for all these, which I will not bother outlining. (Hartley)

6. Some passages in Job are supposed to have shown prior knowledge of later Old Testament books. But the degree of borrowing may have easily been in the opposite direction with other authors quoting from Job. (Hartley)

Several authors summarize similarly the present state of affairs regarding the date of composition:

    “All of the variety of information available does not offer a clear indication for the dating of either the events or of the book.” (Walton)

    “The evidence for assigning the composition of the book of Job to any of these dates is unfortunately not overarching.” (Hartley)

    “The fact that the dates proposed by authorities, ancient and modern, span more than a millennium is eloquent testimony that evidence is equivocal and inconclusive.” (Pope)

Job 32:1-2 Who is Elihu and why hasn't he been mentioned up to now?

Up to this point in the story, the three “friends” have taken turns talking, with Job responding to each one. The third time this happens, however, Bildad only speaks for six verses and Zophar doesn't bother speaking at all. The dialogue has simply run out of steam and the various parties are merely repeating themselves.

Cycle 1                     Cycle 2                         Cycle 3

Job (ch. 3)               Job (ch. 12-14)             Job (ch. 21)

Eliphaz (ch. 4-5)     Eliphaz (ch. 15)           Eliphaz (ch. 22)

Job (ch. 6-7)           Job (ch. 16-17)             Job (ch. 23-24)

Bildad (ch. 8)         Bildad (ch. 18)             Bildad (ch. 25)

Job (ch. 9-10)        Job (ch. 19)                  Job (ch. 26-?)

Zophar (ch. 11)      Zophar (ch. 20)                 ---

Elihu's speeches follow this dialogue with three cycles, in parallel to the above, addressed to both Job and his three friends.

1                 2                  3                  4                  5                 6

Addressee     Friends         Job              Friends         Job              Friends           Job

Exhortation

to listen         32:6-10         33:1-7         34:1-4

Job's or

friends'

position        32:11-14       33:8-11        34:5-9         35:1-4

disputation or

instruction    32:15-22      33:12-30      34:10-30     35:5-15         36:1-16

Judgment on

or warning

to Job                               33:31-33       34:31-37      35:16           36:17-23

God and his

universe                                                                                         36:24-33          37:14-20

With Elihu on the scene we expect that a new perspective on the situation will be voiced since (a) he is the only one of the characters who is Jewish (32:2) and (b) he is much younger than the others (32:4-9). He has presumably kept in the background up to now in order to let his elders speak first (Job 32:4). Although many commentators feel that Elihu's arguments merely repeat those of the three friends, others allow that they do break new ground in several areas. For example, Walton (Dictionary of Old Testament Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, p. 338-9) notes that Elihu devalues traditional wisdom more, is more protective of God's justice, and is more theologically creative than Job or the three friends.

Elihu's main contribution to the discussion is that “he expands the retribution principle so that it not only describes the remedial consequences of past actions (reward for righteousness, punishment or suffering for wickedness) but he also allows that suffering may be disciplinary and thereby preventative as it functions to restrain someone from following an unacceptable course of action.”

Some scholars doubt that the Elihu speeches were in the original version of the Book of Job since Elihu is not mentioned at the start or the conclusion of the book. However, they do function as good preparation for God's speeches at the end.

Job 40:15-18 Isn't this an accurate depiction of a land-dwelling dinosaur? It can’t be a hippopotamus

(as most Bible scholars believe) because of its huge tail.

 

In the first place, poetic language is used to describe this beast (limbs of brass, bones of iron, etc). And 

as almost all translations show, its tail isn’t said to be as big as a cedar tree, but only as stiff or straight 

as one. This picture does not fit most dinosaurs, which had very flexible tails. In addition, many 

commentators believe that “tail” is actually a euphemism for the male sexual organ, described as 

“thigh” or “foot” elsewhere in the Bible. (see Hartley, The Book of Job).

 

KENNETH COPELAND AND EXODUS 15:26

Back in the 1970's I attended a church in which my wife and I became quite involved in the young married group. We not only met during Sunday morning classes but also for Wednesday night potluck dinners and lessons. One of the young men in this group had definite charismatic leanings and viewed himself as a budding pastor. Although he seldom attended our Wednesday get-togethers, he pressured us into studying a slender paperback book by Kenneth Copeland. I thought that the title was “None of These Diseases,” but the only book in print by that title now is by some other author. Whatever the title was, I do remember that Exodus 15:26 was about the only scriptural proof he gave for his main thesis that all we have to do is believe in God and He will bless you in every way, especially financially and in terms of your health.

After convincing us to study Copeland's book, the budding pastor stopped attending Wednesday nights and so the rest of us took turns teaching from each chapter. The first man struggled through the opening chapter, and then it was my turn the following week. I remember providing an easy scriptural rebuttal to each one of Copeland's assertions, at the end of which one woman in our group asked, “Why in the world are we wasting our time on this nonsense” and everyone else agreed. I should have kept my copy of the book since it would be interesting to revisit it after all these years, but I threw it away long ago.

Recently, I looked up some news articles concerning Copeland and his ministry to see what he is up to. You may already know more than I do on his activities, but I did find it interesting to see that now he is considered to be the wealthiest pastor in America with a net worth of $760 million living in an 18,000 square foot mansion in Texas located on 24 acres in Texas. He was quoted as saying, “When people drive by, they will know there is a God.” I am afraid that many more people would be thinking, “There is a sucker born every minute” considering the donations from his loyal followers that built that house.

Of course, Copeland has come for his share of criticism over the years for his lavish lifestyle, and rightfully so. He defends his mansion by explaining that it came from a dream his current, and third, wife had. Then God told him to build that house for two reasons: as a “ministry” to his wife and as part of his promised personal prosperity. At a conference of like-minded believers, he told them, “You may think it's too grand. I don't care what you think. I heard from heaven. Glory to God, hallelujah.”

It is interesting that Copeland has expanded his ministry empire using the very same appeal of Scientology: Follow our rules and we will make you rich and famous.

Although his teaching of the prosperity gospel is bad enough, his beliefs regarding freedom from disease are worth at least looking at through the lens of his Exodus 15:26 proof text. It appears in the Bible three days after the crossing of the Red Sea when the people begin complaining already about the lack of drinkable water. At that point,

“The LORD “made for them a statute and an ordinance and there he put them to the test. He said, 'If you will listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in his sight, and give heed to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will not bring upon you any of the diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians; for I am the LORD who heals you.'”

The first thing to consider is the translation of the Hebrew word mahalah, or “diseases.” Harrison explains that the “the root hlh describes a general state of physical weakness (Gen 48:1) which is not always attributable to senility or disease...In Eccl 5:13 the NIV renders it as 'grievous': 'I have seen a grievous evil under the sun: wealth hoarded to the harm of its owner.'” Parenthetically, that is a valuable lesson that Mr. Copeland would be wise to remember.

The specific word found in Exodus 15:26, mahalah, also appears in I Kings 8:37 and II Chronicles 6:28 where it is translated as “plague” by NIV, NKJV, NEB and NRSV. But the exact meaning in each case must be determined by looking at the context in which it occurs.

The diseases referred to in this passage are obviously the plagues Egypt had just experienced (see Exodus 7:8-11:10). If you look at these ten plagues, the only ones that could be considered as “diseases” in our sense of the word are the deadly pestilence and the boils. However, the pestilence was strictly an animal disease that did not touch the people. Of course, there is the tenth plague of death on the firstborn, but that would hardly fall in the category of an illness.

Thus,

    NEB translates the word in Exodus 15:26 as “sufferings;”

    The Jerusalem Bible renders it as “evils;”

    B.W. Anderson writes, “diseases, i.e. the Egyptian plagues;”

    Fretheim says, “Israel itself [is] now subject to the plagues;” and

    Durham explains: “The 'diseases of Egypt' refer to the mighty acts by which Yahweh made himself known to Israel and to the Egyptians in Egypt.”

So already we can see that Exodus 15:26 is not exactly the ideal proof text for those who would try to connect it with the healing of people's diseases and other physical conditions. But there is yet more to consider. For one thing, the scholars Chan, Song and Brown note that some interpret Exodus 15:26 as being written in the past tense so that it refers to the Israelites being recently spared from Egyptian plagues. If so, then it should not be understood as a promise at all, just as a reminder to them of what had already happened due to God's mercy.

Or we could go as far as Bernard Ramm and ask whether these words from God might be not a promise but a warning to a nation who “now thought that she was spiritually superior to the Egyptians.”

But assuming that it is a promise to the Jews, an even more important factor to keep in mind is whether it is a promise that (a) carries on over to New Testament believers and (b) is even to be applied on an individual basis rather than a communal one. Both of these contentions are dubious at best, especially the second point since throughout the history books in the OT blessings or curses are always associated with the actions of the Twelve Tribes or their designated leader, the king. As the majority of the nation went one way or another, all the people suffered or were blessed as a whole.

And in terms of the NT witness, it is true that Jesus and his apostles exercised the power to relieve the sufferings of certain individuals. But at the same time, Jesus made it clear that the fact a person had an illness should not be viewed as a sign of disobedience to God in any way. This was a huge change from the general OT attitude that equated prosperity and good health as the prime indicator of God's blessings on a person. Jesus turned that idea on its head by denouncing the rich and favoring the poor and disadvantaged. Thus, it is no accident that those who tout the prosperity gospel turn to the Old Testament to support their ideas and ignore much of the teachings of Jesus and James on that subject.

Next, let us consider the immediate context of Exodus 15:26 a little more closely. This verse is actually sandwiched between two occasions (15:23-25 and 15:27) where God provides drinkable water for the Israelites by having a log thrown into the water. So Ramm asks, “Why does this section occur here?...It may be connected with the healing of the bitter water at Marah. God is saying in effect, 'Just as I could heal the bitter waters of Marah, I can heal your bitter diseases.'”

Cole expresses this same idea when he states that “presumably the diseases 'put upon' the Egyptians refer in the first place to the plagues in general, but in particular to the turning of the water into blood, which made it undrinkable. Israel will never find the water that God supplies unpalatable: he is YWH their healer.”

Childs says that “the connection between the 'healing' of the water and 'Yahweh their healer' (v. 26) seems to be a very ancient one...The story is reminiscent of certain features in the plague tradition, in which the miracle is effected by means of a particular use of an ordinary rod (4:2) or by changing a common substance into something uncommon (9:8).” I would emend his statement a little bit to state that it has a more obvious similarity to the first plague in which the striking of the water with a (wooden) rod of staff turns water into blood. So this first positive miracle after crossing the Red Sea forms a perfect parallel, or reversal to be more precise, with the first plague. And other allusions to the ten plagues follow immediately:

The next testing of the Israelites in the story occurs in Exodus 16 when the people complain about the lack of food and God “rains down food from heaven.” (16:4) This a reversal of sorts of three separate plagues – those of the hail, locust, and animal pestilence which destroyed the food supply of the Egyptians. We could also contrast the frogs covering the land of Egypt in Exodus 8:6 and the locust covering the land in 10:15 with the quail covering the camp in 16:13. Another possible comparison is seen in the stinking of the Nile (7:7) and the stinking of the dead frogs (8:14) with the fouling of the manna by worms after one day (16:20). The final plague on Egypt and the final test of the Israelites have a similar correspondence: In both cases, obedience to God's commands allows the Jews to ward off a hostile attack by an adversary, the angel of death in the first instance and the Amelekite army in the second case.

All of the above examples serve to demonstrate two facts. First, the translation “diseases” in Exodus 15:26 is probably not the best one in this case since it obviously applies to a wide number of disasters, few of which have anything to do with medical conditions. Secondly, just as the plagues were visited on the Egyptian people as a whole, so the promise given in Exodus 15:26 obviously applies to the corporate body of Israelites, not primarily to the individuals.

 

"SATAN HINDERED US" (I THESSALONIANS 2:18)

Paul writes to this church, probably from Corinth, “For we wanted to come to you – certainly I, Paul, wanted to again and again – but Satan blocked our way.”

The first point we note in this verse is the way Paul states his name and uses the first person singular, I, in place of the plural form that occurs in most of the letter. I have explained elsewhere (see my post on “I and II Thessalonians: Introduction to the Literary Structure”) that this is probably a joint letter written by Paul, Silvanus, and possibly Timothy. Cousins, thus, feels free to deduce, “The first use in this letter of the first person singular emphasizes the depth of the apostle's emotion.” In a similar vein, Morris says, “Throughout these two Epistles [I and II Thessalonians]...the plural is used much more than in most of Paul's letters. This makes the singular the more significant when it does occur.”

As far as the key verb “blocked, or hindered,” Morris explains, “The verb used here means literally 'to cut into.' Milligan says the idea is that of cutting up a road to make it impassible, and thus of hindering in general.”

A. There are several questions we could ask in regard to this verse. The most obvious one is that we are certainly curious as to the manner in which Satan prevented Paul from returning to Thessalonica. The more cautious commentators respond in the following fashion:

    “Though the separation's immediate cause is unstated,Paul recognizes in it the work of Satan...” (A. Smith)

    “It is useless to speculate on the nature of the repeated difficulties that hindered the visit.” (Cousins)

    “It is no longer possible to determine what hindrances Paul classified as Satan's work.” (Peisker)

    As to the specific roadblock Paul is referring to, “we can only speculate.” (Elias)

    “As to the particular mode Satan's activities took,...we are completely in the dark in this matter, and all the attempts are simply guess work.” (Morris)

    Hendricksen asks, “Just how did Satan do this?” and answers, “We just do not know. Moreover, it does not matter.”

    “Presumably both Paul and the Thessalonians knew well what the interference was. Since we lack this information, it is better for us to confess our ignorance than express an unwarranted confidence.” (Stott)

Despite the above warnings, several specific reasons have been advanced as to the nature of Satan's hindering activities. Perhaps the most popular of these stems from a consideration of the events described in Acts 17, where Paul and his companions first visited the Thessalonians and were the center of a controversy that caused the new believer Jason, and perhaps his friends, to have to put up bail or security money ensuring that no further turmoil would happen.

F.F. Bruce points out that this was William Ramsay's interpretation of Paul's comment. And Bruce adds that “Paul friends had no doubt gone bail for him without his consent, but once they had done so, his hands were tied. He might well discern satanic machinations behind the politarchs' decision, while they themselves would regard their decision as mild but effective.” Toussaint agrees with this assessment: “If more trouble arose, Jason and the others would lose their money. This may explain why Paul was prohibited from returning.”

As persuasive as this explanation appears to be, there are at least two objections that can be advanced against it. First, if it was due to the bond money put up by Jason, then how was Paul able to send Timothy, one of the original “instigators,” back to Thessalonica so soon after their initial visit (I Thessalonians 3:2) and yet Paul himself was not allowed to go? Secondly, unless the leaders of the city imposed bail money a number of times on Jason, why does Paul say that “time and time again” he was prevented?

Three other possible explanations of the nature of Satan's actions have been advanced: (1) It was due to recurrences of Paul's medical condition: his thorn in the side from Satan, (2) There was some additional opposition from Jews in Thessalonica (although that would also have prevented Timothy from returning), or (3) There was some sin or scandal in Corinth that kept Paul occupied there (Stott).

Whatever the exact mechanism of hindering, the next pair of related question to ask is why Paul attributed it to supernatural causes and why did he attribute it to Satan rather than to God. Various scholars weigh in on those points:

    “They were no doubt explicable by natural causes, but Paul does not take them as 'the Lord's will', rather seeing behind them the 'prince of this world.'” (Cousins)  Of course, this statement does not really answer either question; it just states the facts.

    Constable goes a little further: “Was Satan responsible, or was God, or were other people? Paul's reason for deciding to return was to provide additional spiritual help for the new converts. This by itself is clearly the will of God in any situation. Seen as such, any hindrance becomes opposition to the will of God. Regardless of who was involved on the human level, the ultimate leader of this kind of opposition is Satan.” This argument is by no means a fool-proof one. Just pointing to one simple fact is enough to demolish it: By being hindered from ministering in one church, Paul was able to minister in another one. Thus, it could easily be attributed to God's will rather than Satan's.

    Elias also fails to deal with this ambiguity when he says, “This reference to Satan's interference in the missionary enterprise reflects Paul's apocalyptic viewpoint. Beyond the external forces which hinder the proclamation of the gospel, Paul sees the evil powers of the present age and the pervasive dominance of Satan, their superintendent.”

    Hendricksen echoes some of the above pronouncements: “The fact as such that Satan exerts a powerful influence over the affairs of men, especially when they endeavor to promote the interests of of the kingdom of God, is sufficiently clear from other passages (Job 1:6-12; Zech. 3:1; cf. Daniel, chapter 10).” But it should be pointed out that in each of these cited cases, God used Satan's plans against him in order that He would be glorified even more. In the same manner, keep in mind that we would not even have I and II Thessalonians today with its enduring teachings if Paul had been allowed to return and teach the church there in person.

So this brings us to the difficult theological and practical issues involved in trying to parcel out Satan's actions from those of God, and to personally discern the will of God for our lives through circumstances. Some scholars have wrestled with those matters for us:

    Peisker notes, “In Acts 16:6 Paul is prevented by the Holy Spirit from preaching the gospel in the Roman province of Asia. By this comment Luke intends to demonstrate God's leading along the road towards Europe...Paul was prevented from going to Rome (Rom 1:13)...It is striking that both Paul and Luke see the ultimate origin of hindrances affecting Christians not in the actions of the people concerned but in God himself.”

    Bruce also points out Paul's prevention from visiting Rome (citing Romans 15:22 in addition) but also the confusing fact that “he discerned supernatural interference from a different source at times [as in I Thessalonians 2:18].”

    This leads John Stott to ponder, “A more important question is why Paul attributed this blockage to Satan, while attributing others to God. One answer could be that God gave Paul spiritual discernment between providential and demonic happenings.” Evidence for this ready explanation comes from the fact that one of the gifts of the Spirit listed by Paul elsewhere is the discernment of spirits.

Stott continues, “Another is that the attribution could be made only with the benefit of hindsight.” I believe that we can all relate to this one. How many times have you looked back at all the twists and turns your life has taken and realized that it all had a part in shaping who you are today, for better or for worse?

But then Stott comes to a final, and the preferred, solution by citing Calvin: “A third and more theological perspective is to say that 'both statements are true. Although Satan does his part,God still retains supreme authority.” This is probably most clearly seen in two OT instances: Satan and/or God inciting David to take a census of the people and the throne scene which opens the Book of Job.

    Finally, Wanamaker points out a potential danger in attributing circumstances to demonic forces: “To what extent is it helpful or even legitimate to think of Satan as a personal force able to interfere in human existence? Without wishing to deny the existence of a personal evil power, I believe that we should take Best seriously when he warns against the danger of too easily using Satan as an explanation for evil and human failures. Such a practice often leads people to obscure the real causes of evil and results in their failing to deal with those causes.”

Application

In closing, I would like to cite a few passages from Garry Friesen's helpful book Decision Making & the Will of God. He discusses three factors that are often said to be in play in our attempting to discern God's will from experiences and circumstances in our lives: our inward feelings, closed doors, and open doors.

He asks, “How is God's individual will communicated?” It has been proposed that we should listen to the small voice inside us. He responds that “impressions could be produced by a number of sources: God, Satan, an angel, a demon, human emotions (such as fear or ecstasy), hormonal imbalance, insomnia, medication, or an upset stomach...tremendous frustration has been experienced by sincere Christians who have earnestly but fruitlessly sought to decipher the code of the inward witness.”

Concerning closed doors: “We must, however, use caution with this road sign. Experienced saints know that sometimes a door may look closed, but in reality God is using that circumstance to test and strengthen that person's faith. You may find that God is saying, 'Wait, and I will open this door later.'”

Concerning open doors, Friesen refers to Acts 14:27; I Corinthians 16:9; II Corinthians 2:12; Colossians 4:3 and Revelation 3:8. After reflecting on this passages, he concludes that these opportunities for ministry sent from God “should be utilized as part of wise, resourceful living for the Lord (Ephesians 5:15-16). But “if a greater opportunity or more pressing work is at hand, it is acceptable and proper to pass by the open door; an 'open door' is not a direct providential sign from God telling the believer to go in a certain direction.”

Friesen has much more valuable advice on this whole subject, and so I urge you to get a copy of his book if you are interested in this general subject.

 

I KINGS 20 AND I KINGS 21

I have already written post entitled “I Kings 20-21” in which these chapters were analyzed verse by verse. But one aspect I left out was that of the textual traditions.

Many, but not all, Christians realize that there are often a number of small variations in wording of a given passage found when comparing the available ancient Bible manuscripts. In the case of the Old Testament writings, our best and earliest witnesses to the text are the standard Hebrew text (called the Masoretic Text, or MT), the early Greek translation called the Septuagint (abbreviated as LXX), and some of the Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran and written in Hebrew. In the vast majority of cases where these texts differ from one another, translators have preferred to stick to the MT, unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise.

There are a number of times when the MT and LXX differ in minor ways, none affecting any doctrinal issues. But one interesting variation is found in the case of I Kings 20-21. The Septuagint actually reverses the order of these two chapters. We have found no copies of this passage in the Qumran scrolls which might help decide which of these two has the original order and which one has deliberately switched the order for some reason or another. Since there is no particularly overwhelming reason why one variation appears to be superior to the other, all modern translations I have seen simply take the conservative approach and stick with the MT.

But scholars can't just let it go at that, and so attempts have been made to defend either the Hebrew or Greek text as superior. G. H. Jones summarizes the current state of affairs by saying that recent investigations into the text of I-II Kings have resulted in “the acceptance of a more positive attitude towards the Greek translation...” He concludes that “when the Greek diverges from the Hebrew, all the evidence has to be carefully considered in order to assess the significance of each divergence.” At the present time, “There is no consensus among commentators regarding the 'original order of these chapters.” (Mordechai Cogan) I am no scholar, but I do have a technique that might help in this regard, analysis of literary structure, and so I will enter the fray.

The first thing to note regarding these two chapters is that they definitely belong together as a cohesive literary unit, and the overall form this unit takes is two parallel stories, given below in the order of the Hebrew text:

Figure 1: Structure of I Kings 20-21 (Hebrew text)

1. Ben-hadad wants Ahab's money, wives and children (20:1-6)

        2. Ahab defeats Ben-hadad's forces with a prophet's help but sins in the process (20:17-34)

                3. Judgment is pronounced on Ahab through the prophet (20:35-44)

                        4. Ahab's response (20:43)

1'. Ahab wants to buy Naboth's land (21:1-4)

        2'. Ahab gets the land with Jezebel's help but sins in the process (21:5-16)

                3'. Judgment is pronounced on Ahab through the prophet Elijah (21:17-26)

                        4'. Ahab's response (21:27)

The next thing to consider is how I Kings 20-21 fits in with the passages on either side. Shenkel feels that the reverse order found in the Septuagint must be the superior text since it brings together chapter 21 directly with all the stories of Elijah and King Ahab found in chapters 17-19. In addition, another effect of adopting the LXX order is to more closely combine all the wars with Aram found in chapters 20 and 22.

Burney also sides with the LXX for an entirely different reason, namely, his suspicion that the Hebrew text was the one doing the reversing in order to more closely associate (a) the prophecy of Ahab's death with its occurrence and (b) the two descriptions of the king's dismal mood in 20:43 and 21:4. If you examine Burney's reasoning a little more closely, it is easy to pick holes in it.

First to note is that his method of reasoning is actually a reversal of Shenkel's. Shenkel picks LXX because it does a better job of grouping together similar stories whereas Burney suspects the MT order for the very same reason – it does a better job of associating similar stories and expressions. A second problem with Burney's reason is that the traditional order of the chapters does not end in chapter 21 with a prediction of Ahab's death (which happens in 22:37-40) at all; instead it relates a stay of execution for Ahab due to his repentance. But the order in the Septuagint does contain a definite announcement of Ahab's demise at the end of chapter 20 (verse 42). By Burney's logic then, it is the LXX which should be more suspect. As to the similarities between I Kings 20:43 and 21:4, I will get to them in a minute.

If the above structure in Figure 1 were all there was to this organization, then it alone could not be helpful in distinguishing which textual tradition was the superior one since the two parallel units stand even if the order of the chapters is transposed. However, three passages need to be considered in the analysis. For one thing, this nice, neat arrangement does not yet include the end of chapter 21, God's response to Ahab's repentance found in 21:28-29. This ending has no correspondence in chapter 20. But if the order of the two chapters are reversed, the following symmetry results:

Figure 2: Structure of I Kings 21-20 (Greek text)

CYCLE I

        1. Ahab wants to buy Naboth's land (21:1-4)

                2. Ahab gets the land with Jezebel's help but sins in the process (21:5-16)

                        3. Judgment is pronounced on Ahab through the prophet Elijah (21:17-26)

                                4. Ahab's response (21:27)

                                                CENTER UNIT: God delays Ahab's Punishment (21:28-29)

CYCLE II

        1'. Ben-hadad wants Ahab's money, wives and children (20:1-6)

                2'. Ahab defeats Ben-hadad's forces with a prophet's help but sins in the process (20:17-34)

                        3'. Judgment is pronounced on Ahab through the prophet (20:35-44)

                                4'. Ahab's response (20:43)

Confirmation of this as the original order are (a) the logical stress of the whole unit on God's mercy in the face of repentance (I Kings 21:28-29) and (b) the perfect bookends it provides in bounding both chapters at the beginning and end (a literary technique called an inclusio).

    “Ahab went home resentful and sullen” (21:4)

    “The king of Israel set out toward home, resentful and sullen.” (20:43)

This is certainly not the definitive answer to the question at hand, but it is one more piece of evidence favoring the Septuagint's order of chapters 20-21.