ROMANS 5:7

After stating that Jesus died for us when we were still sinners, he puts that remarkable fact into context by comparing His sacrificial love with that of human beings: “A man will hardly die for a just / righteous man (dikaiou) – but it may be that a man would die for a good man (agathou).” At least, that is the basic rendering of Romans 5:7 in RSV, NRSV, NIV, NEB, NASB, and TEV.

While the overall gist of the comparison between Christ's love and human love is abundantly clear here, it is not so easy to explain why there is a seeming difference between human love toward a just man and a good man. Several approaches have been tried in order to sort out this problem.

    1. The most obvious way out is to state that the last half of v. 7 was added by Paul or someone else to correct or modify the first half of the verse. Thus, Kasemann hypothesizes that “death even for the righteous is described as rare...But then the apostle remembers that sacrificial deaths are common enough. He thus concedes quite tortuously this possibility as regards the good.”

However, Fitzmyer points out, “This verse is much disputed, whether all of it or only its second part is a later gloss, a qualification, or a correction added by Paul himself to the text written by Tertius, the scribe. None of the suggestions about its shape as a gloss has carried conviction and clearly one has to wrestle with the Pauline text as it is.”

    2. Cranfield and Boylan translate tou agathou as “his benefactor” to explain why a person might die for him. As Morris says, this understanding is “too definite.”

    3. On the other hand, if agathos is taken as a neuter adjective, it can be translated as “for a good cause.” In fact, this is just the approach that William Barclay took in his rendering “It may be that a man would even dare to die for the good cause.” He is pretty much alone in that translation, and Morris concludes that “it is better to understand both adjectives as masculine.”

    4. The next approach is to try and explain the difference between a good man and a righteous (or just) one. One classic version of this type of explanation was given by earlier commentators such as Hodge and Sanday. They stated that a righteous man is one who commands our admiration for his respect for justice while a good man, on the other hand, is additionally kind and commands our affection. It is the latter whom we would be most likely to die for.

In the same vein, Leon Morris says, “It remains a question whether Paul makes a distinction between the righteous man and the good one. But he does not seem to regard them here as synonymous. The righteous or “just” man is the one who keeps the letter of the law; he does what is right. But the good person goes beyond that. There is a warmth of good feeling and generosity about his actions.” For confirmation of this view, he cites Irenaeus, who called the God of the OT dikaios and the God of the NT agathos. However, a closer reading of both Testaments will show that such a distinction is not really valid.

Kasemann also sees a distinction between the two types but “to be sure not the kindly person but the particularly worthy person. A neutral interpretation as the good does not fit in view of the parallelism and intensifying in relation to dikaios, which as the sense of 'upright.'”

Several modern translations take this approach:

    “Rare, indeed, is it that one should lay down one's life for an upright person – though, for a really good person one might conceivable have courage to die.” (Anchor Bible) Fitzmyer justifies this translation by stating that Paul allows “that possibly for a really good person, a close relative or a gracious benefactor, one might give up one's natural life.”

    “We can understand someone dying for a person worth dying for, and we can understand how someone good and noble could inspire us to selfless sacrifice.” (The Message)

5. Jerusalem Bible takes another way out and reverses the two adjectives of the Greek text to reflect what seems to be a more logical progression.

“It is not easy to die even for a good man – though of course for someone really worthy, a man might be prepared to die.”

I have noted that their translators have taken the same sort of undue liberties with the biblical text elsewhere when they run into passages which are a little difficult to comprehend.

    6. Last, but not at all least, in the possibilities is to minimize the differences between a just man and a good man. Murray, for one, states that “it is scarcely defensible plead this distinction between the righteous man and the good man” and quotes Calvin in saying “that these two epithets are used to designate the same individual as both righteous and good.”

Davidson and Martin similarly explain: “The apostle makes a verbal contrast between the righteous and the good man. But no hard-and-fast distinction should be drawn.”

Thus, two paraphrases collapse v. 7 as follows:

    J.B. Phillips: “In human experience, it is a rare thing for one man to give his life for another, even if the latter be a good man.”

    Living Bible: “Even if we were good, we really wouldn't expect anyone to die for us.”

My own personal preference is to go with fourth explanation as being the most likely, but I certainly would not go out on a limb to defend it.

 

INTRODUCTION TO STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: PART 2

In Part 1, I discussed some ways in which literary clues could be used to properly divide biblical writings into their component sections. The next step is a little harder and involves analyzing how these individual literary units each possess their own literary order as well as how the various units relate to one another in an orderly manner. And it all begins with a consideration of how individual verses of biblical poetry are constructed.

The key to understanding the poetic writings in the Bible is to recognize first of all that repetition is the foundation of everything, repetition of ideas. This repetition can take several forms, and each of them can be understood as the basic building blocks used to organize whole books of the Bible. Let us begin with one of the two basic types of repetition in poetry – identical, or synonymous, parallelism.

The Parallel Structure of Psalm 82:3

    A. Give

        B. justice to

            C. the weak

                D. and the orphan

    A'. Maintain

        B'. the right of

            C'. the lowly

                D'. and the destitute

The two lines express the same basic idea. Right off the bat this form of poetry can be used for apologetic purposes. Number one: it is a great aid to insuring an accurate translation when some of the Hebrew words are a bit obscure in meaning, which happens especially in the poetic literature. If a translator is not quite sure of the meaning of “weak” for example, he can go to a parallel line within the verse to at least get a rough synonym. Secondly, poetry in most languages is notoriously hard to translate into another language without sacrificing the original meter, rhyme or the meaning. But poetry in the Bible can be translated into any language while losing virtually none of the original intent. This is especially important since almost 1/3 of the OT is composed as poetry. By contrast, years ago I got an English translation of the Koran and began reading it. I had to admit to a Palestinian neighbor of mine that I wasn't exactly impressed with what I had read so far. He replied, “Of course you can't appreciate it; you have to read it in the original Arabic or you won't understand it at all! Not exactly a universal text for all cultures.

Now imagine that each of those capital letters above represents not just 1-3 words, but whole sentences, paragraphs or chapters and you will get a good idea of this type of symmetry in Scripture: parallel cycles. And you don't have to go far in the Bible to come across the first example.

The Parallel Structure of Genesis 1:1-2:3

Initial Conditions: Chaos (1:1-2)

    Light Created; light and darkness separated (1:3-5)

        Dome of the sky created; waters above and below separated (1:6-8)

            Land and seas created when they are separated from one another (1:9-10)

                Plants are brought forth from the land (1:11-13)

    Lights in the sky separate night and day (1:14-19)

        Birds inhabit the sky, and the water brings forth living creatures (1:20-23)

            Land brings forth living creatures, including man (1:24-28)

                Plants are designated as food for creatures and man (1:29-31)

Final Conditions: Rest (2:1-3)

This is my own slight variation on what has been called the Framework Hypothesis and it presents the order of creation thematically rather than in a chronological manner. Realms are first created by God's acts of separation and then populated in exactly the same order.

An even more ubiquitous type of repetition in the Bible is called introverted parallelism, or chiasm.

Introverted Structure of Psalm 103:1

    A. Bless the LORD,

            B. O my soul;

            B'. and all that is within me,

    A'. Bless his holy name!

You can see that in this case the second half of the verse repeats the basic idea of the first one with, however, the elements given in reverse, or mirror-image, order. When utilized on a larger scale, this method of organization can be used to understand the flow in more extensive passages such as the example of Deuteronomy 30 discussed at the end of Part 1 of this introduction:

    A. Consequences of obedience or disobedience explained (30:1-10)

            B. God's will is known to you (30:11-14)

    A'. Consequences of obedience or disobedience explained (10:15-20)

This particular example above is technically called a 3-part chiasm, whereas Psalm 103:1 would be labeled as a four-part one. Such mirror-image structures, containing anywhere from three to many elements, are evident throughout the Bible.

Revisiting the example of Philemon mentioned in Part 1 of this introduction, where scholars can't seem to agree on how it is to be divided up, one can propose a chiastic organization for the letter, which helps decide the issue:

The Structure of Philemon

A. Opening Greetings and Blessing (vv. 1-3)

B. Expression of Confidence (vv. 4-7)

                                                C. “I am sending him back to you” (vv. 8-14)

                                                C'. “Receive him as you would receive me” (vv. 15-19)

B'. Expression of Confidence (vv. 20-22)

A'. Closing Greetings and Blessing (vv. 23-25)

Almost every literary unit in the Bible from individual verses to whole books can be explained in terms of these two basic building blocks of parallelism and chiasm, in which many variations are possible. For example, the parallelism in some cases may be (1) incomplete with one of the elements understood but not stated (incomplete parallelism), (2) the parallel units may actually be intended contrasts rather than expressing the same idea (antithetic parallelism), or (3) each unit may start out with something in the previous unit but extend the idea further each time (stair-step parallelism). This last variation is especially important since it appears almost exclusively in apocalyptic writings. Without understanding that is how these cryptic books are organized, many prophecy experts have gone quite astray in attempting to construct their various time lines of future events. Here are two examples of stair-step parallelism so that you can understand what I am talking about, beginning with a simple example of elevated prose from John:

Stair-Step Parallelism: John 1:4-5

In him was life

      and the life was the light of men

                                the light shines in the darkness

                                                      and the darkness has not overcome it.

More extensive examples are seen in the Book of Daniel. For one thing, consider the various reigns in which each section takes place and note that the second half of the book backs up to an earlier time period as well as moving forward in time:

Nebuchadnezzar (chs. 1-4)

Belshazzar (ch. 5)

Darius (ch. 6)

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

Belshazzar (chs. 7-8)

Darius (ch. 9)

                                                Cyrus (chs. 10-12)

The same phenomenon appears in the visions and dreams that are described throughout the book.

When there are a number of such units in a book such as Revelation, each repeating previous material but advancing forward at the same time, the phenomenon has been called progressive recapitulation. If one fails to see this as the organizing factor behind that book, one ends up with a very complicated scheme in which the same or similar events appear to take place more than once (such as several divine reigns on earth, more than one Armaggedon, two different releasings of Satan, Babylon falling twice and up to seven different judgments, etc.)

Just as parallelism can take many forms, chiasms can also exist as dual or overlapping types. And a final complicating factor is that often elements of parallelism and chiasm are combined within one literary structure, such as below:

The Structure of Ephesians

I. Introduction (1:1-2)

II. Position with God through Christ (1:3-14)

III. Power in Christ (1:15-23)

IV. Gentiles’ Past and Present Position Contrasted (2:1-22)

V. The Mystery of Christ: Position and Power (3:1-21)

IV'. Gentiles’ Past and Present Behavior Contrasted (4:1-5:20)

II'. Position with Others through Christ (5:21-6:9)

III'. Power in Christ (6:10-20)

I'. Conclusion (6:21-24)

Note how the overall organization of the book is from the two ends to the center. From this, we can deduce that at least one of the main points of the book will be found in Section V. But in addition, II-III and II'-III' constitute a parallel pair, and in such cases the intended emphasis will usually fall on the last items in each series, i.e. III and III'. Note how all three of these highlighted sections discuss the subject of godly power.

In conclusion, I must admit that actually coming up with an analysis that does justice to the intent of the author is more of an art than a science. Often the book divisions one derives from principles described in Part 1 of this presentation do not match exactly with the overall organization showing the symmetrical elements described in the current Part 2. At that point, it is usually a process of tweaking the limits of each section and/or their proposed parallels with other sections in an iterative process until the best overall fit is obtained.

Even under the best conditions, you will find that not all scholars agree on the final structure of a given passage or book in the Bible. But it is always satisfying to see when different commentators arrive at very similar conclusions even if they approach the problem in quite different ways. And when there are wide differences between “experts” in this field, some of these can easily be traced to hidden assumptions that each scholar is making.

Thus, there are several noted examples of authors who do not admit to any sort of literary structure other than a simple chiasm. And one of them even tries to force-fit all of his structures into seven-part chiasms exclusively. In addition, I could mention several commentators who are satisfied to declare that they have found an adequate parallelism if they can find one or two minor verbal similarities within different sections, no matter how extended those passages may be. Others ignore that particular hallmark of parallelism and are content if two passages demonstrate a rough thematic similarity – an approach that is highly subjective at best. In fact, the composition of each book of the Bible is unique and requires the utilization of every available tool in order to discern how it is put together. Even then, the structural analyst must take the approach of every good scientist and remain open to correction as more facts come to light.

My own structural analyses of each book in the Bible are summarized in individual posts on this site. Just search for “(name of book): Introduction to Literary Structure.”

 

INTRODUCTION TO STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: PART 1

Any of you who have been following my blog for long will probably notice that I frequently invoke the use of analysis of a Bible passage from the viewpoint of its literary structure. So I figured this would be a good time to review what literary analysis is all about, at least in the way I have been practicing it.

The whole process begins, as most scientific endeavors do, with a statement of all the assumptions that lie behind it. Here are the main ones:

    God is a God of order and that is reflected in His written word.

    We can best deal with the present biblical books as we now have them, rather than analyzing the various hypothetical sources that may have been used to compile each of them.

    Just as God inspired human writers in the process of composing the books of the Bible, he also oversaw the process of determining those which would be in the Canon and the way in which the text was adequately preserved over the centuries.

With that background, one is now able to look for the inherent order that is in each book. And the process generally starts by breaking down the text into its individual paragraphs and sections. The first attempt to do that was in 1227 AD when Stephen Langton came up with our present chapter divisions. But scholars agree that these divisions are not always reliable. For example, just look at the first chapter division in the Bible. Verses 1-3 of Genesis 2 really belong at the end of Chapter 1 instead. Drilling down to smaller paragraph divisions, you will find even more confusion in trying to rely on English translations or commentaries. That can be illustrated even with the tiny book of Philemon.

Most, but not all, scholars are agreed that the first seven verses serve as an introduction and the final three verses constitute the conclusion. But what about the body of this short letter?

Outlines for the Body of Philemon

Divisions                                                                     Ref.

Phm. 8-10, 11-16, 17-20, 21-22                                  NEB

Phm. 8-11, 12-14, 15-16, 17-20, 21-22                      TEV

Phm. 8-11, 12-16, 17-21, 22                                       NIV

Phm. 8-14, 15-16, 17-22                                            R. Melick

Phm. 8-14, 15-20                                                             Barth & Blanke

Phm. 8-14, 15-20, 21-22                                            RSV

Phm. 8-16, 17-21 22                                                  NRSV

Phm. 8-16, 17-22                                                       N. T. Wright

Phm. 8-12,17, 13-16, 18-21                                       E. Deibler

You can see that no two of these nine sources agree entirely on how to represent the author's intent through paragraph divisions. What are needed are some more objective criteria to go by, and fortunately the Bible provides them right within the text.

Inclusio

In the first place, the limits of a given section are often clearly marked by the use of an inclusio: repeated words or phrases at the start and conclusion of a given passage that serve as bookends for it. And they often contain elements within them listed in mirror-image order. For example:

    The blessings and the curses

            I have set before you (Deuteronomy 30:1)

            --------

            I have set before you...

    blessings and curses (Deuteronomy 30:19)

Note that in this particular case, our present chapter divisions do coincide with the intended limits to the section. We will get back to Deuteronomy 30 in a minute.

A typical New Testament example of an inclusio is Paul's use of “grace and peace” to begin a letter, with the same two elements often given in the reverse order at the end.

Inclusios also occur in the historical narratives. For example, the whole account of Saul's pursuit of David is bounded by these two passages.

    “Saul was sitting at Gibeah, under the tamarisk tree on the height, with his spear in his hand.” (I Samuel 22:6)

    “They took their bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, and fasted seven days. (I Samuel 31:13)

In the first incident, Saul has the priests of God killed with the sword for aiding David's escape, and in the last passage Saul himself falls on his sword and is killed and buried with his sons, as a form of divine retribution. These represent two of the only three times in the whole OT that a tamarisk tree is mentioned. The implication for apologetics is that God not only ordered how the Bible was written, but also built in order and symmetry to the actual events of history.

Symbolic Numbers

If you want a slightly more mathematical criteria for section divisions, it is well recognized that the number seven has particular symbolic significance within the Bible, standing for perfection or completion. Thus, the limits of a given section in the Bible can often be determined by noting repetition of a given Hebrew or Greek word or phrase within that section exactly seven times or multiples of seven. Looking again at Deuteronomy 30, the opening paragraph in this chapter can first be approximated by a marked change of subject after v. 10, and this is confirmed by two objective criteria. In the first place, there is an inclusio formed from the repeated phrase “return to the LORD your God...with all your heart and with all your soul” in verses 2 and 10. In addition, the first 10 verses contain exactly seven appearances of the Hebrew word shub (again, return, bring back, etc.), each time appearing with a slightly different meaning.

Similar Opening Words

Sometimes a new section in a book can be identified by its opening words. As an example, the most common way of dividing Genesis is to look for the phrase ellah toledot (“These are the generations of”) as an indicator that a new section is beginning. Note that the units recognized using this criterion alternate between narratives and genealogies, demonstrating an overall structural unity to the whole book.

Divisions in the Book of Genesis

I. Creation (1:1-2:3)

II. Eden and Beyond (2:4-4:26)

III. Genealogy (Salvation) (5:1-6:8)

IV. Destruction (6:9-9:28)

V. Genealogy (Salvation) (10:1-31)

VI. Babel and Beyond (10:32-11:9)

VII. Genealogy (Salvation) (11:10-26)

VIII. Narrative–Abraham (11:27-25:11)

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

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

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

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

Next, consider the Book of Ecclesiastes, which according to many critics, was written in two stages. An originally cynical and negative book was made somewhat acceptable to Jewish audiences by a later editor who inserted more conventional teachings into it at random places. Thus, they say, it is no surprise that the final product has no overall structure to it.

“...disjointed in construction...the book defies any logical analysis.” (G. S. Hendry)

“A prevalent view is that...its structure is an insoluble problem.” (Leland Ryken)

“The structure of Qoheleth remains elusive.” (Ardel Caneday)

“Structure is a problem throughout the book.” (Tremper Longman III)

“The entire book until the conclusion is a lengthy, at times almost rambling, discourse...” (Grant Osborne)

Now these comments are actually all from evangelical sources so you can only imagine what more critical scholars think of the book.

Similar Closing Words

By contrast, I have been able to show that the book is actually quite organized. But this reconstruction was only possible by realizing that the individual sections could be recognized by their similar conclusions, shown here in bold for one such section. In each conclusion, a traditional positive statement is qualified by a more skeptical one.

Eccles. 4:1-5:20

    A. Observation (4:1-4a)

        B. Conclusion: “This also is vanity and a striving after wind” (4:4b)

            C. Proverbs (4:5-6)

    A. Observation (4:7-8a)

        B. Conclusion: “This also is vanity” (4:8b)

            C. Proverbs (4:9-12)

    A. Observation (4:13-16a)

        B. Conclusion: “This also is vanity and a striving after wind” (4:16b)

            C. Proverbs (5:1-7)

    A. Observation (5:8-10a)

        B. Conclusion: “This also is vanity” (5:10b)

            C. Proverbs (5:11-12)

    A. Observation (5:13-17)

        B. Positive Conclusion (5:18-19)

            C. Negative Qualifier (5:20)

This regularity in pattern indicates that rather than two authors being involved, both world views, positive and negative, were held in tension by a single author instead. As Robert Gordis humorously puts it, the Preacher has “doubts even with regard to his skepticism.”

Internal Structure

As a final clue to recognizing the limits to the particular divisions in a book, each major section will usually have some form of internal order such as possession of a common subject or theme. We can see this by returning to Deuteronomy 30. Unfortunately, verses 11-14 represent a sort of hiccup in the chapter in terms of subject and style. They don't concern prophecies like the rest of the chapter and almost read as if they belong in the wisdom or poetry books instead.

Form critics are always on the lookout for passages which do not exactly fit the standard literary pattern of the surrounding words and therefore would probably label these verses as latter additions which interrupt the text.

A. Consequences of obedience or disobedience explained (30:1-10)

[B. God's will is known to you (30:11-14)]

C. Consequences of obedience or disobedience explained (10:15-20)

By contrast, source critics are more suspicious of repeated language in the text as evidence of alternative versions of the same events that were available to the final editors. They might infer in this case that the editors couldn't determine which was the more accurate version of the two, so they just included them both. It is then the critic's job to identify the older story and discount the more recent one as being less reliable. In this particular case, Section A is more detailed in describing future events so that the NRSV Study Bible, for example, treats these verses as a later insertion into the text.

[A. Consequences of obedience or disobedience explained (30:1-10)]

B. God's will is known to you (30:11-14)

C. Consequences of obedience or disobedience explained (10:15-20)

But at least by following the steps outlined above, one can arrive at a rough table of contents for any book of the Bible. And that point is where most evangelical commentaries used to stop. But to proceed any further, we will first need to go one more step toward explaining a literary structure and how it differs from a mere table of contents. Part 2 of this series will be an introduction to that subject.

 

PHILEMON 18-20

Philemon 18-20 What does Paul mean by the following words: “...not to mention that you owe me your very self. I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord...”?

This letter “is a masterpiece of pastoral diplomacy.” (A. Patzia, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 703) Paul is juggling several goals at the same time. On the one hand, he wishes to reconcile Onesimus to his master, Philemon, and must return him according to Roman law. But he also hopes that Onesimus can come back to him and help him in his ministry while in prison. Paul has to word his request firmly enough to get his point across, but at the same time he wants Philemon to freely choose to release Onesimus into Paul's service without exerting any undue pressure.

In the quotation above, it is Paul's pressure on Philemon that is in the forefront. Paul uses the rhetorical technique of paralepsis: saying that you are not going to say something and then going ahead and mentioning it anyway. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon) It sounds like Paul is really putting the screws to Philemon to get him to agree, but Fitzmyer points out that the original Greek here is much more subtle than reflected in English translations.

What was it that Philemon owed to Paul? While most commentators assume that this is a reference to Paul converting Philemon, that is not exactly spelled out in the text. Barth and Blanke (The Letter to Philemon) mention other possibilities:

    “Whether Paul had saved Philemon's life or his honor; whether he has hidden him from pursuers; whether he has helped him in some extreme need, perhaps by standing his bail bond; or whether Paul has proclaimed the gospel to him so that he came to faith in Christ – all these open questions can have only speculative answers.”

Barth and Blanke go on to cast doubt on the conversion theory, and feel that Philemon must be under some more unique obligation to Paul, perhaps the fact that Paul personally baptized him.

The “benefit...in the Lord” that Paul is talking about is mainly the ability to retain Onesimus as a useful helper. (The name Onesimus actually means “useful” in Greek.) But, in addition, there are hints in the letter that Paul would like Philemon to free Onesimus from slavery as well. These are found in statements such as “you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (vv. 15-16) and “knowing that you will do even more than I say” (v. 21).

 

AN OVERVIEW OF II KINGS 5

The story of Naaman's healing from leprosy through Elisha's intervention is one of the best known in the Old Testament. I have earlier gone through this passage of Scripture verse-by-verse (see post entitled “II Kings 5”). But this time around, I would like to step back for a minute and look at the story as a whole.

The chapter has been characterized in a number of different ways in the past. As a children's story in Sunday school it is usually presented as the somewhat humorous scene of the powerful general Naaman dipping in a muddy river. Or it may be taught as a straightforward miracle story illustrating the power of the true God in contrast to the impotent pagan deities.

Another approach is to see the story of Naaman as a type of what a person needs to do in order to be saved: recognize his or her need, go to God as the only way of filling that need, humble yourself, demonstrate your faith by submitting to the waters of baptism, and living a life in concert with God's will – not to earn your salvation, but in gratitude to God for His free gift.

Or we could consider the main take-away lesson that Jesus himself derived from this story. In Luke 4:27, he utilizes it along with other OT examples to instruct a synagogue audience in the sad fact that sometimes the “pagans” are more willing to turn to God than the people of Israel. Thus, “No prophet is accepted in his own town.” This lesson of God as a Universal God, not just the God of Israel, is also brought out in II Kings 5. Although Elisha in v. 8 stresses that “there is a prophet in Israel” and Naaman in v. 15 states that “there is no God in all the earth except in Israel,” Naaman's symbolic carting of Israelite dirt off to Aram typifies the fact that God rules even outside the borders of the Holy Land.

I then decided to turn to my favorite interpretive tool, literary structure, to see if it could help uncover anything extra to say on the subject. Looking for similar or contrasting verses in this chapter, whether in terms of theme or language, one can arrive at an overall organization something like that shown below:

A. Opening Situation: Naaman has leprosy (v. 1)

            B. Naaman listens to a servant girl (vv. 2-3)

                C. Naaman goes to king of Aram (v. 4)

                    D. King of Aram's message (vv. 5-6)

                        E. King of Israel's angry reaction (v. 7)

                            F. Elisha: “there is a prophet in Israel” (v. 8)

                C'. Naaman goes to Elisha (v. 9)

                    D'. Elisha's message (v. 10)

                        E. Naaman's angry reaction (vv. 11-12)

            B'. Naaman listens to his servants (vv. 13-14)

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

            B. Naaman “stood before” Elisha (v. 15a)

                C. “Please accept” a present (v. 15b)

                        D. Elisha refuses the gift (v. 16)

                            E. Naaman's request (vv. 17-18)

                                F. Elisha agrees and sends him off in peace (v. 19a)

                            E'. Gehazi's request (vv. 19b-22)

                        D'. Gehazi accepts the gift (vv. 23b-24)

            B'. Gehazi “stood before” Elisha (v. 25)

                C'. “Is this a time to accept presents?” (v. 26)

A'. Closing Situation: Gehazi has leprosy (v. 27)

From this overall organization, we can see first of all that the chapter really consists of two related stories, not just one. In that respect, I see some very close parallels with the Parable of the Prodigal Son:

    In both cases, the emphasis among Bible teachers is almost always on the first part of the story as being more upbeat and and instructive while ignoring the second half of the chapter as perhaps being too close to home for most believers to want to consider. Just note the way that (a) this parable is always named after the younger son and not his older brother and (b) II Kings 5 is always called “Naaman healed from leprosy” rather than “Gehazi given leprosy.”

    Both contain two-part lessons in which there is a marked contrast between two of the main characters. In each story, one person starts out being far away from the Father, but repents and ends up close to Him. By contrast, another person who is apparently very close to the Father in the beginning, by the end of the story is excluded from His presence by his sinful actions and attitude. One valuable overall message of the chapter is that we should never consider ourselves, as the Pharisees did, as being uniquely God's children in contrast to “outsiders” who are not part of our chosen circle. Too much pride can easily lead to a fall.

Beside the contrast between the behavior of Naaman and Gehazi, there is a very similar contrast between (a) the King of Aram in v. 5 who is willing to admit that the God of Israel may be able to carry out a miraculous healing and (b) the King of Israel who feels that it is utterly impossible (v. 7).

Most commentators will rightly point out the key role played by the Israelite servant girl in the first half of this chapter. But they almost always ignore the equal importance of the other servants in the chapter. For example, Naaman not only has the humility to listen to her, but he also does the same thing in response to the pleas of his other servants in 13. Now, look at the way these loyal servants of a pagan general serve him (in the first half of the structure above), in contrast to the disloyal actions of Gehazi, the servant of God's prophet (the subject of the second half of the structure).

Finally, each half of the structure proposed above highlights in its center Section F the key words of Elisha. In verse 7, he pronounces firmly that “there is a prophet in Israel,” and in the first part of v. 19 he pronounces a benediction on Naaman as that Aramean returns to his own land guilt-free even though he knows that Naaman will continue to pretend to worship Rimmon. In this compassionate act, Elisha is merely copying his mentor Elijah who had earlier brought words of comfort to Obadiah, another closet believer serving in the house of a king (see I Kings 18).

 

INSULT AND INJURY IN THE BIBLE

Fyodor Dostoevsky once wrote a book titled The Insulted and Injured, which I must admit I have never read. However, I would be willing to bet that it is not exactly the most uplifting novel around. This present post is probably not going to be the most cheerful one either, but I do think that it will be helpful in pointing out an interesting pattern in Scripture.

There are actually many examples of insulting put-downs found throughout both Testaments, but they seem to fall into one of two categories. The first could be best characterized as “adding insult to injury,” “rubbing salt in the wound,” or “hitting someone when they are already down.” However one expresses the idea, it is a behavior almost always condemned by society for its unnecessary cruelty. When we run across examples of it in the Bible, it is always carried out by non-believers or disobedient Jews. For example:

Genesis 49:5-6 Simon and Levi are rightly criticized by Jacob for not only killing off all the men of Shechem but then cruelly and unnecessarily hamstringing their oxen.

Judges 1:7 The pagan lord of Bezek states that he used to cut off the thumbs and big toes of defeated kings and then have them feed on scraps under his table as a further insult. For that behavior, God has the same fate happen to him.

Judges 16:23-27 Not satisfied with blinding Samson and making him grind at the mill, the Philistines then decide to have him entertain them at an important gathering. Again, that move backfires on them.

I Samuel 10:27-11:2 Nahash of the Ammonites gouged out the right eyes of all those Israelites he conquered to “thus put disgrace on all Israel.”

I Samuel 31:4 After Saul is mortally wounded by an arrow in battle with the Philistines, he begs his armor-bearer to kill him off so that the enemy will not “make sport of me.”

II Samuel 13:7-16 Not satisfied with raping his half-sister Tamar, David's son Amon then dismisses her as if she were a mere prostitute. Tamar objects that the latter offense is even worse than the first one.

II Samuel 16:5-8 As a classic example of kicking someone when they are down, Saul's relative Shimei waits until David has been forced out of Jerusalem by Absalom before he begins to insult him and throw stones at him during David's retreat.

Psalm 137 is the heartfelt cry of Jews who had been sent into Babylonian captivity. Not only were they taken captive from their homeland, but to make things worse, their captors rubbed things in by demanding that they sing songs in honor of Zion, which they would never see again.

Additional examples of how pagan countries in Old Testament times humiliated those inhabitants of nations whom they had decimated are alluded to in the writings of the prophets. These included sending captives into exile barefoot and with their buttocks uncovered (Isaiah 20:3-4); leading them around with hooks in their nose or cheek (Isaiah 37:29; Ezekiel 29:4; 38:4; Amos 4:2); and caging them up (Ezekiel 19:9). In other words, they treated others as mere animals.

This same pattern of insulting someone who has already suffered pain is found even more prominently in the New Testament description of Jesus' crucifixion. Not only was he mocked by the soldiers before he was crucified, but even on the cross the insults continued. Besides the ironic placard identifying him as King of the Jews, Matthew 27:37-49 and its parallel account in Luke 23:36-39 record sarcastic comments concerning Jesus coming from passers-by, soldiers, the chief priests, scribes, elders, a bandit crucified with him, and some bystanders.

At this point, a knowledgeable Bible student could rightly point out that it wasn't only the “villains” in the Bible who were known for their insulting words directed toward those with whom they didn't agree. That is certainly true, but there is an important distinction that needs to be drawn. For those who were “on God's side” the insults they gave out never followed an injury; in sharp contrast, they either preceded the “injury” as a sort of warning or were never intended to be followed by any sort of injurious action at all. Here are some examples:

One form of insult was that of the fable, which Tasker defines as “a picturesque, but fictitious, story, often satirical in character, told to bring home to the hearer a salutary, if unwelcome, truth.” There are two such examples in the Old Testament.

    Judges 9 After Abimelech, son of Gideon, managed to assassinate all but one of his half-brothers, he is confronted by Jotham, the remaining brother, who tells a fable about some trees who go out to choose a king. This story makes fun of Abimelech's pretensions and at the same time warns him and the Shechemites who helped him to power of future disastrous consequences. The king refuses to listen and as a result, God leads the Shechemites to turn against Abimelech.

    II Kings 14:8-14 In this similar case, the good and powerful king of the Northern Kingdom, Joash, is confronted by King Amaziah of Judah who wants to fight against him. Joash replies with a rather sarcastic fable attempting to puncture Amaziah's inflated image of himself and his army. Again, the latter refuses to listen to the warning and as a consequence is soundly defeated in battle.

Another form of insult is known as the taunt song. There are examples, which appear to be cruel at times, found in the OT and NT. But when it is God or His representative who utilizes this form of rebuke, the often unspoken motive is to wake up the addressee to the point where he will recognize his sinful attitude and actions and repent before God's judgment comes upon him.

One rather extended example is found in Job 38-41 in which God exposes Job's ignorance of His ways and causes him to repent. Unfortunately, most of the examples of taunt songs in the books of the prophets are not as successful in affecting the course of their intended targets. The most prominent Old Testament examples are those in which God's prophets denounce foreign kingdoms with their rulers, gods, pagan priests and prophets. Thus, In I Kings 18:27 it is Elijah against the priests of Baal; Isaiah 14:12-21 is directed against an unnamed king of Babylon; and Ezekiel (in chapters 27-28) rails against Tyre and its ruler.

The New Testament continues this tradition with John the Baptist criticizing the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to him for baptism: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit worthy of repentance.” Note the strong correlation between strong rebuke and the call to true repentance. Of course, the taunt song reaches its peak with Christ's comments concerning the religious leaders of his day who were “hypocrites” and “white-washed tombs.” In addition, his parables often shine the light on the sinful behavior of his audience in an indirect way so that the implied criticism might have a better chance to soak in and effect a changed life.

Stephen carries on in this tradition in his highly critical review of Jewish history in Acts 7, as do Paul when addressing the false teachers and James in his criticism of the rich.

If there is any “injury” following these various “godly insults,” it ultimately comes from God Himself, sometimes utilizing earthly entities to carry out His will.

At this point, I am reminded of the Christian writer Flannery O'Conner's most famous story, called “Revelation.” It is a simple tale in which a somewhat emotionally disturbed teen-age girl suddenly blurts out the insult “You are a warthog from hell!” to a rather self-satisfied and bigoted older woman who is in a dentist's waiting room with her. It has the effect of deeply disturbing the woman, who for the first time in her life sees herself as she actually is and repents of her sins. And that is really the intended result of all the godly insults in the Bible.

 

ENFORCED DIVORCE (EZRA 10:2-3)

Enforced Divorce (Ezra 10:2-3)

This is one of the cruelest passages in the Bible since it apparently portrays God approving of mass enforced divorce among the Jews with wives and their children being forcibly sent away from their husbands and fathers. So we need to go into the matter in a little more detail than what is just on the surface.

The necessary background to understanding these two verses includes a description of the situation as it existed when this second group of Jews was allowed to return to their homeland under the leadership of Ezra. It was found that some of the people who had either never been deported or had returned earlier under Zerubbabel had intermarried with foreign women of the land. And that even included some of the priesthood. Ezra reacts in horror when he learns of this.

But unlike the way I had remembered the story, it wasn't actually Ezra who came up with the solution to the problem. Instead, that suggestion came from one Shecaniah. He felt that those pagan wives and their children should be “sent away,” and Ezra concurs. And this brings up the first area of controversy in the story – the identity of Shecaniah. Witness the competing pronouncements below:

    “It seems that Shecaniah would himself be involved in the disruption of family life which would result, for his father, Jehiel the son of Elam (v. 2) being one of the guilty men (v. 26) would be required to separate himself from his wife and their children, including himself.” (Short)

    “Their spokesman, Shecaniah, does not appear in the list of offenders.” (Cundall)

    Shecaniah “is not listed as one of the guilty.” (Myers)

    It is extraordinary that the spokesman should be Shecaniah ben Jehiel...since Jehiel...was among those who had married foreign wives (10:26); Shecaniah himself in this case would have been advocating his own excommunication, so we can only suppose that his father was another Jehiel of that family (it is a fairly common Israelite name).”

In summary, we have no way of knowing one way or another whether Shecaniah would have been affected by this ruling.

The next point to settle is in regard to Ezra's legal precedent in the biblical teachings (see v. 3) for dissolving such marriages. Again, there are various opinions concerning this matter:

    Such intermarriage was forbidden in Exodus 34:11-16 and Deuteronomy 7:1-5 since it would lead to idolatry in the land. (Kaiser)

    However, Milgrom points out that Exodus and Deuteronomy did not prohibit all intermarriage, only those with specific groups in Canaan.

    Short notes that Malachi 2:11 also criticizes such marriages. But arguing against that fact is also Malachi 2:16 in which God is said to hate divorce.

    Kaiser suggests that Ezra perhaps found a justification for divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 since it allowed a severing of marriage bonds in the case of “something unseemly or shameful.” Thus, he asks, “What could bring greater shame than the breaking of the covenant relationship and the ultimate judgment on all the people?”

    The “law” in v. 3 referred to Ezra's earlier proclamation recorded in Nehemiah 8 “since there is no prohibition against marrying foreigners in the Pentateuchal legislation, although there are strong hints elsewhere about its undesirabiliy.” (Myers)

    “Foreign women were married contrary to the law of God. The marriages were illegal from the outset. The sending away of the women is to guard the exiles against the continuation of an illegal act. With their foreign wives they lived in sin. It is thus clear from v. 4 that there is a strong legal background against what Shecaniah has formulated his proposal.” (Fensham)

So in summary, we really don't know what the biblical injunction was that Ezra used for justification in this case or whether he simply extrapolated it from general principles found in earlier teachings.

Assuming that Ezra was not just following some earlier pronouncement by God, what could have been his general motivation for taking such a severe step? Concerning this point, a number of proposal have been made, but one main reason seems to stand out in most scholars' minds:

    Boda mentions that some trace concern over intermarriage to prevent apostasy, others to preservation of ethnic purity, and still others to a concern that Jewish land might fall into foreign hands, and still others that it was a misguided attempt to purify society by scapegoating certain people. Boda himself feels that religious concerns were uppermost in mind.

    “For Ezra, the postexilic community is religious in character: a cultic community focused on the temple and Torah and concerned with purity / contamination from outsiders.” (Bedford)

    “The increased rigidity of cultural boundaries in the construction of social identity in Ezra-Nehemiah is likely to have been the result of a serious threat of cultural assimilation and political oppression.” (Knauth)

    “The little community was in grave danger of being adsorbed in the syncretism of its stronger and more powerful neighbors.” (Myers)

    “To keep the religion of the Lord pure was the one and only aim of Ezra and the returned exiles.” (Fensham)

    “He [Ezra] realized that not only were these mixed marriages acts of disobedience to God's law, but that it was because of such acts of disobedience in former times that the Jews had been exiled to Babylon.” (Short)

But now we come to the biggest problem most people today have with this whole story – the harshness of the action taken. However, there are some moderating facts that we need to take into account.

Kaiser puts the extent of the problem into perspective somewhat by calculating that only about 0.4% of the population was affected by this ruling.

The rest of Ezra 10 explains that it took all of three months for a group of democratically elected men to carefully examine each of the individual cases involved before taking any action.

The new ruling did not apply to marriages in which the wives had adopted the Jewish religion. In that regard, we can look to the examples of Ruth, Rahab, and Moses' Cushite wife for precedents.

Kaiser and others note that the verb “put away” is not the normal Hebrew word for “divorce.” Thus, we have no way of knowing whether the women and their children were provided for in some manner or other.

Eskenazi notes that the all-important verse Ezra 10:44 in the Hebrew simply reads, “Some had wives with whom they had sons” rather than “All these had married foreign women, and they sent them away with their children.” He concludes that the latter understanding comes from the much later book I Esdras (9:36). “Ezra 10:44 thus does not say that the women and children were expelled. The fate of these families is not recorded in the Hebrew text.”

Despite the above moderating considerations, “this counsel which Shecaniah gave to Ezra might seem cruel and heartless; but it was felt to be essential if the Jewish faith was to survive.” (Short)

And Cundall elaborates on this theme: “The unhappiness caused by these broken homes must be set not only against the initial transgression involved in contracting of the marriages, but also against the ultimate blessing to the whole world that could only come through a purified community. The offence had to be dealt with sternly, and sentiment was not allowed to influence the profound principles involved.”

In closing, I should point out that none of the above should be used for a Christian today as justification for divorcing a spouse who is an unbeliever. Although it may not have been wise to contract such an unequal yoking to begin with, remember Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 7:12-16 that “the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

 

BOOK OF NUMBERS: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Numbers 11:18-20 Do the Israelite not know why God took them out of Egypt!? Again in these verses they say, "We were better off in Egypt."

This is just one of seven times (according to the Talmud) that the Israelites rebelled against God and Moses in the wilderness. These rebellions seem strange to us since we would like to feel that in their place we would be grateful to have escaped a life of slavery and have the promise of a brand new land to settle in. However, before we judge them too harshly, it is wise to consider several aspects of common human nature illustrated in this story that may strike a chord with us personally:

1. We often look at the past through rose-colored glasses and remember the good times while conveniently ignoring all the difficult ones.

2. There is an old saying: “Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.” Even though the Israelites were in bondage in Egypt and had to work hard, their basic needs of food, water and shelter were all met. In the wilderness, they faced nothing but uncertainties UNLESS they chose to place all their faith in God's promises of a better future in the promised land.

3. Many of us act as “practical atheists” in our everyday life. We trade in long-term, eternal rewards in favor of immediate pleasures, not unlike Esau trading his blessing for a pot of stew.

Numbers 13:4-16 In Exodus 24:12-14 it is written that Moses set out with Joshua his aide to go up on the mountain of God. Much later in Numbers 13:4-16 Moses gave Hoshea, son of Nun, the name Joshua. What is the significance of changing his name when he had already been referred to as Joshua much earlier?

NIV and other translations of Numbers 13:16 do give the impression that Moses renamed Hoshea (“he saved”) as Joshua (“Yahweh saves”) at the occasion of the spies being sent out. However, several commentators specifically point out that this is not the meaning of the Hebrew text. For example, Timothy Ashley states, “The text does not say that it was at this point that the renaming took place. The author here wished the reader to note that the Hoshea of the list just previous [Numbers 13:8] is the famous Joshua. At some unknown point, Moses put the Yahwistic element in hosea.” (The Book of Numbers, p. 233)

The New English Bible makes this point clear by translating verse 16, “But Moses called the son of Nun Joshua, not Hoshea.” In other words, Joshua was Moses' pet name for Hoshea.

Conversely, the earlier mention of Joshua as his name in Exodus 24 does not necessarily mean that Moses had already renamed him by that time. As George Wenham points out, “Though some earlier passages (e.g. Exodus 24:13) use the name Joshua, they must be anticipating his subsequent change of name.” (Numbers, p. 116-117)

Just to add to the confusion, at an even later time period, Deuteronomy 32:44 refers to Hoshea son of Nun in the Hebrew text while the early Aramaic, Greek and Latin translations of this verse all give his name as Joshua. (NRSV textual note)

Jumping to the New Testament, although Simon is renamed as Peter by Jesus at one point, there are still some subsequent references to him as Simon or Simon Peter. Having multiple names is not uncommon in either Old Testament or New Testament times, and often the context determines which name will be used in which setting. One prominent example is that of Saul (his Jewish name) being called Paul (his Gentile name) when he is predominantly interacting with the Gentile world.

Numbers 30:16 What kind of vows would be made between father and daughter, husband and wife?

This verse, taken by itself in the fairly literal NIV translation, does seem to imply that there might be vows between family members. However, that is not at all the intent.

Today's English Version renders the underlying thought of this verse better: “These are the rules that the LORD gave Moses concerning vows made by an unmarried woman living in her father's house or by a married woman.” In other words, verse 16 is simply a summary of the rules outlined in verses 1-15. These all deal with vows made to God. As a matter of fact, when the Bible speaks about vows, they are always made between human beings and God, not between two people. (New Bible Dictionary, p.1313)

Reviewing the regulations in Numbers 30, one could easily get the idea that a woman's vows were not taken as seriously as a man's vows because a woman was not considered mature enough to make responsible decisions by herself. That is obviously not the case since verse 9 states that vows made by a widow or divorced woman are to be fully binding. And no one would argue that a divorced woman is necessarily more mature than a married one.

Then why could a father or husband overrule a woman's vows if he wished? Robin Wakely gives the most probable reason: “Given the economic dependence of women on men in ancient Israelite society, it was felt necessary to protect fathers and husbands from excessive commitments made by women who were not ultimately responsible for finding the resources necessary to fulfill those commitments.” (Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Vol. 1, p. 474) Nevertheless, the man had the responsibility to speak now or forever hold his peace regarding his daughter's or wife's vow as soon as he learned of it. If he later changed his mind and did not let her go ahead with the vow, he would be the guilty party in God's eyes, not her.