WHATEVER HAPPENED TO PAUL? (ACTS 28)

What was Paul's fate? The Book of Acts leaves the question up in the air. The only vague hint within that book that he will be released from the Roman imprisonment mentioned in Acts 28 is found by considering the many parallels in the book between the lives of Peter and Paul. The last major story regarding Peter in Acts before Paul takes the center stage in the book is his imprisonment in ch. 12. Just as Peter is miraculously released to continue his ministry, one may feel confident that the same will happen to Paul.

But, in fact, there are competing stories as to what really happened to Paul in the last years of his life. And W. Neil notes: “What happened to Paul after Luke's story ends is to some extent conjectural...But, whatever preceded it, Paul's martyrdom in Rome at the same time as Peter's as a result of the Emperor Nero's victimization of the Christians for the burning of the city in A.D. 64 is so firmly embedded in early church tradition that we may take it as established.” Bruce adds that Paul's death was by beheading and he was buried on a site now marked by the basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls. Here are the two main possibilities in summary:

A. Trial after first imprisonment during which he is found guilty and executed.

As Barclay states, “As far as we know Paul never got to Spain, for in Jerusalem he encountered the trouble which led to his long imprisonment and his death. It would seem that this was one plan of the great pioneer which never was worked out.” In agreement with Barclay's assessment is the fact that if Paul never carried out his missionary plan it would certainly not be the first time in Paul's career that God intervened and pushed Paul in an unexpected direction.

Against this view, aside from later church tradition, is the fact pointed out by F.F. Bruce that the “two year” imprisonment in Rome is an important fact since there was a roughly 18-month statutory time limit for a prosecutor to present his case before the throne. And “Roman law was apt to deal hardly with unsuccessful prosecutors, especially if their charges appeared under examination to be merely vexatious.” So that would mean that Paul's trial would have been held no later than A.D. 62. However, as pointed out above, there is a very firm early tradition connecting Paul's execution with the events of A.D. 64 instead. So this view must be considered far from proven.

B. Release from the first imprisonment in Rome, followed by a resumption of his ministry, later re-imprisonment, and execution.

John Stott asks, “Was Paul released after the 'two whole years' Luke mentions (30)? He clearly expected to be [see Philippians 1:19-26 and Philemon, written during this imprisonment]. And the Pastoral Epistles supply evidence that he was, for he resumed his travels for about two more years before being re-arrested, re-tried, condemned and executed in A.D. 64.”

As to why Paul was released, Ramsay felt that the case went default because it exceeded the legal limit before being brought to court; Sherwin-White suggested that he was casually released as an imperial act of clemency; and of course there is always the possibility that Paul was simply acquitted of all charges.

Towner reviews the evidence and concludes that “a release and second Roman imprisonment remains a possibility.” Bruce reminds us that both the early church historian Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2.22 (relying on even earlier reliable sources) as well as St. Jerome report Paul's second arrest, also referenced in II Timothy 1:16-18 and 4:16-18. The II Timothy references alone should be enough to answer the question definitively. And they do for those of us who feel that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul rather than a later imitator.

But confusing the issue even further is the question of what Paul did with the approximately two years he had in between his two imprisonments. Two possible answers have been given:

1. Ministry in Spain

The evidence for this scenario comes from several sources. In the first place, there is Paul's statement of his own intention in his letter to the Roman church written before his imprisonment there. Paul says in Romans 15:23-24a, “But now, with no further place for me in these regions, I desire as I have for many years, to come to you when I go to Spain.” And then a few verses later, “So, when I have delivered...to them what has been collected (i.e. the offering to the church in Jerusalem), I will set out by way of you to Spain.” (v. 28).

Of course, Paul's plans were upset when he arrived in Jerusalem and was arrested, leading to his eventual appeal to Caesar causing his detainment in Rome instead. But the mere indication of Paul's desire to continue his ministry to Spain gives us a hint as to what he might do if he is acquitted.

Clement, one of the prominent leaders of the Roman church during the latter part of the first century A.D. writes in I Clement 5.7 that Paul managed to reach “the limits of the west.” Leon Morris and many others note that to a Roman that phrase probably referred to Spain. Fitzmyer adds, “For Paul Spain represents the unconverted world of the west, the pagans in a remote part of the Roman Empire, where, it seems, Latin was the dominant language.”

Additional early Christian tradition indicates the same basic scenario. This includes the evidence from the late 2^nd century fragment written in Latin and called the Muratorian Canon. It contains, besides the earliest listing of NT canonical books, an account of Paul departing from the City (i.e. Rome) on his journey to Spain. This same picture is given in the apocryphal Acts of Peter 1.1.

2. Further Ministry in Asia

Towner points out that evidence in II Timothy is that Paul utilized that short time between imprisonments to go to Asia instead. Apparently, during the time of his first incarceration he, for some reason, changed his future ministry plans completely. Or there is possibly even enough time for Paul to have made a short, and perhaps unsuccessful ministry trip to Spain, followed by a return to Asia.

As Towner summarizes the situation, “The question in all of this is the reliability of the tradition.”

 

CONTRADICTION: II KINGS 23:22 AND II CHRONICLES 30:26

Two kings really stand out during the Divided Monarchy: Hezekiah and Josiah. Both were responsible for carrying out extensive religious reforms during their respective reigns. And one of these common reforms was to revive the celebration of the Feast of Passover.  However, some scholars such as J.B. Segal see a clear contradiction between the two verses above. Here is how they read in the RSV:

    Hezekiah's Passover – “So there was great joy in Jerusalem for since the time of Solomon the son of David king of Israel there had been nothing like this in Jerusalem.” (II Chronicles 30:26)

    Josiah's Passover – “For no such passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, or during all the days of the kings of Israel or of the kings of Judah.” (II Kings 23:22)

The problem is that the author of Kings makes no mention of an earlier Passover under King Hezekiah and in II Kings 23:22 seems to be totally unaware of it ever happening. But one thing should be noted up front – the Chronicler in II Chronicles 35:18 repeats II Kings 23:22 almost verbatim:

    Josiah's Passover – “No passover like it had been kept in Israel since the days of Samuel the prophet; none of the kings of Israel had kept such a passover as was kept by Josiah, etc.” (II Chronicles 35:18)
    
Therefore, if there is a conflict between Chronicles and Kings, that same contradiction also applies within the book of II Chronicles itself. It is highly unlikely that the Chronicler would have left such a glaring mistake in his book if indeed there is a mistake. Here are a few ways in which the seeming contradiction between the two accounts can be resolved:

    Rudolph feels that the solution lies in the fact that the emphasis in II Chronicles 30:26 is on the “joy” of the people on that earlier occasion, not on the Passover observance itself. Fitting in with that explanation is the observation that the verse does not even mention the “Passover.”  Thus, Myers points out that it is not even referred to as any special feast.

    Cogan and Tadmor feel that the special nature of Josiah's Passover is that it “was the first centralized celebration of Passover, since the days of Israel's entry into the land; the last reported passover is in Josh 5:10-11.” Many scholars, however, would disagree with that statement unless Cogan and Tadmor do not count the earlier Passover during Hezekiah's reign because it did not meet all the requirements of a bona fide Passover as outlined in the Pentateuch. See below for other scholars who zero in on that distinction.

    House summarizes some of the main points: The distinction the Chronicler makes, then, may lie in the fact that the number of offerings and celebrants at Josiah's Passover exceeded that of Hezekiah. Unlike in Hezekiah's era, people from all the tribes appear for Passover, and Josiah's festival follows Moses' prescriptions more closely than Hezekiah's. Given the Chronicler's date it seems that 2 Kgs 23:22 speaks more of this Passover's thoroughness and attention to covenant standards than of the absolute uniqueness of an Passover event whatsoever.”

Williamson mentions some of these irregularities in the earlier Passover including (1) celebration in the second month instead of the first and (2) “lack of preparation even on the part of many who participated.” Regarding the first point, Numbers 9:9-12 did allow individuals who had not been able to celebrate Passover on time to do so on the second month. However, “Exceptionally, this was here [II Chronicles 30] applied to the whole community.” R.A. Stewart states that Hezekiah was able to take advantage of this exception “because the people are not gathered in Jerusalem, and the priests are not in a state of levitical purity, at the earlier date.”

Another major difference between the two Passover observances is pointed out by Williamson, who feels that the phrase in II Chronicles 25:18 (“no passover like it”) specifically refers to the prominent role played by the Levites in it. However, the same phrase in II Kings referred to the fact that the Passover was “a centralized celebration in Jerusalem.” Myers similarly says that “all in all, there can be no doubt about the writer's feeling for the Levites – they were present everywhere and played a significant role in every phase of the celebration...Another noticeable feature is the combination of the passover with the burnt offering.”

A completely different way of resolving the differences is to consider the roles the literary structures of two books play.    

                                                        Structure of II Chronicles 10-36

A. Kingdom of Judah before the Fall of Israel (II Chron. 10-27)
    1. Rehoboam to Jehoshaphat (chs.10-20) (4 mixed and 1 positive)
        2. Revolt Led by Jehoiada (chs. 21-23) (3 negative)
    1'. Joash to Jotham (chs. 24-27) (4 mixed and 1 positive)

            B. Spiritual Reform under King Hezekiah (II Chron. 28:1-33:20)
                1. Ahaz (ch. 28) (negative)
                    2. Hezekiah's Reforms (chs. 29-32) (positive)
                1'. Manasseh (33:1-9) (negative)
                    2'. Manasseh (33:10-21) (positive)

A'. Kingdom of Judah after the Fall of Israel (II Chron. 33:21-36:21)
    1. Amon (33:21-25) (negative)
        2. Josiah's Reforms (chs. 34-35) (positive)
    1'. Last Kings (36:1-21) (negative)

The center units, labeled “2,” of each major subsection share quite similar themes as well as some specific details:
    a. The word “covenant” only appears within this section in the “2” units:
three times in A2 (23:1,3,16), once in B2 (29:10), and four times in A'2 (34:30-32)
    b. Each of the three “2” units has events which take place in the Temple.
    c. Major Passover observances occur in B2 and A'2.
    d. Josiah's reforms in A'2 are a “recapitulation of Hezekiah's work” in B2. (Williamson)
    e. De Vries notes that “cautious criticism of the priests in relation to the Levites” appears in B2 and A'2.  Both these sections also contain the phrase “chief of the house of God” and the key word “remnant.”  The pair Merari/Kohath appears in both places as well as Aseph (twice in each).

Thus, the similarities in wording between II Chronicles 30:26 and 35:18 are quite purposeful and intended to draw a verbal parallel between these two reforming kings, not to create any sort of contradiction.

                                                     Structure of II Kings 21:1-23:30

1.  Manasseh’s evil deeds (21:1-26)
rebuilds high places and altars, burns his son, soothsayers
            and mediums, judgment on Judah foretold, Manasseh dies
                2.  Josiah reads the book and repents (22:1-13) (“the king sent”)
                    3.  Prophecy against Judah (22:14-20)
                2'.  People hear the book read and repent (23:1-3) (“the king sent”)
1'. Manasseh’s deeds undone (23:4-30)
temple cleansed and high places torn down, future burning
            of sons prevented, mediums removed, judgment on Judah
            foretold, Josiah dies

Moving next to the book of II Kings, in this case the author is drawing a purposeful contrast between the wicked King Manasseh and King Josiah. To do that, he has shown how Josiah systematically reversed all the evil deeds of his predecessor one by one. But since one of Manasseh's many sins was not a refusal to observe the Passover, the author felt no need to point out Josiah's effort in that direction. So the absence of its mention is not necessarily an indication that the author knew nothing at all about it, just that it didn’t fit into the story he was telling.
 

THE TOWER OF BABEL (GENESIS 11:1-9)

This is a very well known story, but you may be surprised to learn there are still several opinions as to what it is all about, especially regarding the exact nature of the sin and God's subsequent response to it.

    1. One interpretation is that it is simply an etiological tale (i.e. one made up to explain the origin of something) giving a reason for the various languages and national groups in the world. This view mainly comes from critical sources which tend to label most of the Genesis 1-11 as inspired myth which may possess a good moral but is not really based on historical reality.

As Ross says, “The significance of this short account is great. It explains to God's people how the nations came to be scattered abroad. The import, however, goes much deeper.”

    2. Another take on the story is that the people of Babel didn't do anything particularly wrong, but their concerted actions caused God to detect a future threat to His own power if allowed to continue. Those who hold to this view often cite the similarity to Genesis 3:22 where God expresses alarm that Adam and Eve might eat of the Tree of Life and have eternal life as He does. For example, Carr interprets God's words in v. 6 as His “fearing the human power that might result from ethnic and linguistic unity.” But one would have to possess an exceedingly low view of God to believe that He was concerned in any way whatsoever about the possibility of any humans being raising themselves up to threaten God's sovereignty in any way.

In the case of the Tower of Babel episode this is made abundantly clear in Genesis 11:4-5 where the inhabitants of Babel attempt to build a tower with its top in the heavens. But in order to view this grand tower, God needs to “come down” to even see it. It is that puny.

    3. A much more acceptable and favored view is a variation on the theme that God's fear was indeed that mankind had overstepped its bounds. However, the potential danger wasn't to His own status but to the danger they might do to themselves and the creation when they attempted to increase the time of their existence (Genesis 3) or limit the space that God wished them to occupy (Genesis 11). As Ringgren puts it, “This action of God is both punishment and a preventative measure; it prevents men from going too far in their pride.”

    4. Michael S. Heiser has practically made a career of promulgating his unique view that the sin of the people at Babel was so bad that God scattered them to the winds and washed His hands of these people, who became the “nations” of the earth. For example, in his book Unseen, Heiser repeatedly (64 times) states that these nations because of their actions at Babel were “disinherited,” “abandoned,” “forsaken,” or “punished.” But he never once explains this view or the exact nature of the sin that caused such a serious reaction from God. In addition, the idea of God abandoning the other nations is contradicted in passages such as Isaiah 19:25; 54:5; and Jeremiah 32:27. For more on Heiser's views, see my post “Psalm 82.”

    5. God intended for mankind to continue living off of the land rather than settling in a city. This view is countered by Andrews: “God punished their arrogance by scattering them abroad over the face of the earth. But no mention is made in the text that this scattering is intended to foster a return to the ideal of a pastoral, nomadic lifestyle.”

    6. God was upset over the use of new technology to build the tower (baked bricks and tar as mortar). Apparently, this view has been proposed at one time or another. However, it is expressly denied by scholars such as Martens and Osborne.

Of the above views, only #3 commands almost universal acceptance. And within that framework, the general nature of the sin involved at Babel has been variously described:

Kline says that “their own further dispersion from Babel (vv. 8f.) is recorded as a special judgment on their blatant embodiment of the ungodly spirit that again after the Flood characterized human civilization...The city once more (cf. Gn. 4) becomes the cultural focus of mounting arrogance.”

Ellison: “The memory of the Flood seems only to have acted merely as a call to show man's power in defiance of God.”

As to the exact nature of the sin described in Genesis 11, it really contains three components:

    1. The first is best expressed by Jacques Ellul: “The point of the story is the problem of the name, and the city and its tower are a means of obtaining the name. How important a name was for an Israelite is well known. It is the sign of dominion and has a spiritual quality. God gave a name to the first man. Man in turn named all the animals. Thus a relationship is established in which the one named becomes the object of the one naming...They want to name themselves.” He explains this as “the desire to exclude God from his creation.” But God “knows that man's spiritual conquest can lead only to one end – spiritual and material death...But because God wants his creatures to live, he keeps the break from happening.”

Wenham seconds Ellul's view when he says that 'to make a name for ourselves' “suggests impiety...elsewhere in Scripture it is God alone who makes a name for himself.”

    2. The second aspect concerns the tower itself and what it represents. Osborne states, “traditionally the sin that God punished in the Babel story has been seen as an act of hubris in which human beings attempted to build a tower that would, in their view, enable them to assault heaven itself (much like Adam and Eve's sin).” And Wenham says, “From a purely human viewpoint, building a tower as high as the sky is an audacious undertaking, but it seems likely that Genesis views it as a sacrilege...building the tower, an arrogant undertaking in itself, may be the forerunner of yet further trespass on the divine prerogatives.”

Also, Hamilton feels that the intent in building the tower was not to actually reach heaven but “the completion of such a titanic building would bring a certain fame and immortality to its builders.” He supports that view of their motive by citing the fact that “with its peak in the heavens” and similar language is employed figuratively in passages such as Deuteronomy 1:28; 9:1 and Jeremiah 51:53.

There may indeed be an element of this aspect in Genesis 11, but even this is not the whole story.

    3. “Whereas earlier verses in the narrative mentioned both the city and the tower (vv. 4,5), the conclusion to v. 8 focuses only on the halting of the city. This indicates that it was the building of the city, and not the tower per se, that provoked divine displeasure.” (Hamilton) Thus, Wenham says, “Possibly the desire to congregate in one place should be seen as a rejection of the divine command 'to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth.'”

Similarly, Osborne mentions that some “have argued that the builders' disobedience at Babel was simply their determination to resist the divine command to spread out and 'fill the earth,' a stance that God had to overcome so that the intended blessing could proceed.” And Mertens says that the “sin, so it might be inferred, [was] because of a people's refusal to fill the earth as God commanded and also because of humans' invading the divine realm and so exceeding set limits.”

A.P. Ross seems to also endorse this view although he words it a little differently: “Their major error was not the building of a city or a tower but the attempt to unite and live in one place...According to the Lord's evaluation, their desire to enhance their unity and strength has potential for the greatest evil.”

GRACE

One aspect of God's response to the tower builders that is often ignored is that He is not merely punishing them, and certainly not abandoning them as Heiser repeatedly claims, but He is also protecting them. In this respect, God's actions are consistent with Him providing suitable clothing for Adam and Eve after they had sinned (Genesis 3:21) as well as hinting at a future savior for mankind in Genesis 3:15. Similarly, note the way that God provided Cain with a protective mark after he had killed his brother and was condemned to wander (Genesis 4:12-15). Here is what several scholars have to say on this subject:

Osborne: The builders' use of power and technology “to create a stronghold for a meaningful life apart from God inevitably posed a threat to the ordered world. It would, therefore, ultimately invite divine intervention, both in judgment and with offers of grace.” The punishment “led to the dreadful loss of human unity: the 'one people' ('am) became the 'nations' (goyim), so God chose, in Abraham, a new 'am through which to bless the whole world.”

Williamson specifically connects the call of Abraham in the very next episode of Genesis with the tower of Babel incident, suggesting that “the promissory agenda of Genesis 12:1-3 comprises the element of divine grace that otherwise would, somewhat anomalously, be missing.”

Heath: “By introducing many languages and scattering the people, God spares people and the rest of creation from the evil consequences that would otherwise result.” He cites this as yet another of God's many acts of grace.

 

MATTHEW 16:27-28 -- A FALSE PROPHECY?

Matthew 16:27-28: Part 1 Isn't this a false prophecy since Jesus did not come “soon?”

According to Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, the verb mello can have several meanings, the most common of which are (1) about to do, or on the point of doing, (2) designed or fated to do, and (3) highly likely or certain to do. RSV, AB, NICNT and NEB adopt the second meaning, and most other translations lean toward a neutral word like “will” or “shall” or infer a strong meaning closer to (3) by employing “is to come.”

However, even if mello itself proves little in terms of timing, Jesus' statement in v. 28 is more definite and implies a future time in which some, but not all, of those in his audience will either be dead or will not experience the event in their lifetime. This seems to definitively rule out the Second Coming/Last Judgment since all of Jesus' audience are long dead by now (unless one feels that Jesus was mistaken about the date, which is unlikely in view of Matthew 24:36). The live possibilities still remaining, however, are (1) the Transfiguration, (2) the Resurrection/Ascension, (3) Day of Pentacost, and (4) the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

In favor of Interpretation 1 is the close association of that event in both Matthew and Mark's Gospels, and the fact that it seems to be Peter's own interpretation of Jesus' words (see II Peter 1:16-18). According to this interpretation, the Transfiguration was a foreshadowing of, or down payment on, Jesus' future glorified role in heaven.

Mark's earlier account of Jesus' speech adds the phrase “coming in power,” which would associate Jesus' words with either the resurrection (Rom. 1:4) or with the events on the Day of Pentacost (Acts 1:8). Christ's statement in Matthew 28:18 may be the fulfillment of Jesus' words in Chapter 16 according to Interpretation 2.

Interpretation 4 fits the rough time frame of the prophecy quite well and has the advantage of being the only one in which an act of judgment (Matthew 16:27a) figures in. However, the Destruction of Jerusalem could hardly be described as “repaying everyone for what has been done.” (see the question below for further discussion).

Finally, none of the suggestions above accounts for the absence of angels. However, as William Hendricksen notes, verse 27a does not say that anyone will see Jesus come with his angels, and 27b only says that some will see him “in his kingdom” or “in his royal dignity.”

The best explanation I was able to find came from R. T. France's commentary on Matthew. He notes that Matthew's passage harkens back to Daniel 7 and must be understood in light of that chapter. In Daniel 7, the Son of Man comes into the heavenly presence of God and his angels and is given an eternal dominion and glory and kingship (7:13-14) and presumably participates in the day-by-day judgment of earthly kingdoms even before the time of the Last Judgment (7:26-27). Thus, Matt. 16:27a can be translated “For the Son of Man will come into the presence of his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done.” When some of the apostles see Jesus in his glory either at the Transfiguration or after His resurrection and ascension to the Father or through His powerful spirit at the Day of Pentacost, they are experiencing the beginning of the Son of Man's kingdom reign.

Matthew 16:27-28: Part 2 Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this passage refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD? Here are three arguments I have read that favor that interpretation:

A. It depends on who the “everyone” is. Jesus said all the blood of all the martyrs would be avenged on the Jews of his generation in his generation (Matthew 23:29-36).

B. He didn’t say everyone on the planet, but only the Jews of his day (Matthew 24).

C. The judgment of Matthew 25:31-46 was a judgment on all the nations of Palestine, not the whole globe since Matthew 25 is based on Joel 3, just as Matthew 24 is based on Joel 2 (cf. Acts 2:16), and Joel links his two chapters together in 3:1, using “in that day,” and you can read the nations as Tyre, Sidon, Edom, Philistia, etc.

Argument A is not really true. That passage (and all of Chapter 23) is only directed to the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees who persecute the saints and has no obvious connection to the Matthew 16 passage. Also it states that doom will come upon those he is addressing (this generation of persecutors), but it does not state when it will come on them (i.e. at their death?).

That only leaves the supposed parallel passage of Matthew 24 to talk about. Let me see if I can reconstruct the logic here:

    1. “Everyone” in Matthew 16 refers only to the Jews of Jesus' time.

    2. Matthew 24 is a parallel passage referring to this same judgment.

    3. Matthew 24 is a judgment on the Jews of Jesus' time because it is based on Joel 2.

    4. Somehow Acts 2:16 proves this point, apparently because it quotes Joel 2:28-32 on the Day of Pentacost.

    5. Joel 2 predicts the same judgment on the Jews.

    6. Matthew 24 must be based on Joel 2 since Matthew 25 is based on Joel 3.

    7. Joel 2 and 3 are linked together by the prophet since the phrase “in that day” appears in Joel 3:1.

    8. Joel 3 is a judgment on the nations of Palestine.

    9. Presumably, (although not specifically stated by your source here) Matthew 25 and its supposed prediction of judgment on the Nations of Palestine also had its fulfillment in 70 AD, and this helps to justify the use of the word “everyone” in Matt. 16:27 (In direct contradiction to Statement 1 above).

Laying aside the non sequitur of #4 and the contradiction between #1 and #9, every one of the other points can be decisively rebutted without much trouble. Even presuming an 80% probability for each of the remaining seven steps above results in only a 21% probability that the total chain of reasoning is correct.

Now, let's look at some of these seven key points in turn (all of which need to be correct for this interpretation to work):

    1. While it is true that the NT sometimes uses words like “all” and “every” in a hyperbolic sense to refer to a more limited concept, one must look first and foremost as to how the author, Matthew, uses this term elsewhere in his Gospel. The Greek word hekastos only appears in this gospel in one other place, Matthew 25:15, on the lips of Jesus in a context of a Last Judgment parable. The master in this parable literally assembled every one of his servants before him. So unless definitively proved otherwise, “everyone” in Matthew 16 should be taken to mean everyone.

    2. If there were clear verbal or structural parallels between Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 24, I might be tempted to believe that the same event was being talked about. But there are no such obvious parallels. Also, as mentioned elsewhere it is notoriously hard to make sense out of every single verse of Matthew 24-25 and much depends on whether one views the two basic questions of the apostles to refer to one event or two separate events. To prove a closer relationship between Matthew 16:27-28 and ch. 24, one must rely on the further steps 3-8.

    3. Beale and Carson's Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament is the most exhaustive source on OT influences on NT texts. It lists even the most obscure allusions to the OT. For Matthew 24, this resource lists passages from several prophets (including Zechariah, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, and even Genesis and Deuteronomy), most notably from Daniel 7 and 12, on which they feel the Matthew chapter is most closely based, not the Book of Joel, despite the one possible allusion in Matthew 24:29 to Joel 2 or 3 (even though Isaiah 13:10 and Ezekiel 32:7 are the most probable sources of the quote). So again, this step of logic finds no obvious support, and needs to be further proved by the next few steps.

    4. Joel 2 (upon which Matthew 24 is supposedly based) is stated to describe the same judgment on the Jews referenced in Matthew 16:27-8 that occurred in AD 70. This is a really hard one to swallow. If you read Joel 2, it describes first a time of judgment on Israel caused by an invading army (so far so good). But then “afterward” God pours out his spirit on all flesh (Joel 2:28-29). This is the prophesied event that Peter quotes as being fulfilled on the Day of Pentacost, several decades before 70AD, not after it.

    5. Now we have a real leap of logic to contend with. In the first place, the author apparently feels there is something divine about the present chapter divisions that we have. That is a false assumption as seen by considering the structure of Joel (see my post on that subject). So by his reasoning, Joel 2 // Matthew 24; therefore Joel 3 // Matthew 25. Again, consulting Beale and Carson one can see that there are possible allusions in Matthew 25 to Daniel, Proverbs, Hosea, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, but none whatsoever to the Book of Joel.

    6. But are Joel 2 and 3 completely linked together as describing the same historical event just because Joel 3:1a uses the phrase “in those days and at that time,” apparently referring backward to all the events of Joel 2? In the first place, the phrase does not necessarily point to the time just talked about. If it does, then that poses a real problem for your source's argument. It would mean that at about the same time of Jerusalem's downfall, God will restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem (3:1b).

    7. That certainly did not happen anywhere near AD 70. Even if you ignore that glaring problem verse, the judgment on the neighboring Palestinian nations depicted in Joel 3, and which somehow is supposed to have taken place when the Romans sacked Jerusalem (although there is no historical evidence for that), includes the following interesting details:

    8. Concerning the fate of Tyre and Sidon, etc., the prophet declares, “I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the people of Judah.” (Joel 3:8) At the same time, God will become a refuge for the people of Israel (Joel 3:16), the land of Israel will drip with wine and milk and endless streams of water (Joel 3:18) and Jerusalem will be inhabited forever (Joel 3:20). Hardly a description of the events of AD 70 by any stretch of the imagination.

Matthew 16:27-28: Part 3 Here is a fresh look at this problem passage from another perspective, that of context:

Context within Matthew's Gospel:

The immediately preceding verses talk about the ultimate judgment of all mankind for good or bad while the immediately following verses describe the Transfiguration. There is the tentative possibility, therefore, that Matt. 16:27 has some logical relationship to verses 24-26 while 16:28 has some logical relationship to 17:1-7.

Taking the larger section of the Gospel in mind, the following chiastic arrangement can be easily reconstructed:

A. “Evil and Adulterous Generation”; Failure of the Disciples (16:1-12)

    B. Question of Identity: Son of Man, Elijah, John the Baptist (16:13-19)

        C. “Tell No One” (16:20)

                D. Peter's Inappropriate Response (16:21-23)

                    E. Followers Need to Deny Themselves (16:24-26)

                        F. Jesus' Glory Predicted (16:27-28)

                        F'. The Transfiguration (17:1-3)

            D'. Peter's Inappropriate Response (17:4)

                E'. Disciples Need to Listen to Jesus (17:5-7)

        C'. “Tell No One” (17:9)

    B'. Question of Identity: Son of Man, Elijah, John the Baptist (17:10-13)

A'. “Faithless and Perverse Generation”; Failure of the Disciples (17:14-20)

So according to this literary perspective, the prediction of 16:27-28 is seen to be parallel in some important fashion to the event of the Transfiguration or, more likely, identical to it.

Context within the Synoptic Accounts:

There are a few important variations in the parallel Synoptic reports that may also help clarify Matthew's account:

    a. Mark's account is probably the original upon which Matthew relied heavily to write his Gospel. Both Mark and Luke conclude their parallels to Matthew 16:28b by saying that some will “see the kingdom of God (with power, according to Mark)” rather than Matthew's version which says that some will see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” If Mark and Luke are closer to Jesus' actual words, then Jesus could be referring to the coming of the kingdom at Pentacost in the power of the Holy Spirit, or to some event during Jesus' life since at one point He said “The kingdom is in your midst.”

    b. The other Synoptics agree with Matthew 16:27 in applying the word “glory” to Jesus' appearance, but Luke adds that same key word to the appearance of the three at the Mount of Transfiguration, strengthening the correspondence of the events in Matt. 17 to those that end Chapter 16.

Old Testament Context

16:27b. “and then he will repay everyone for what has been done” is a quote from Ps. 62:12 and Prov. 24:12. In both original contexts, it referred to God judging each person, for good or bad, by their actions.

16:27a. “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father” comes from Daniel 7:13: “I saw one like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One (God) and was presented before him.” The Daniel context is a scene at the court of heaven with tens of thousands (of angels) present. Books of judgment are opened (Dan. 7:9-10). The Son of Man is then given an everlasting dominion, glory and kingship (Dan. 7:14).

17:2a. “His face shone like the sun” as did Moses' face when he was in the presence of God on Mt. Sinai.

17:2b. “his clothes became dazzling white” is another allusion to Daniel 7 (verse 9) describing God himself: “his clothing was white as snow.”

With these undoubted parallels to Daniel in the background of the Gospel account, it is quite easy to agree with R. T. France that the “coming” mentioned in 16:27 is not to earth, but to the Father and his angels in heaven where Jesus will be seated at His right hand and judge the nations.

Possible Conclusions

From the above data, the most likely potential conclusions to be reached are best explained through some possible rough paraphrases of Matthew 16:27-28:

Matthew 16:27: “At the Ascension, the Son of Man will come to heaven and receive the glory of God and his angels. There he will preside as judge to either excuse or accuse each person (which may take place immediately at each person's death, or perhaps be deferred until the Last Judgment).”

Matthew 16:28: “However, some of you disciples will not need to wait for your death in order to see me glorified (fulfilled for three of them at the Transfiguration).”

Alternatively, taking Mark's wording as more original: “However, some of you disciples will not need to wait for your death to see the coming of the kingdom in power since it will occur at the Day of Pentacost.”

GOSPEL OF MARK: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (PART 2)

Mark 14:22-24 Even as a Bible-believing Christian, I have trouble taking these verses literally. However, I know that Roman Catholics do understand them in this way. Aren't they taking the Bible more seriously here than Protestants do?

The first thing to point out is the confusion in thinking that the literal understanding of a passage in the Bible is always the intended meaning. Here are three simple tests to see if a given verse or set of verses should be taken in a figurative sense instead:

    1. Would a literal understanding lead to an absurdity? When Jesus spoke these words at the Last Supper, he obviously had all his blood in him and did not cut off pieces of his body to eat.

    2. Would it contradict known scientific or historical facts? The Eucharist has none of the physical properties of flesh and blood.

    3. Would it lead to committing an immoral act? Cannibalism is forbidden in all cultures today, but especially by the Jews who held that even animal blood was sacred and should not to be ingested.

    4. Christ died once for all (I Peter 3:18; Romans 6:9-10) unlike the Catholic teaching that Christ is sacrificed over again each time the Eucharist is performed. Would it lead to a contradiction with doctrinal teachings in the Bible?

Even though this passage and its parallel in Matthew 26:26-29 have “this is my blood of the covenant,” Luke 22:17-20 and I Corinthians 11:23-26 use a slightly different figure of speech: “This cup is the new covenant (will or agreement) (written) in my blood.” Here the wine is obviously not Jesus' blood at all.

The similar passage in John 6:31-65 is used by Catholics to prove the importance of Communion observance in order to stay in grace. However, this passage is typical of others in John where the people totally misunderstood Jesus by taking him literally instead of figuratively. Jesus explains in verse 63: “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

John 6:53 quotes Jesus as saying, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” This takes the similar form as another statement in John's Gospel that almost no one understands literally: “If I do not wash you, you have no part in me. (John 13:9b).”

Actually, John's Gospel is organized around seven metaphorical “I am” statements of Jesus. It would be absurd to take most of these teachings in a woodenly literal manner:

    1. The bread of life (6:35)

    2. The light of the world (8:12)

    3. The door of the sheep (10:7)

    4. The good shepherd (10:11)

    5. The resurrection and the life (11:25)

    6. The way, and the truth, and the life (14:6)

    7. The true vine (15:1)

Lastly, the doctrine of transubstantiation was a relatively recent development within the Catholic tradition.

    1. Augustine (4^th century): Taking it literally would seem to be advocating a crime or vice; “It is therefore a figure, bidding us communicate in the sufferings of our Lord, and secretly and profitably treasure in our hearts the fact that his flesh was crucified and pierced for us.” “Believe, and thou hast eaten.”

    2. Bernard of Clairvaux (12^th century): It means ”he who reflects on my death and mortifies his [body]...has eternal life.”

    3. Pope Innocent III proclaimed the doctrine of transubstantiation only in AD 1215.

Mark 14:30-72 (Matthew 26:58-75; Luke 22:54-72; John 18:15-27) I read somewhere that Peter denied knowing Jesus six times instead of two. Where did they get that idea from?

The problem begins with Jesus' warning in Mark 14:30, which differs from that in the other gospels.

Mark: “Before the cock crows two times, you shall deny me three times.”

Other gospels: “Before the cock crows (at all), you shall deny me three times.”

Next look at the differences in the denials found in the four parallel accounts:

Matthew

A. To a maid: “I do not know what you are saying.”

B. To another maid: “I know not the man” (with an oath).

C. “I know not the man.” (with cursing and swearing) (Cock crows.)

Mark

D. To a maid: “I neither know nor understand what you are saying.” (Cock crows.)

E. To the same maid: (He again denied it.)

F. “I know not this man of whom you speak.” (with cursing and swearing) (Cock crows again.)

Luke

G. To a maid: Woman, I know him not.

H. Man, I am not (one of them).

I. Man, I know not what you are saying. (Cock crows.)

John

J. To a maid: I am not (one of his disciples).

K. I am not (one of the disciples).

L. (Peter denied that he was in the garden with Jesus.) (Cock crows.)

The explanation you heard probably came from The Life of Christ in Stereo by Johnston Cheney. The author calls his approach the “Principle of Minute Supplementation.” Critics would call it a case of “Extreme Harmonization.” According to that point of view, each of the Gospels is literally accurate, even down to the smallest detail, and all apparent differences between parallel Gospel accounts completely disappear when one understands them properly.

Thus, this approach starts out by explaining that obviously Peter was warned two times, once before leaving the Last Supper (as in Luke and John) and once after leaving (Matthew and Mark).

Next is the fact that there were actually six denials, three before each cockcrow.

1. J

2. K

3. A = D = G (First cockcrow)

4. B = H

5. E

6. C = F = I = L (Second cockcrow)

Problems with this approach:

1. It doesn't really account for the discrepancy in the number of cock crows in Matthew and Luke.

2. It is more than a little strange that each of the four accounts would for some reason leave out three of the denials.

3. It appears like a very forced explanation: You need to group together several accusations and several denials in order to make it work.

4. Even that approach fails to give an exactly literal agreement in all details. For example, one of the stated accusations in Matthew says, “This man, too, was with Jesus of Nazarene,” but the supposedly same account in Luke says “...with him.”

By contrast, most evangelical Christians don't demand exact correspondence between the four gospels and are quite willing to live with a little ambiguity as far as the exact details (especially since in this case, no major theological truths are at stake). The minor differences actually demonstrate that there are at least four witnesses who attest independently to the events taking place. That should give us more confidence in the facts than if all four accounts followed one another word for word. A close parallel can be found in the court of law. When separate witnesses parrot one another's testimony down to the letter, there is the strong suspicion that they have all been carefully coached ahead of time and are lying.

Additionally, by insisting on six denials rather than three (as all four accounts attest), it robs all of the meaning out of Jesus' three-fold question to Peter at the end of John's Gospel: “Do you love me?” Jesus is allowing Peter to completely atone for his earlier three-fold denials in order that he can serve Christ in the future without further guilt.

Mark 14:51-52: Why is this unusual story included in the Bible? It must have some hidden meaning that I can't figure out.

This strange account of an anonymous young man who loses his clothes while escaping is found only in Mark's Gospel. It is obscure for at least two reasons:

    1. It doesn't seem to convey any useful historical or theological purpose that would warrant its inclusion, especially in such a stripped-down gospel as Mark's.

    2. Jesus and his apostles had come from the Last Supper to the Garden of Gethsemane alone and it was night time. So where did this follower come from?

One possibility was that the young man was John Mark himself, as others have proposed. There are several lines of reasoning that lead to this possibility, but it must be admitted that it is only speculation based on circumstantial evidence.

Consider John's Gospel, for example. Even though John himself figured in most of the events that took place during Jesus' ministry, neither John's name nor that of his brother James is found in his own Gospel account. Most scholars believe that John is obviously the anonymous Beloved Disciple who appears only in John's narrative. Although it has been felt that this would have been bragging on John's part to call himself that, the opposite is probably true – out of modesty, he did not want to call attention to himself by name.

So here in Mark's Gospel we have another anonymous follower, who could again be the author of the account in which he is featured. But the reason for inclusion might have been different in this case. It could simply be a subtle way for the author to insert himself into his own story. This would be the equivalent of Alfred Hitchcock's practice of using himself as an anonymous bit player in the movies he directed.

Or there may have been a deeper motive. These two verses certainly don't cast the young man in a favorable light at all. When Mark sat down to write his account, he may have reflected on his own repeated pattern of fleeing whenever things got too rough (read Acts 15:37-38). His including this embarrassing account of his desertion may have been one way for him to demonstrate his recognition of, and repentance for, past failures.

So far I have attempted to deal with the question involving the reason for these verses in the first place, but what about the second, and greater, problem? How can we possibly place the John Mark who figures in the Book of Acts at the night scene of the arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane? It is actually quite easy to do so by piecing together two events found in the New Testament.

In making arrangements for the Passover Meal with his disciples, Jesus gives secret instructions to Peter and John telling them how to locate the owner of the upper room where they will be meeting. It involves recognizing their contact man by the fact that he will be carrying a water jar. He would have been easy to identify since only women carried water in jars in those days. The need for secrecy was obvious since that way even Judas would not have known the location until it was too late to alert the authorities who were out to arrest Jesus.

This secrecy would also eliminate any danger to the owner of the house, who was probably a follower of Jesus. The likelihood of this last point can be seen from the historical fact that at Passover, Jerusalem was crowded with thousands of pilgrims who not only needed places to stay in town but somewhere to celebrate their Passover meal. Any type of lodging was at a premium at this time so Jesus must have had a lot of “pull” to carry it off (unless one simply wants to write it off as a miracle).

So what does this have to do with the problem verse? It demonstrates that whoever followed Jesus and the apostles out of the house and to the Garden of Gethsemane was most likely a member of the household where they held the Last Supper. The most logical candidate for the hosts of that meal and owners of the house were John Mark's parents since it is at their house in Jerusalem where we find the apostles hiding after Peter's imprisonment (Acts 12:12). This was probably also the same apostles' hiding place mentioned in John 20:19 and the upper room of Acts 1:13. If this dwelling was where Mark lived, then it would mean that he had first-hand contact with Jesus during one of the most crucial moments in his life, and with the apostles right before the Crucifixion.

Mark 15:40 Mark notes some women were watching from a distance and specifically names “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.” At first I thought the name Joses was a typo and should have been “Jesus,” as Jesus’ mother was Mary and his younger brother James. However, other Bibles have the same name. The detail seems to imply the audience may have been familiar with James the younger and Joses. What do we know about these three, including Mary their the mother? Also Salome was the name of the daughter who danced for Herod and asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter. I assume this is not the same Salome?

This a case where a more detailed comparison of different biblical accounts may lead to additional insights. There are actually several listings of the women in the crucifixion accounts. All have Mary Magdalene present, with the others being:

    Mark 15:40 Mary (the mother of James the younger and of Joses) and Salome

    Matt. 27:56 Mary (the mother of James and Joseph) and the mother of the sons of Zebedee

    John 19:25 Mary (Jesus' mother), her sister, and Mary (wife of Clopas)

Piecing these together, it is most likely that Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses (a Greek variation of the name Joseph) is the same as Mary the mother of Jesus. The James mentioned is thus our author of the Epistle of James. As for Joses/Joseph, we know nothing specifically about him other than the general references in the Gospels to the brothers of Jesus. Mary is probably designated as the mother of James and Joses in Matthew and Mark's accounts because of their prominence in the early Jerusalem church at the time of the writings.

Assuming that there were three women present at the cross besides Mary Magdalene, we can now tentatively identify Salome as being the sister of Mary (the mother of Jesus), the wife of Zebedee, and the mother of the apostles James and John. That would make James and John the earthly cousins of Jesus. Also, it would identify Salome as the woman who asked that her sons sit on Jesus' side in his kingdom (Matthew 20:20-23) and might explain why she had the temerity to do so, in light of the family connection. The fourth woman is then Mary the wife of Clopas (who could possibly be the Cleopas who met the resurrected Jesus on the road to Emmaus). Other than her husband's name, we know nothing else about her, except that she should certainly not be identified with the infamous Salome of the John the Baptist story.

GOSPEL OF MARK: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (PART 1)

Mark 3:28-29 (Matthew 12:31-32; Luke 12:10) How do I know whether I have committed the Unforgivable Sin?

In the first place, here are some unacceptable explanations of this passage:

    1. Christ's atonement was insufficient to cover my sin.

    2. The Holy Spirit must be more sacred than God the Father or Jesus.

    3. The unforgivable sin is suicide, murder, betrayal, divorce and remarriage, etc.

    4. One can commit the unforgivable sin unknowingly.

Carefully consider the background for this teaching:

    1. The Mishnah considered the following to be unforgivable sins: blasphemy, causing others to sin, giving false witness in a capital trial, and denying the resurrection.

    2. The most important context is the immediate one (Mark 3:22-30).

    3. Read the parallel gospel passages above for any additional insights.

    4. Somewhat parallel teachings are found elsewhere in the Bible (Numbers 15:30-31; I Samuel 3:13-14; Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-27).

Possible explanations:

    1. The sin is not a one-time event, but a state of mind. A possible translation of Mark 3:30 is: “for they were saying, 'He has an unclean spirit.'”

    2. To be forgiven, one must be repentant. The scribes and Pharisees were progressing in the opposite direction (see Matthew 12:14).

    3. These words were addressed to the scribes, men trained in God's word. This was purposeful apostasy, not a mere mistake.

    4. Here are various explanations of the unforgivable sin given by scholars:

        “The conscious and deliberate rejection of the saving power and grace of God.”

        “Only the power of the Spirit can convict a person of sin – removing oneself from the only power that can save.”

        “Deliberate labeling of good as evil (John 3:19).”

        “Someone who is declaring war on God.”

Why the distinction between blasphemy against Jesus and against the Holy Spirit?

    1. The early Church Fathers felt that sin against Christ was pre-baptismal sin while sin against the Spirit was any major sin after baptism (since that person now possessed the Holy Spirit and should know better).

    2. Christ was referring to the time after the ascension when the truth would be clearly revealed by the Holy Spirit.

    3. Christ's personal glory was hidden so the scribes and Pharisees could be forgiven for not recognizing him.

    4. It refers specifically to seeing an authentic miracle performed. It is no longer applicable.

Mark 9:5 (Matthew 17:4; Luke 9:33) Why did Peter say he wanted to build three tents?

The first thing to note is that both Mark and Luke agree that Peter was talking off the top of his head and really hadn't thought out his words. William Hendricksen (Matthew) says, “The trouble with Peter was that too often he spoke first and did his thinking afterward, if at all.”

The question remains: Why tents? Here commentators are not quite in agreement with their answers. Much of the disagreement centers around which other episode provides the proper biblical context for Peter's remarks: Is it the later Garden of Gethsemane episode, Peter's argument with Christ over the necessity of His suffering and death, or the Old Testament Feast of Tabernacles? Perhaps all are in mind in the present story.

The language in the Transfiguration story does have echoes later on in the Garden. In each case, Jesus is alone with Peter, James and John; they get sleepy; Jesus has a conversation regarding His coming suffering and death (Luke 9:31-33); and the apostles don't know what to say (Mark 14:40). With this context in mind, as well as Peter's earlier refusal to admit that Jesus might have to suffer, a number of commentators agree with Geldenhuys (The Gospel of Luke) that “indirectly, his proposal is again an attempt to influence the Saviour not to choose the way of suffering, but to continue to live in divine glory.”

However, another context that has a bearing on this story is the Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths or Tents). At that celebration every year the Jews would each construct a temporary lean-to or shelter and live in it for several days as a remembrance of their time in the desert during the Exodus. By Jesus' time, this feast was also viewed as a looking forward to the future Messianic Age when all the nations would come to Jerusalem to worship and God would live in their midst (as prophesied in Zechariah 14:16-21).

So if the “tent suggestion” is viewed as a memorial of sorts, then Jacques Ellul (The Subversion of Christianity, p. 149) is on track when he says, “An attempt is made to seize a momentary thing in such a way as to explain it and freeze it...It leads to the attempt to change what is living explicitly and implicitly into something fixed.” Peter wants to make the experience more lasting when it should have been seen as only a step toward a later goal. Hendricksen notes that we often desire to prolong the good times and stay removed from suffering.

The possible allusion to the Feast of Tabernacles has another implication if we look at its future aspects. Taking that context in mind, a number of commentators are in agreement in seeing a related motive. Since that feast looked forward to the Messianic Age when God would dwell in the midst of the people, Peter may have mistakenly thought that the time had now arrived. This was a case of wish fulfillment on his part since it then would mean there was no reason for the Son of God to suffer and die. He didn't realize that it was only an intermediate step (Lane, The Gospel of Mark). Anderson (The Gospel of Mark) puts it this way: “Peter wants prematurely to settle down and enjoy the blessings of the new age...and to secure the glory and victory before they have been won.”

But then there is the real possibility that Peter did not have any of these rather spiritual motives in mind at all. At least four commentaries I consulted felt that Peter just wanted these two visitors to stay a little longer so he could be around them. And he thought that he could perhaps convince them if he and the two other disciples built them shelters for the night. Related to that suggestion is the interpretation that several scholars have for Peter's statement: “It is good that we are here!”

I had always taken those words to be an expression of Peter's joy at the blessing he had received from the vision of the Transfiguration. However, several commentators take it to mean, “Isn't it fortunate that we three apostles happen to be here so that we can construct the tents and help everyone out.” If this is the meaning, then it is a further example of Peter's complete incomprehension of spiritual matters.

And as a final example of how far off-base Peter was with his comments, it has often been pointed out that by wanting to construct three tents, he was in effect placing Jesus on an equal par with Moses (the law) and Elijah (the prophets). He is soon put in his place by (a) the disappearance of those two, leaving only Jesus behind (recognition that Jesus is the culmination and fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets) and (b) God the Father's words to them at the end of the story (“ Listen to him.”).

Mark 10:23-27 (Matthew 19:17; Luke 18:19) This appears to rule out any rich people going to heaven. Isn't that a little harsh? Also, why were the Apostles so shocked at this teaching?

You are not the only one to feel that way. Look at the way some manuscripts of this passage read: “The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, 'Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the Kingdom...'” The words in italics are in many manuscripts but not the earliest. This addition was probably an attempt to soften the teaching. By the way, this is the only time in the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus uses the term “children” to apply to his followers. It may stress their lack of understanding.

There have been other attempts to soften the teaching:

    The Acts of Andrew and Peter has a story where a needle's eye miraculously grows until a camel can go through it.

    A passageway in Jerusalem named The Eye of a Needle is being referred to here You can't enter mounted on your camel but must dismount and leave your possessions behind. Variation: a young camel can enter but only if its load is removed and it kneels. (This is a rather recent proposal. Unfortunately, there is no evidence at all for such a passageway).

    The word camel (kamelos) was confused with cable or rope (kamilos) in Greek. However, that doesn't really make the situation any more likely to happen.

    In Aramaic the word for camel is gamel; acts of benevolence = gemiluth as a reminder of what the rich should be doing. A rather fanciful explanation.

    The most likely explanation is that Jesus followed a literal teaching about wealth with figurative hyperbole.

        A 3^rd cent. AD teaching in the Talmud uses the idea of an elephant trying to pass through the eye of a needle to express the idea of impossibility.

        The camel was the largest animal in Palestine. That is why Jesus uses it, just as he talks about the Pharisees straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel (Matthew 23:24). Another example of hyperbole is taking the log out of your eye.

Why were the apostles shocked and unbelieving?

    Many Jews assumed that wealth was a reward from God for the righteous. Look at the start and conclusion of the Book of Job; Psalm 128:1-2 and Isaiah 3:10, but it is not a pervasive teaching in the OT.

    Alternatively, those with wealth were assumed to have an advantage over the poor in that they had the leisure to devote themselves to prayer, fasting, study and good works such as almsgiving. (Anchor Bible) “In Judaism it was inconceivable that riches should be a barrier to the Kingdom.” (NICNT)

    But even if that were true, Jesus has a similar teaching in Matthew 5:20: “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Charles Williams notes that we should consider that riches may include other forms of supposed blessings by God – reputation for righteousness, respect, power, talent, intelligence, etc. Look at the example of the rich young ruler. Paul said he counted all such things in his life as trash, which are not only useless in entering the Kingdom, but they are a barrier since they are forms of self-righteousness in attempts to earn their way into Heaven.

Mark 13:28-29 Doesn't the fig tree stand for the nation of Israel in these verses?

I have seen that interpretation in print but doubt that there is any truth to it. Here are a few of my thoughts on the subject:

1. That particular explanation is usually followed by a series of calculations beginning with the date of the modern state of Israel's founding. I am always suspicious of any attempt to even roughly guess at the timing of future events.

2. Israel is often symbolized as a grape vine, but virtually never as a fig tree (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery).

3. Mark 13:28-31 is best understood as one of the portions of Jesus' answer to the first question of the apostles regarding the destruction in 70 AD, not their second question regarding the End Times (at least according to my own detailed literary analysis of the parallel passage in Matthew 24).

4. Practically all commentators take verses 28-29 as a simple parable comparing a physical event to a deeper event. If one views the fig tree as a stand-in for Israel, then that is combining two types of figurative language by piling a symbol on top of a parable, which seems to be unduly complicated.

 

ANIMALS AND BLESSINGS (GENESIS 49 AND DEUTERONOMY 33)

This post has nothing to do with the annual observation of the Feast of St. Francis on October 4 by the blessing of the animals. Instead, it is a quick overview of two blessings on the twelve tribes of Israel given by Jacob (Genesis 49) and Moses (Deuteronomy 33), at least those particular blessings which utilize animal imagery in a metaphorical way.

Judah (Genesis 49:9) “Judah is a lion's whelp”

“He was likened to a lion going forth to conquer great prey then returning to his rest, from which no one dared rouse him.” (Rigsby)

Balaam's oracle employs the lion as an image of inexorable rise of Israel (Num 23:24), echoing Jacob's deathbed metaphor...Eventually recognized as a messianic prophecy, the idea is recast in the apocalyptic title “Lion of the tribe of Judah' (Rev 5:5).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

“When Genesis 49:9...came to be understood in later Judaism as a key messianic prophecy..., the image was still of the royal Messiah as military conqueror. The Apocalypse expresses this perplexing combination of Suffering Servant and military Messiah by melding the conquering Lion of the tribe of Judah with the Lamb that was slain (Rev 5:5-6). The juxtaposition of the two images of lion and lamb does not cancel the former but suggests the idea of conquest, not by destructive power but by obedience and sacrifice.” (DBI)

Wenham notes a minority opinion which sees nothing but a negative assessment in Jacob's words concerning Judah in vv. 8-12 based on early events in Judah's life only. But he concludes, “Ingenious as this allegorical interpretation is, it fails to carry conviction because the symbolic equations are far from obvious, and it demands Jacob's remarks being understood as criticisms of Judah rather than praise. This is difficult in the light of the explicitly positive v 8.”

Issachar (Genesis 49:14) “Issachar is a strong donkey”

Hamilton: “One may interpret Jacob's words to Issachar in two possible ways. The prevailing view is that Jacob points Issachar as a group of people who put creaturely comforts (v. 15a-b) ahead of any other value, and as a result it cost them their independence (v. 15c-d). They became serfs to the local Canaanites, i.e., the feudal barons ruling in the Jezreel valley...This majority interpretation has sufficient problems to warrant an alternative interpretation of v. 15.”

Thus, Heck feels it should read: “Issachar is a sturdy donkey lying down between two saddlebags. When he sees how good is a resting-place and pleasant the land, he will bend his shoulder to bear, and he will become a body of workers that work the land.”

Hamilton expresses this positive interpretation of Issachar with the following words: “He became a laboring worker.” This understanding is in accord with the Septuagint's rendering, “He became a farmer.” According to this understanding, it simply states that “they do not shy away from assuming tasks of some physical magnitude.”

Wenham feels we do not have enough data to clearly chose between the two alternatives.

Dan (Genesis 49:17) “Dan is a snake that bites the horse's heels”

Snakes often struck from hiding, biting without warning. This ever-present danger serves as a metaphor of sudden judgment, as in Isaiah 14:29 and Amos 5:19. “The bite of a snake, coming as a surprise, must have seemed unprovoked and unnatural, giving the serpent a permanent role in the spirit world.” (DBI)

Wenham sees a wholly positive image of the tribe of Dan here in that Dan's military victories will benefit all of Israel, not just his clan. A.P. Ross parrots this view in saying, “Dan, born of a concubine and not as privileged as the others, would help its people ge their rights.”

As to the possible historical background to Moses' prophecy, both Wenham and Rowe feel it may refer to Samson's attacks on the Philistines or to the events described in Judges 17-18.

        (Deuteronomy 33:22) “Dan is a lion's whelp”

By calling Dan the whelp of a lion rather than a full-grown lion, Craigie feels that Moses is implying the weakness of youth but the promise of future strength. He is probably reading too much into the text, in my opinion.

Hamilton is another commentator who sees a contradiction between the two pictures of Dan given above. “Thus, in Gen. 49 Dan is a viper but in Deut 33 his tribe is one who avoids vipers, as would a lion cub.” This statement refers to Cross and Freedman's proposed re-interpretation of v. 22b from “that leaps forth from Bashan” to “that shies away from a viper.” Thompson explains that this alternative rendering of “Bashan” is based on an ancient Ugaritic word b-t-n, meaning “serpent.” But he goes on to state: “The point is not, however, beyond dispute.”

        (Revelation 7:4-8)

The above text must also be cited in relation to the tribe of Dan. In these verses, every tribe except Ephraim and Dan is included. Several proposals have been made to explain the omission of Dan:

It could be due to Dan's association with idol worship in passages such as Judges 18:16-19 and I Kings 12:28-30. (Beale)

“Dan” may have been accidentally copied as “Man,” which was in turn understood to be an abbreviation for Manasseh. (Mounce)

“Perhaps Dan is omitted because of the tradition that the Antichrist would come from this tribe, as suggested in Irenaeus and Hippolytus. Both quote Jer 8:16 (cf also v. 17), and Hippolytus cites Deut 33:22 and Gen 49:17. It is true that in Gen 49:17 Dan is 'A horned snake..., that bites the horse's heel,” AB, and that in [the] Apocryphal Testament of Dan 5:6 it is written that the prince of the tribe of Dan is Satan.” (Ford)

Ford's explanation somewhat begs the point as to why Dan should have such negative connotations to begin with. But the most logical reason is seen in comparing the image of Dan as a serpent that bites the heel in Genesis 49:17 with the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 that states the satanic serpent in the garden will strike as the heel of the woman's (singular) offspring (i.e. the Messiah), and he will strike the serpent's head.

Naphtali (Genesis 49:21) “Naphtali is a doe that bears lovely fawns”

Wenham points out the main difficulty in adequately understanding the whole of this verse is that “each line can be understood in about three different ways, which has given rise to a great variety of interpretations.” Thus, if the second line reads “who gives words of great beauty,” then it may refer to Barak's good tidings of the victory over General Sisera since Barak was a Naphtalite (see Judges 4-5). A.P. Ross agrees with this assessment. “However, most modern commentators regard this as too abrupt a transition from the animal imagery of the previous line...Like the previous blessing on Asher (v. 20), it may be taken either as a straight-forward comment, a compliment, or a mild rebuke.”

“The blessings that Jacob and Moses conferred on Naphtali reflect the favored position the tribe would receive once it settled in Canaan.” (P.H. Wright)

However, Hamilton notes that in place of “doe,” others have proposed a terebinth (variety of tree) or a mountain-ewe. This last proposal, by Gevirtz, is the only negative interpretation: “A mountain goat who only gives birth to lambs,” i.e. he is born to be free but becomes domesticated instead.

Benjamin (Genesis 49:27) “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf”

Ross notes regarding the wolf: “It is no less voracious an animal than the lion but usually kills far more than it can eat. That is the picture given here, for Benjamin would divide the spoil.” Ross is probably reading far more into the imagery than was originally intended.

A more negative image is projected by DBI, which says that the literal details regarding a wolf's predatory habits “present a heightened picture of terror and ferocity, which provides the context for the repulsion that biblical writers and Jesus have toward evil people and institutions that they compare to wolves.”

Heck defends a positive description of Benjamin here mainly since “the great majority of animal comparisons [in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy] are positive.” And Westerman expresses the option that the “metaphor praises Benjamin's prowess in war and/or lust for booty.”

        (Deuteronomy 33:12) “The beloved rests between his shoulders”

You may wonder why I have included this Deuteronomy reference since it doesn't appear to possess any references to an animal. The reason is that one of many interpretations of this difficult verse posits the image of a lamb being carried on a shepherd's back. But this seems to be a poor match with the characterization of Benjamin as a ravenous wolf. Thus, DBI states that “this youngest brother again reveals the heart of the rest of the brothers, and it is now a divided heart, in accordance with the seemingly contradictory blessings of Jacob and Moses.”

For more on this difficult passage, see my post entitled “Deuteronomy 33:12.”

Joseph (Genesis 49:22) “Joseph is a wild ass (or “a fruitful bough)”

This passage is another dubious animal reference. Wenham explains: “Text-critical issues...intertwine with multiple problems in the [standard Hebrew text] to make this an exegete's nightmare.” Unlike the comparison of Joseph to a wild ass, “the traditional view from the Targums to the majority of modern commentators is that the comparison is with a vine or some fruitful tree.” He hesitantly endorses this majority view. But against it are (1) the fact that it stands apart from the other blessings as having a botanical image instead of an animal comparison and (2) it seems to make little sense for an archer to attack it (v. 23).

        (Deuteronomy 33:17) “a first-born bull – majesty is his. His horns are those of a wild ox.”

Mayes says it is not quite clear what is being referring to here. The strong bull may stand for king Jeroboam, Joseph's firstborn Ephraim, or the bull cult at Bethel. He personally opts for Ephraim. In this, Craigie agrees since Joseph's son Ephraim was given the preferred blessing by Jacob (see Genesis 48:8-20).

In contrast, Thompson feels that it is Joseph himself who is described as “Yahweh's first-born bull who possesses majesty and the horns of a wild ox or buffalo. With his horns he gores the nations and pushes the peoples to the ends of the earth.”

Gad (Deuteronomy 33:20) “Gad lives like a lion”

“The twelve Hebrew words for lion testify to deep concern about it...Because when the lion is on the haunt, something is going to die, it symbolizes the absolute power of kings and even of God.” (DBI)

The next verse goes on to say that “he chose the best for himself,” which Meyes explains as Gad enlarging its territory by adsorbing that of Reuben.