DEUTERONOMY 21:1-9

Two of my favorite TV series are Cold Case Files and New Tricks. Each one involves the attempt to solve crimes, mainly murders, committed in which the culprit was never found. But society still takes on the responsibility of seeing that, if possible, justice is served. And this is not a new situation, by any means. The Law of Hammurabi and the Hittite Laws, for example, made provision for a local or central governmental entity to settle a monetary amount on the family of the one murdered if the guilty party was unknown.

Thompson says, “Such a contingency as this, belongs to every society, ancient or modern. But whereas modern societies are not troubled by questions such as defilement or expiation, ancient societies often were.”

Old Testament Israel had their way of handling the situation, and this procedure is outlined in Deuteronomy 21. “The ceremony combines both judicial and sacral ideas.” (Craigie) The need for a method to “purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel,” as Deut.19:13 puts it, was imperative. (Levinson) This was necessary since “both the people and the land were defiled and some kind of ceremonial execution was required to satisfy the demands of justice.” (Thompson)

Deuteronomy 21:1

This verse, along with v. 9, acts as a framework for the law itself. (Craigie)

The significance of the murdered body being found in “open country” was that it was thus located “beyond the legal jurisdiction of any particular town (see vv. 22, 23, 25), and where witnesses are unlikely.” (Levinson)

Deuteronomy 21:2

In this specific case, the distance between the site where the body was found and the nearest town needed to first be determined by local elders and judges to establish which town had the appropriate legal jurisdiction.

“According to Deut 16:18-20 tribal judges and officials were to be appointed in every town to administer impartial justice (cf 21:2; 25:2).” (Schutz) However, Craigie says, “The elders and judges referred to in this verse are the representatives of a central legal authority, rather than a local authority (as in v. 3).”

Deuteronomy 21:3

Next, a heifer was chosen which had never pulled the yoke. Levinson says that this symbolizes “the human victim's innocence (similarly, Num 19.2).”

McCarter compares Numbers 19:2; I Samuel 6:7; and Deuteronomy 21:3 in which ritually clean animals are chosen as sacrificial animals to carry away contamination from an area.

Deuteronomy 21:4

The location of the rite, which involved breaking the heifer's neck, had to be near a place with running water (Amos 5:24). Levinson points out that the Hebrew literally reads 'with reliable water,' in contrast to unreliable seasonal springs (Jer 15:8).”

In addition, the site was to be one which had never been plowed. As to the exact reason behind these regulations, Cousins asks, “Is virgin land chosen so that, like the virgin animal, it can accept the defilement of the bloodshed? Or so that the blood, transferred to the soil, need never be disturbed by the plough? Or is it seen as desert (cf. The scapegoat in Lev. 16:22)?” The answer to these questions is not spelled out in the text, but here are a few opinions on the subject:

    “The heifer, the valley and the water were undefiled, because they had never been contaminated by common use.” (Thompson)

    “A continually flowing stream provides the site for a ritual purification ceremony (Deut 21:4) and also serves as a measure for the kind of righteousness Yahweh expects from his elect nation (Amos 5:24).” (Grisanti)

    “The sacrifice was to take place in a rough valley terrain where a flowing stream would remove the heifer's blood. Atonement and cleansing go together here, and point to Calvary (Heb 9:13,14).” (Harrison)

    “The notion underlying such requirements is that animals used in purificatory rites, like those in more usual types of sacrifice, should represent the best available, and should never have been employed for any profane purpose.” (Levine)

As to the symbolism behind this ritual, “A heifer that had never been worked was put to death in the place of the murderer so that the bloodshed was atoned.” (Lu) Most commentators point out that this is obviously not a sacrificial killing since those always were carried out by slitting the animal's throat so that all the blood could be drained out (see Exodus 13:13; 34:20). Weinfeld remarks that “the heifer's neck is broken at the scene of the crime, as it were.”

Interestingly, Chisholm points to a similar ritual in Isaiah 66:2-3 in which a dog's neck was broken to atone for sin. He feels that perhaps these particular sinners were trying to avoid the sacrifice of a heifer as commanded here.

Deuteronomy 21:5

There is a little scholarly controversy regarding the nature of the priests. Cousins says, “The priests are presumably connected with a local theophanic shrine; they will scarcely have traveled from the central sanctuary.” But Craigie says that “their presence seems to be primarily as representatives of the central tribunal. In a criminal (capital) case, where there was a person charged with an offense, the priests would have been involved in the passing of judgment (17:8-9).”

Concerning the phrase 'to minister to God,' Fretheim says, “These texts have a personal note to their understanding of service; it is a ministering directed to and on behalf of God himself, not just the places and objects associated with divine worship.”

“The priests provided both general instruction and specific guidance. In answer to specific questions they gave an authoritative decision (tora) on matters of purity, sacrifice and difficult judicial rulings (Deut 17:9; 21:5).” (Jenson)

“The priests are present during this act, not because they play any part in the execution of the ritual, for this is carried out entirely by the elders, but merely to guarantee the religious aspect of the ceremony by presiding over it.” (Weinfeld)

The final phrase of this verse, 'by their decision all cases all cases of dispute and assault shall be settled,' “contrasts with 17.9 where the Levitical priests at the central sanctuary adjudicated only cases that could not be resolved locally.” (Levinson)

Deuteronomy 21:6

At this point, all the elders of the nearest town were to wash their hands. Kruger states that “the washing of the hands (Deut 21:6; Ps 26:6; 73:13),...symbolically denotes freedom for responsibility for a wrong committed or the release of a commitment or agreement.” Levinson also notes this was necessary since the rite was carried out “with no laying of hands, and thus without symbolic transfer of culpability to the animal (contrast Lev 16:21-22).”

Weinfeld says that “the elders cleanse their hands only as a purificatory expression of their innocence (cf. Pss 24:4; 26:6-10; 73:13, etc.).”

Cousins: “This hand-washing is less of a formality than Pilate's; the threat of the unexpiated blood is keenly felt.”

Deuteronomy 21:7

The elders are then to pronounce an oath of innocence. The phrase 'they shall testify' in Hebrew literally reads, 'they shall declare and say' (as also found in 25:9; 26:5; and 27:14-15). According to Mayes, it is “used of solemn declarations and affirmations either in a legal or in a cultic context.”

The declaration itself is very strong in the original Hebrew and can be translated as this: “'As for our hands, they did not shed this blood not did our eyes see,' covering both direct action and failure to avert or prevent a crime (cf. Lev 5:10).” (Levinson)

Deuteronomy 21:8-9

The oath of the elders in v. 7 appears to continue into v. 8. However, according to Harrison's understanding, the request to forgive is “spoken by the priests, implying that the local inhabitants had failed to make the roads safe for travellers.”

Wakely states, “In Ps 65:3, as in other texts (cf. Deut 21:8; Ps 78:38), the verb kpr seems to signify to forgive, i.e., to restore the previous relationship.”

“As a rule...expiation is effected trough the vicarious death of an animal. But what is of special importance in this connection is that appeal is made to Jahweh himself actively to effect the expiation. Accordingly the one who receives expiation is not Jahweh, but Israel: Jahweh is rather the one who acts in averting the calamitous curse which burdens the community.” (Herrmann)

Craigie points out that “forgiveness is sought for the whole people (Israel is mentioned twice in the prayer for forgiveness), not simply for the city nearest the crime.” Thus, “Such a murder involved the whole community in blood guile,” as Thompson states.

The phrase “purge out” also appears in Deut. 13:6; 19:13, etc.

“The ritual of vv. 3-6 has no intrinsic efficacy; prayer is the means of absolution...since absolution ultimately depends upon divine action, not human ritual.” (Levinson)

Cousins summarizes: “This is clearly a very ancient ritual, nearer to magic than almost any other in the Bible, but lifted above magic by the liturgy of v. 8 and the application of v. 9...since it is Yahweh who has provided the ritual, it is he who lifts the community's guilt. Corporate guilt is an alien concept to the modern world, but passages such as this challenge the reader to take it seriously.”

 

PHILIPPIANS 2:6-8

The ancient poem Philippians 2:6-11 is felt to be one of the earliest doctrinal statements of the Church. Whether Paul wrote it himself or was quoting from an existing hymn, it is an extremely important document in helping us to understanding the person of Jesus Christ. It begins with two declarations:

    1. The pre-existent Christ was “in the form of God.”

    2. The pre-existent Christ possessed “equality with God.”

Both of these statements need further clarification since atheists and non-trinitarians alike question their exact meaning. I have dealt with the above issues in much more detail in an earlier post titled “Philippians 2:5-6.” However, the main points become clear once one realizes that this is written in the form of Hebrew poetic parallelism in which each pair of lines should be considered together with the first line being paralleled and clarified in the second line. Thus,

He was in the form of God (6a) = he did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited (6b)

He emptied himself (7a) = taking the form of a slave (7b)

Being born in human form (7c) = he humbled himself (8a)

and became obedient to the point of death (8b) = even death on the cross (8c)

It is hoped that the earlier post adequately answered the charges that (a) the “form” of something is not its essence (v. 6a) and (b) the second half of the verse does not actually state that Jesus was equal to God. But even laying those criticisms to rest, there is more in this poem that helps to answer yet another charge against the doctrine of Jesus being truly God. Thus, the common ploy of Jehovah Witnesses is to cherry-pick the gospel accounts for hints that the earthly Jesus did not possess all of the characteristics of God, and therefore he could not be truly God.

I have earlier quoted from a friend who does not believe in the concept of the Trinity and has attempted to prove his point using many specious arguments. Some of those arguments follow those used by the Jehovah Witnesses, although he is quite adamant that he has never been influenced by them. A number of his arguments fall into the category of supposed limitations demonstrated by the earthly Jesus. But all can be easily disposed of, some because they simply aren't true, and others by simply considering the statement in Philippians 2:7-8 that Jesus “emptied himself” when he became human. Here are a few of my friend's contentions as examples:

1. God is omniscient; Jesus was not. “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” (Matthew 24:36)

As far as I know, that is the only example one can point to in order to accuse the earthly Jesus of lack of omniscience. He was clearly able to read people's minds on a number of occasions, and in Matthew 24-25 he even reveals details concerning both the coming destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the Final Judgment.

There is even a new movement called Process Theology, which is not really an orthodox doctrine, but which attempts to make the point that even God the Father does not know ahead of time how his creatures will act. For example, don't the times in Genesis where God is said to have “come down” to see what is happening on earth prove that the Father is not omniscient either? I only bring up this point to demonstrate how easy it is to take a simple-minded approach to Scripture (as also did Job's friends) and be completely mistaken in our conclusions because they involve trying to understand completely all the secrets of an ultimately unknowable God.

2. If Jesus was and is “fully God,” why did He need to obey commandments? Is God not the source of the commandments and able to do as He pleases? “...just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.” (John 15:10b)

The context, which my friend has left out, makes it abundantly clear that Jesus obeyed the commandments in order (a) to set an example for others to follow (as in the reason he also submitted to baptism, even though he did not need to repent of anything) and (b) to, as our pastor is fond of saying, “live the life we should have lived and die the death we should have died.” And the two phrases in that quote are strongly related since it was only a perfectly sinless sacrifice that could suffice to take away our sins.

And another comment on my friend's words in passing – He states that God can do as he pleases. Look at my post entitled “Mark 6:5 – Is God Omnipotent” for the contention that even the Father is constrained in how he acts.

3. If Jesus was and is “fully God,” to whom did He pray and for what purpose? If Jesus is a “manifestation” of God, how do we account for Jesus receiving from the Father? Does not such activity require a separation between giver and a receiver?

Without bothering to nitpick over the use of the term “manifestation,” my friend has answered his own question. Both of these activities do indeed require a separation, and that is exactly what the essence of Philippians 2:7-8 is. The perfect “oneness” that Christ had in the beginning with God the Father was temporarily severed when Christ voluntarily emptied himself to descend to our earthly level.

4. If Jesus was and is “fully God,” in what manner did He have to “learn” obedience. “Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.” (Hebrews 5:8)

If Jesus was and is “fully God” why did He have to grow in wisdom? Doesn’t God know all things? “And the Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.” (Luke 2:40) “And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” (Luke 2:52)

To try to answer this one is beyond our human comprehension. However, one approach would be to consider the alternative scenario that my friend seems to be suggesting. To retain all of his omnipotence in the form of a human baby or child is to picture the sort of nightmarish creature that the medieval Infancy Gospels portray – a child with all the selfish characteristics of that breed coupled to a totally omnipotent being who can do anything that comes into his small mind to do. Thus, the boy Jesus that later Christians pictured turned his playmates into birds and played other sadistic tricks on friends and family alike until scolded by Mary. There was an old TV episode of The Twilight Zone which portrays the same sort of omnipotent child monster.

We obviously don't know all the whys and wherefores of the maturation processes taking place within the growing Christ child other than the facts Luke records in Lk. 1:80 (“The child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day he appeared publicly to Israel.”); the two passages quoted above; and the fact that He amazed those teachers in the Temple with his questions as well as his comment that He had to be in his Father's house (Luke 2:41-51).

It isn't until Jesus was about thirty years old and beginning his ministry that Luke records the descent of the Holy Spirit on Him at His baptism (Luke 3:22), and it states (Luke 4:1) He was “full of the Holy Spirit.” Therefore it is possible to view his process of spiritual maturation as being totally complete at least by that point in time.

 

HEBREWS AND CHRIST'S DEITY

As an extremely subtle and somewhat ingenious argument against the full deity of Christ, a friend of mine offered the following: If Jesus while on earth demonstrated any limitations at all (such as lack of total knowledge, lack of total power, needing to mature, deference to the Father, etc.), then he can't have been equal to God in his pre-incarnate or resurrected state either since Hebrews 13:8 states that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and for ever.

This argument just goes to demonstrate what nonsense one can come up with by refusing to take the immediate context of a Scripture passage into account. It is a common technique utilized repeatedly by militant atheists and heretical groups alike. Rather than give my own thoughts on the subject, I thought I would see what the scholars had to say. And the results truly amazed me because every single one I consulted agreed exactly on what this passage means. I think that is probably a first in my experience, since commentators generally try to outdo one another in coming up with new nuances of meaning in biblical texts.

Jerusalem Bible: “Christ Jesus was the central theme on which the heads of the community preached. They may die out but Christ remains, and so it is to him that Christians owe their allegiance.”

Moffatt: “Human leaders may pass away, but Jesus Christ, the supreme object and subject of their faithful teaching, remains, and remains the same: no novel additions to His truth are required.”

Hodges: “The call, 'Remember your leaders' [v. 7], perhaps referred to former leaders who had passed away. 'The outcome of their way of life' could be contemplated with good effect and the readers were to 'imitate their faith.' Those leaders were gone, but Jesus Christ of whom they spoke remains continuously the same.”

Stibbs: Let them find inspiration to be steadfast in the faith by remembering their former Christian leaders (v. 7), by whom they were instructed in the truth of God and the gospel. Fresh consideration of the lives they lived and of the way such lives ended will help them to copy their faith. For Jesus Christ, whom they trusted and followed, is the same today as He was then, and will continue the same for ever (v. 8). He is the one all-sufficient guarantee of salvation.”

Schnabel: “In the context of Hebrews 13:7, the statement in Hebrews 13:8 asserts that although the missionaries and preachers change, the acclamation of Hebrews 13:8 implies that to the extent that Jesus Christ was presented authoritatively in the preaching of the missionary leaders, they continue to have authority in the local Christian community even after their death.”

Bruce: “Those who planted this community of Christians and fostered it by the ministry of the word of God and the example of a life of faith had run the race unwavering to the end; ...Yet they died; they lived on in the memory of those who had known them, but they were no longer available for consultation and wise guidance as they once had been. Jesus Christ, by contrast, was always available, unchanging from year to year.”

In case you may have missed the implication of this unified testimony to the question regarding Christ's deity, two additional commentators specifically pointed out the time frame which Hebrews 13:8 covered:

    Ellingsworth: “'Yesterday and today,' in the broad sense of these terms, correspond to the previous and current generation of the life of the local church to which Hebrews is addressed, and with which v. 7 was concerned. 'And for ever'...draws the readers' attention to the great theme of Christ's everlasting high priesthood.”

    Porter cites this verse as an example of “eternity circumscribed,” which in this case “speaks of a continued existence for the entirety of a set period of time, often with reference to the future.” Thus, it applies not to “the beginning and the end” of time, but to the specific period beginning with Christ's resurrection on into the future.

So, in conclusion, Hebrews 13:8 has no bearing whatsoever on the unchanging nature of Jesus Christ either in His pre-incarnate or earthly state. It simply states that His present glorified state with the Father will continue forever and forever.

BIBLE CHAPTER AND VERSE DIVISIONS

Perhaps it is because I was no good at rote memorization that I have never been fond of Bible drills where students are asked to spout out the correct chapter and verse of some Bible quote. Instead, our youth group had a variation whereby the teacher would begin reading a randomly chosen passage and continue until one of us could locate it in our Bibles. In that manner, we were taught to pay enough attention to the actual thoughts and overall context of what we were reading so that we could place it within the proper time frame and literary type. But I must admit that knowing the chapter and verse of a passage without having to search through the Bible for it is a huge advantage at times.

The problem comes in when we try to elevate those individual verse designations as the only sure guide to what the authors intended in the first place. As an example I have shared before, I visited a Sunday school class once where the teacher would absolutely not allow anyone to refer to a previous or subsequent verse for clarification when discussing each individual verse. By “atomizing” the text in that manner, it was treated as a series of unrelated verses which had to each stand on its own. This is an especially ridiculous way in which to approach the Bible since, for example, some of Paul's introductory sentences in his epistles encompass ten verses or more.

The first attempt to divide up the biblical text into chapters did not actually happen until 1227 AD when Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton came up with our present chapter divisions. The Wycliffe English Bible of 1382 was the first Bible to use this chapter pattern. Since the Wycliffe Bible, nearly all Bible translations have followed Langton’s chapter divisions. Nathan, a Jewish rabbi, came up with verse divisions for the Old Testament in 1448. Robert Estienne basically combined Nathan's OT divisions with his own for the New Testament in the 1500's. The Geneva Bible incorporated all of these divisions in their 1560 edition and they still appear in almost all current Bible translations.

We should not treat these various divisions as if they were as inspired as the words themselves since they date from over 1,000 years after the writing of the Bible. In fact, in some cases these divisions can actually be quite misleading. I will just cite two example to prove that point.

Genesis 1-2

Just look at the very first chapter division in the Bible. Verses 1-3 of Genesis 2 really belong at the end of Chapter 1 instead. The reasons are fairly obvious.

1. The mention of the “seventh day” in 2:2 caps off the series of six days that precede it. Garrett notes that the 6+1 pattern that thus results by restoring the proper division is a perfect match to other 6+1 patterns seen in the Book of Revelation at 6:1-8:1; 8:2-11:19; and 16:1-21. This is one of many correspondences between the beginning of Genesis and the last book in the Bible.

2. An envelope is placed around the first major division in Genesis by the phrase “the heavens and the earth” in Genesis 1:1 and 2:1. As Wenham points out, “The insertion of 'God created' into the phrase [in 2:2] produces slightly ungainly Hebrew, but more significantly harks back to 1:1, resulting in a fine inclusion indicating that the first section of Genesis ends here.”

3. Genesis 2:4 refers to “the generations” (toledoth), a word which introduces each of the subsequent major divisions of Genesis (see my post on “Genesis: Introduction to the Literary Structure”). Therefore it properly begins the second division of the book, not Genesis 2:1. Kline elaborates on this point: “Since the genitive in this formula is uniformly subjective, the reference is not to the origin 'of the heavens and the earth' but the sequel thereof, particularly the earthly history of the earthlings. The first part of this verse, therefore, must betaken not with the preceding, but the following account, which is not, then, presented as another version of creation.”

Almost all paragraphing in modern translations and comments by Bible scholars agree that the start of Genesis 2 more properly belongs at the end of Chapter 1 instead. In fact, the only true controversy concerns exactly where Chapter 2 should begin, with Genesis 2:4 or Genesis 2:3b (according to the Documentary Hypothesis of Source Critics). The former option is preferred by most commentators for several reasons, beginning with the observation by C.J. Collins that the narrative style of 1:1-2:3 “is exalted and formulaic” and “different from that of the rest of the book.”

In addition, it is highly unlikely that the well recognized chiastic arrangement of 2:3 was meant to be broken up:

    These are the generations--

        of the heavens

            and the earth

                when they were created

                in the day that the LORD God made

            the earth

    and the heavens.

Then, there is the argument of A.P. Ross that the phrase “Yahweh God” is used exclusively in 2:4-3:24. “This fact would suggest connecting the contents of the passage with the title in 2:4.”

Hamilton discusses the pros and cons of both possibilities but also ends up not dividing 2:4 into two parts since 'these are the generations' elsewhere always is used as a superscription to begin a new section, never to conclude it.

Why is any of this important? From the above, we can see that restoring the proper division accomplishes the following:

    It points out the close correspondence between the start of Genesis and the Book of Revelation.

    It explains the awkward Hebrew construction in Genesis 2:2.

    It restores the symmetrical pattern in Genesis 2:3

    It helps to disprove the liberal Documentary Hypothesis.

    It properly begins the pattern with “These are the generations” at the start of major sections of the book.

    It recognizes the inclusion used to encapsulate the first major section of the book.

    It indicates that the bulk of Genesis 2 is not a mere repeat of material in Genesis 1, but introduces a brand new series of events.

Hosea 6-7

Whereas the current separation between Genesis 1 and 2 reveals a poor chapter division, the break between chapters 6 and 7 of Hosea not only misrepresents where the chapter headings belong but also divides up the individual verses improperly. In this case, there are even more than just two options to consider, but all commentators are in agreement that the current chapter division is in error. And to complicate the picture, there is some doubt as to whether Hosea 6:11a even properly belonged to the original text.

Here is how the pertinent verses read in the NRSV:

6:10 In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing; Ephraim's whoredom is there, Israel is defiled.

6:11a For you also, O Judah, a harvest is appointed.

6:11b When I would restore the fortunes of my people,

7:1a When I would heal Israel,

7:1b the corruption of Ephraim is revealed,

7:1c and the wicked deeds of Samaria;

7:1d for they deal falsely,

7:1e the thief breaks in,

7:1f and the bandits raid outside.

Andersen and Freedman lump together 6:10a-7:1a as a single unit but admit: “Judged by traditional canons, the poetry in 6:7-7:2 is not well developed; it is hard to find a single well-formed bicolon.” Other commentators such as Dearman and Davies have no such problem. Admittedly, some of this text is difficult to decipher, but at least in the NRSV it is quite easy to see which parallel lines belong together:

6:10 In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing

Ephraim's whoredom is there

Israel is defiled.

6:11a For you also, O Judah, a harvest is appointed

6:11b When I would restore the fortunes of my people,

7:1a When I would heal Israel

7:1b the corruption of Ephraim is revealed,

7:1c and the wicked deeds of Samaria;

7:1d for they deal falsely,

7:1e the thief breaks in,

7:1f and the bandits raid outside

When seen in this manner, several points become clear.

As Andersen and Freedman state regarding 6:11b, “Infinitival constructions like this one do not generally constitute a complete utterance. They usually begin a paragraph and supply a time reference for what follows.” Thus, more properly, the chapter break should have been placed between 6:11a and 6:11b.

By connecting the thought of 6:11a with that of the previous verse, it explains the word “harvest” as being a symbol of judgment, not blessing, in agreement with V.H. Matthews. In contrast to this understanding, D. Stuart connects all of 6:11 with what follows in 7:1a since “harvest” generally means something positive sent from God. However, he admits that the word can also symbolize punishment.

The common contention that 6:11a is a later addition to the text does not appear to be very persuasive since it in no way disrupts the poetic pattern. In addition, if one counts the number of times that “Judah” appears in Hosea 6, it is exactly seven, as is the number of times “Israel” is utilized. In addition, Hindley notes: “The Lord is waiting to bless His folk but their condition prevents it and their misdeeds intervene.” He points out that “Judah” is used exactly 14 times in the whole book of Hosea – hardly a coincidence since such multiples of 7 (or 12) similarly appear throughout the Bible as literary devices to help identify the boundaries of individual sections.

Although practically everyone agrees that 6:11b and 7:1a belong together, there is much less agreement concerning how the other verses in the vicinity of the present chapter break should be grouped. So if the chapter and verse division is properly placed after 6:11a, what does the following unit beginning at 6:11b tell us?

    “6:11b-7:2 show how God's efforts to heal expose the corruption of all Israel, Ephraim and Samaria alike.” (Polkinghorne)

    “Even the forms of Yahweh's speech reveal an anguished heart, pondering how to deal with his wayward people, showing a powerful impulse to compassion yet frustrated by their fickleness (6:11b-7:1)...Yahweh's strong desire to 'restore the fortunes' of his people and 'heal' them looks like a repeated movement toward them, always met by their obduracy.” (McConville) He calls it “a tone of passionate love.”

JEROBOAM (I KINGS 12-14)

IIC. Minor Kings (I Kings 12:1-16:28)

A. King Jeroboam of Israel (12:1-14:20)

1. The kingdom is divided (I Kings 12)

2. King Jeroboam and his evil deeds (I Kings 13)

3. Death of Jeroboam and his son (14:1-20)

B. Kings of Judah (14:21-15:24)

A'. Kings of Israel (15:25-16:28)

3. Jeroboam’s house destroyed (15:25-32)

2. Three kings who walked in the way of Jeroboam (16:1-20)

1. Israel is divided (16:21-28)

We are first introduced to Jeroboam in I Kings 11:26 as one of several men God raised up against King Solomon due to his apostasy. He was the son of one of Solomon's servants whom Solomon raised to a position in charge of all the forced labor used by the king to carry out his massive building projects. Verse 28 describes him as being very capable at his job.

I Kings 11:29-39 next tells of Jeroboam's encounter on the road with the prophet Ahijah, who proceeds to tell him of God's plan to take the kingdom away from Solomon's family. The prophet presents Jeroboam with 10/12's of his torn coat representing the ten northern tribes of Israel that will be his upon Solomon's death. In addition, Ahijah tells Jeroboam that God will continue to bless him if he takes care to walk in His way.

Apparently, Solomon somehow gets wind of this development, and so he sought to kill him. He probably would have been successful in his attempt, except Jeroboam flees to Egypt and eludes him (v. 40). Jeroboam returns from Egypt when he hears of Solomon's death, and so he is on hand when Solomon's son Rehoboam assumes the throne. Rehoboam consults with his father's old advisors as to how he should rule, and they suggest that he lighten the huge load that Solomon had put on the people. But to demonstrate to the reader that Rehoboam had certainly not inherited his father's famed wisdom, Rehoboam ignores their advice and announces that he is going to be even harsher than his father with the people (I Kings 12:1-15).

The results are predictable. When the new taskmaster tries to lay down the law to the Israelites working in Judah, the people stone him and depart for the northern territory where they set up Jeroboam as their king. Only the territory of Judah then remained true to the line of David (I Kings 12:16-20).

Next, to further consolidate his power over the Northern Kingdom, Jeroboam built the cities of Shechem and Penuel. But he began to worry that the people would continue to travel to Jerusalem to sacrifice at the temple, and so he constructed two temples of his own located at the northern (Dan) and southern (Bethel) ends of his kingdom. And if that were not enough, he placed a golden calf in each for the people to worship; appointed non-levitical priests to officiate there; and instituted feast days to compete with those observed in Judah (I Kings 12:25-33).

I Kings 13:1-10 relates the story of Jeroboam burning incense at Bethel when an unnamed “man of God” rails against the temple. As the king stretches out his arm pointing for the guards to stop the man, his arm is immediately withered and the altar is torn down miraculously. At this point, Jeroboam entreats the man to pray to God that his hand be restored, which indeed happens. The holy man turns on his heels and leaves Bethel after refusing to stay and eat with the king.

The story of Jeroboam is resumed in I Kings 13:33-34 where we are informed that the king has resumed all of his old unorthodox religious observances despite what had happened to him. But when (I Kings 14:1-20) his son Abijah becomes sick, he dispatches his wife to visit the prophet Ahijah incognito and to seek help for their son. The prophet immediately recognizes her and prophesies that God will wipe out Jeroboam's entire line due to his evil deeds. Thus, the son dies as she reenters the city and Jeroboam later follows.

Lessons

1. The first things that struck me as I reviewed this sad story were the echoes of the reigns of Saul and David it contained. David, as Jeroboam, was elevated to a higher position by the king and said to be very efficient at his job. Both were also secretly anointed to be the next king of Israel when the present king died. And Saul similarly became jealous of David just as Solomon feared Jeroboam's power even though neither king had reason to fear being displaced while they were still alive. Thus, David and Jeroboam had to temporarily flee from Israel. Both David and Jeroboam saw their sons die due to their sins even though they attempted to approach God to ward off the evil. In their desperation, both Saul and Jeroboam utilized a disguise in hopes of gaining a favorable word from God.

Additionally, G.H. Jones says, “To gain recognition as king over the northern tribes, Rehoboam's visit to Shechem was essential. 2 Sam. 5:1-3 relates how the elders of Israel acclaimed David as their king at Hebron, and even in the time of Saul there was an acclamation at Gilgal. (I Sam. 11:15).

The above “coincidences” might rightly be said to demonstrate the sad fact: “Those who do not learn from the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.”

2. One could even view the evil Jeroboam as a dim type of Christ in that both had to flee from Israel due to a hostile king who was out to get them. And they only returned when they received word of that monarch's death. This may seem like an unlikely comparison, but just recall Jesus' own words comparing his future death and resurrection to the three days the rebellious prophet Jonah was inside the fish before being released.

3. In the first verses where Jeroboam is introduced, it becomes obvious that circumstances blessed him tremendously. He rapidly rose from a servant's son, to one in charge of large building projects for the king, to being chosen by God to head up most of the territory formerly under Solomon's control. And yet, instead of thanking God for these undeserved blessings, he turned against Him at the first opportunity. This can be the temptation of “self-made” men who feel that they can best do everything without outside help or control.

4. And yet, we must admit that Jeroboam was efficient at the first job he was given to do, and that was partially responsible for his future success. It may be reading too much into the text, but keep in mind that he had been in charge of a large contingency of “slave laborers” from the northern part of Israel. We can infer that Jeroboam treated them fairly at that point since they were the very same group that supported him when he made a power grab later on. It goes to prove the old practical adage that we should always treat the “little people” in our life well since we may need their help later in life. And more importantly, it is the godly thing to do.

5. By contrast, Rehoboam decided to put even more burdens on the workers than his father had, and that led directly to the split in the Kingdom. In doing that, he totally ignored the advice of his older advisers even though he had asked for it in the first place. What is it about some people, that they will seek out your advice and then totally ignore it when given? I have had that happen to me several times, and it appeared obvious that they really didn't want my opinion at all. They were just hoping to get confirmation of their own preconceived notions. I even had one man ask me what I thought he should do in a given situation. I gave my opinion, and then in less than an hour he came back to me and said that he was going to do what I had suggested. But his description of that action was the exact opposite of what I had advised. He really didn't hear a thing I said, just what he wanted to hear.

6. Another negative lesson we can gain from Rehoboam is that he, as a young man, ignored the advice that his “older” counselors gave. There is indeed something to be learned from the broader experience of your elders, even if we may not be able to play video games as well or download an app as readily as those who are younger. And the converse is true also. It is just as easy for those of us who are, hopefully, “more mature” to dismiss any of the pronouncements or notions of others as “the arrogance of youth” without first considering that they may actually be correct.

7. The action of Jeroboam in setting up two altars within the territory of Israel provides another warning to us. We should beware of those church leaders who attempt to make our worship experience “more convenient” for us while at the same time ignoring the basic commands and teachings that God has revealed to us.

8. One last important lesson from the sad history of Jeroboam is the fact that our sins may outlast us. As the first king of the Northern Kingdom, Jeroboam had the opportunity to set an admirable standard for future rulers of Israel to follow. Instead, his example was so despicable that no less than 22 times after his reign, the careers of subsequent rulers in the Books of Kings were summarized as saying that they “followed (or 'departed not') from the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat.” What a legacy by which to be remembered!

 

IRONY IN JOHN'S GOSPEL

It is best to start by defining the word “irony.” But in trying to do so, we run into a problem. Muecke states, “The principal obstacle in the way of a simple definition of irony is the fact that irony is not a simple phenomenon.” However, Chevalier points out, “The basic feature of every irony is a contrast between a reality and an appearance.” That alone may not be enough to really pin down this literary technique. So Muecke breaks down the phenomenon into two types: verbal irony, in which the speaker knowingly speaks in an ironic manner; and situational irony, in which there is some disconnect between the speaker's knowledge and expectations and reality. To this, Strachan adds one more type: “Dramatic irony is particularly apparent in the account of the behaviors of the various characters involved in the closing events of Christ's life.”

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery recognizes all three categories and defines them as follows:

    verbal irony = saying the opposite of what one intends

    situational irony = a situation is the opposite of what one expects or what is appropriate

    dramatic irony = a reader or audience knows more than the characters do

Irony appears throughout the Bible, but nowhere so pervasively as in the Gospel of John. One of the first scholars to point this out was David Wead (The Literary Devices in John's Gospel), who parenthetically at one early point in his career was the pastor of my small home church in California and officiated at my brother's wedding. Most other commentators now agree with his assessment:

“The gospel of John is noted for its peculiar stylistic and literary features. We may call attention to the gospel's use of symbolism, irony, misunderstandings, and use of words with double or ambiguous meanings.” (M.M. Thompson)

In his introduction to this Gospel, R.E. Brown states, “The opponents of Jesus are given to making statements about him that are derogatory, sarcastic, incredulous, or at least, inadequate in the sense they intend. However, by way of irony these statements are often true or more meaningful in a sense they do not realize.”

“The fourth evangelist has been characterized repeatedly as a master of irony...the most common device employed by the evangelist...is the unanswered question, often based on a false assumption, in which the character suggests or prophesies the truth without knowing it...The pervasiveness with which irony touches virtually all of the characters...underscores the fact that all are to a greater or lesser degree incapable of perceiving the revelation in Jesus.” (Culpepper)

Below is a sampling of a few of the ironic statements and situations found in the Fourth Gospel:

John 1:44 “When Philip speaks of Jesus as 'the son of Joseph' this must not be taken as a denial of the Virgin Birth...This is a good example of 'the irony of St. John'. Again and again he allows his characters to state, without refutation, ideas which Christian people would know to be false.” (Morris)

John 3:1-21 This passage describes the dialogue between the Pharisee Nicodemus and Jesus, which J. Bishop calls “the largest irony of the Gospels as a whole – those best prepared [for the Messiah] cannot act when the chance comes, precisely because their expectations are too built into character and culture. Men like Nicodemus have identified themselves with definitions they know too exactly.”

John 4:12 The Samaritan woman at the well asks Jesus whether he is greater than Jacob. Borchert points out: “The Greek ironically expects a negative answer. But the question provided the perfect opening for Jesus to press his evangelistic message to the woman.”

John 6:30 The people who have been following Jesus ask him what they should be doing to do the works of God. They then ask that he provide a sign so that they can believe. “The 'signs' which the people expect from the Messiah are mere miracles; yet when they see a miracle they fail to see the 'sign'; for to the evangelist a symeion is not, in essence, a miraculous act, but a significant act, one which, for the seeing eye and the understanding mind, symbolizes eternal realities.” (Dodd)

John 6:42 This verse begins a series of ironic misunderstandings regarding where Jesus came from. First he is called the “son of Joseph” who can't have come from heaven. Then in 7:27 the people of Jerusalem reason that he can't be the Messiah since everyone knows that the Messiah will have no known place of origin. The Pharisees then proclaim that Jesus is from Galilee, from which no prophet ever came (John 7:52). Concerning that point, Ray Summers points out that both Nahum and Jonah came from Galilee. In addition, of course, is the ironic fact that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem. In 8:40-41, the Jews accuse Jesus of being illegitimately born and he replies that he came from God. And finally in 9:29, they admit that they don't know where Jesus has come from, which is interesting since that was the original ground of their rejection of him, as Culpepper notes.

John 7:3-4 Dodd says that when Jesus' brothers challenge him sarcastically to show himself, they are in fact unconsciously asking him to declare himself to not only Israel but to the whole world as the Messiah.

John 7:20 When Jesus tells the Jews that they are trying to kill him, they answer unbelievably “Who is trying to kill you?” Of course, the reader has been informed twice by now that the Jewish leaders are indeed set on killing him (John 5:18; 7:1).

John 7:34-36 Jesus tells the people that they will seek him but not be able to find him. They wonder if perhaps he is going to the Gentiles. “The irony of the Gospel, however, is that Jesus' departure would actually mean the carrying of the gospel to the Greeks and the world...The conscious Johannine reader will not miss the fact that the words on the cross are not merely written in Hebrew/Aramaic but also in Greek and Latin (19:20; a note that does not occur in the other Gospels).” (Borchert)

John 8:22 For the second time, Jesus tells the people that he is going where they cannot follow. This time the Jews speculate that perhaps Jesus is going to kill himself. Brown replies that “of course, he will voluntarily lay down his life (x 17-18).”

John 8:50 “There is possibly some of John's irony here. The Jews were continually 'seeking' Jesus in their mistaken zeal for God's glory, and their seeking was aimed at, and would ultimately issue in, Jesus death..But in a deeper sense the real seeking was done by God. And He sought, not the treatment of Jesus which the Jews sought, but His glory.” (Morris)

John 8:53 The Jews ask Jesus sarcastically whether he is greater than Abraham, in the same manner that the Samaritan woman asked whether he was greater than Jacob. Culpepper says that in both cases, “the readers are sure that they know the right answer while the characters are implying the wrong one.”

John 9:8-9 “The [blind] man's neighbors are dubious and puzzled (9:8-9), ironically failing to recognize the healed man himself and of course failing to recognize the healer, Jesus!” (Thompson)

John 11:48 The Sanhedrin decides that Jesus must be stopped or the Romans will destroy the temple and the nation. “The Jews did not leave Jesus alone, but crucified him; and the consequences were precisely that which they desired to avoid. When this gospel was written, throughout the world men were coming to Jesus by faith (2:32) and the Romans had destroyed the temple and subjugated the Jews.” (Barrett)

John 13:29 During the Last Supper, Judas leaves the others in order to betray Jesus. The other apostles speculate that he is probably going out to distribute some money to the poor. But Culpepper says, “From another vantage point one can see that he gave more to the poor than they realized.” That is a rather subtle, but powerful, concept.

John 13:37 Peter says, 'I will lay down my life for thy sake,' a promise that, as tradition asserts, proved true in the end. However, it was only after he had denied Christ three times.

John 18:19 This verse marks the beginning of Jesus' trials. However, as Juel perceptively points out, “On one level, Jesus is on trial throughout the Fourth Gospel. The characters in the story, notably the leaders of the Jewish people, must judge him. For the reader, however, the trial has a deeper meaning...How people judge Jesus determines how they themselves will be judged. In this sense; it is not really Jesus who is on trial, but those who presume to be his judges, those to whom he has been sent.”

Culpepper concurs with this assessment: “With subtle but deft irony the accused judges his accusers.”

John 18:24 Caiaphas had said that it was expedient that one person die for the people. “The narrator points out the irony in these words, for Jesus did indeed die 'for the people,' not as Caiaphas meant, as a political sacrifice to appease the Romans and avert possible military intervention, but rather as a means whereby all those who would truly be 'children of God' might be gathered together as one people.” (Thompson)

John 18:38 Pilate cynically asks the rhetorical question: “What is truth?” But Jesus, the way, and the truth, and the life, is standing right before him at the time (John 14:6)

John 19:12 The Jews demand that Pilate crucify Jesus or he is no friend of Caesar. “The Jews are maintaining that there is an antagonism between Jesus and Caesar. Again we have John's irony, for there is a sense in which this is true, though not in the sense in which the Jews meant it...the claims of Christ are such that Caesar cannot have the principal place.” (Morris)

John 19:28 “The ironical reference in xviii, 28, to the fear of ceremonial defilement on the part of Jesus' captors, and their consequential refusal to enter the Praetorium, is obvious. It is equally ironical that Pilate, representing the highest imperial authority, should be compelled to yield to their scruples.” (Strachan)

 

JAMES 1:22-25

I have read this passage many times in the past, but have lately had a sneaking suspicion that perhaps there is more to it than I had first thought. That is especially likely since it is a short parable, and biblical parables always contain more than meets the eye. So I decided to see what scholars had to say on the subject, taking each aspect of the passage one at a time.

“word”

The immediate context begins with James 1:22 – “Be doers of the word, and not only hearers who deceive yourself.” Scot McKnight explains that what follows is basically an expansion of this verse in the following manner:

    A. “Be doers of the word, and not only hearers (1:22a)

        B. deceiving yourself (1:22b)

    A'. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, (1:23a)

        B'. he is like [the following parable].” (1:23b-24)

Since the parable which follows is an example of what James means in terms of our treatment of “the word,” we need to first understand what this word refers to. And there is no 100% agreement among commentators on this point.

“James...despite his knowledge of Jewish tradition, probably refers in the first place to the teaching of Jesus...for it is the word, the gospel message, one is to do, not the law.” (Davids) Hendricksen agrees that it is the hearing of the gospel being preached which is the reference here.

Adamson, however, defines “the word” as “the law.”

“It is the Word of God that supplies wisdom for life, and the person who looks into that Word is warned not to go away unchanged.” (D.H. Johnson)

The landed rich “are foolish to look in the 'mirror' (=biblical law) and then turn away from it without any further reflection of their own frailty.” (Wall)

Finally, Luke Johnson wisely cautions that “too great a distinction should not be made between Gospel, Torah and the word of creation, since for James they all represent gifts of God.”

“natural face”

“The phrase tes geneseos autou is literally 'of his origin,' which here probably means 'of his birth' = 'natural'...The point of contrast is to the fact presented by the perfect law [v. 25].” (L. Johnson)

Another commentator notes: “The face that a man sees as he looks into a mirror is his own face; but it is never quite the same from day to day. For though it is always his natural face, the face with which he was born, it is constantly being changed as it reflects the circumstances of his life.”

Adamson translates it as the face of “mortal, physical birth (created being).”

“His 'natural face' is the rendering of the difficult expression 'the face of his genesis'. Of the various possible translations of this word the best seems to be 'birth.' 'The face of his birth' must then mean 'the face he has had all the time', i.e. his own.” (Ward)

Ellul: “In the mirror we see an image of ourselves, of our natural face: we see our reality...One learns the truth of his being, which only God knows in its ultimate objectivity, and which only God loves in its unique particularity. In the Word God speaks about someone; the person sees himself in his abject need and utter vanity. But because of God's word to him, he now sees the new countenance that is given him: the countenance of life.”

Ward: “the word is compared to a mirror, for it shows a man to himself as he is and the sight is not pleasing.” Tasker, thus, says that it is often a “countenance of the ravages being wrought by sin, sickness, anxiety, or the inevitable passage of time.”

Guhrt: “The Greek literally translates as 'the face of his created life (or natural being).”

McKnight presents two possible understandings of this phrase:

    1. a reference back to the man made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), or

    2. the moral view referring to human sinful nature.

“mirror”

This is one of three times that the word appears in the New Testament. The poor quality of ancient mirrors is used in I Corinthians 13:12 as an example of our present incomplete knowledge of God's truth. McKnight contrasts this usage with that in James in stating that “here James is speaking of knowledge as such and not self-evaluation.” The last usage is found in II Corinthians 3:18 where the verb form is given as an example of how we, through our lives, reflect, albeit imperfectly, the image of Christ to others.

Davids points out that “as mirrors of polished copper or bronze (less often silver) were typical toilet articles, they formed useful items for illustrations for all teachers.”

Johnson adds that “the fact that the mirror provided a reflection of the self obviously gave it metaphorical potential...the mirror is used in paraenetic [i.e. relating to moral or ethical instruction] literature for the image of 'moral self-examination / reflection.'” He also notes, “Having so briefly sketched the metaphor of the mirror, James leaves it. But not entirely. Three times he will return to the image, as he presents models from Torah for his readers to imitate [in 2:20-26; 5:10-11; and 5:16-18].”

Similarly, The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery says, “James also uses an ancient metaphor of the mirror as self-improvement, based on moral examples reflected to us for imitation. “

“Mirrors are part of life. But the repeated returns to the mirror establish the point that our memories are like sieves.” (Hendricksen)

“look”

There are two different Greek verbs for “look” utilized in this passage: katanoeo in verses 23 and 24 and parakupto in verse 25. Vine defines katanoeo as “the action of the mind in apprehending certain facts about a thing: to consider, discover, perceive. Harder explains that it is a strengthened form of noeo, meaning to perceive, and it means “to direct one's mind and interest towards something, to notice and perceive it...Lk. 20:23 shows that katanoein includes what goes on behind the scenes.” Philo uses it in the sense of a meditative reflection.

However, in James 1:25 the verb is parakupto, which has the basic meaning of looking down into or at something. The physical picture probably refers to a person looking down into a polished metal plate or bowl resting on a stand in order to see himself.

The question is whether there is any substantial difference in emphasis between the two verbs. The following two commentators feel that there is:

    “To look into the mirror of the Word of God involves an obligation...The intent and sustained look with a ready response is the key to spiritual strength and continued maturity. The word for 'looks intently into' (parakupsas) literally means 'to stoop down' in order to have a good close look.” (Blue)

    “The one, hearing the Word/Law, listens only perfunctorily, with no more effect than a fleeting glance as his face in a mirror; the other, hearing the Word/Law, gives it sustained attention, not only then but throughout life – just as it he were poring over God's design for living and trying to fulfill it in thought, word, and deed.” (Adamson)

Davids denies the above distinction between the two words for “look” and points to several places in the NT where katanoeo means “contemplate or observe carefully” (see Matthew 7:23; Luke 12:27; 20:3). The word definitions given by Vine and Harder above would seem to confirm Davids' contention. Other commentators make the identical point in different ways. They show that it is not the verb meaning by itself that is determinative, but the verb tense and modifying words that need to be taken into account also.

McKnight: “'Look at themselves' (present tense) does not mean staring for a long time. The point is not how long or when but the kind of action the author chooses to depict: it is depicted as uncompleted or 'imperfect'...There could be a contrast in verbs between 1:23 ('look at,' katanoeo in the present tense) and 1:24 ('look at,' katanoeo in the aorist tense)” but McKnight doubts that is the case.

Luke Johnson: “The verb katanoein can mean either 'to perceive'...or to 'apprehend/understand.' In the present case, the repetition of the verb with 'leaving and immediately forgetting' (1:24) obviously puts the stress on the sensory and transitory character of the glance: hence, 'noticing'...The perfect tense emphasizes the suddenness of his action: 'just a glance and he is off.' Everything in the description stresses haste and casualness...The euthus ('immediately') further stresses the haste of glance and departure.”

Overall Meaning

Putting all of the above together, all of the commentators reach basically the same conclusion from this passage:

“The language recognizes that the Word addresses the individual and he knows that it does. But the mere hearer gives himself a glance and hurries off; and away from the mirror he at once forgets what he saw – though his face was dirty (cf. v. 21). He does not receive the Word and act on it.” (Ward)

“He hears the gospel preached, makes minor adjustments, and goes his own way. But the gospel is unable to penetrate his heart and cannot change the internal disposition of man. The mirror is an object used to alter a man's external appearance; the Word, however, confronts man internally and demands a response.” (Hendricksen)

“The point is that the impression is only momentary: the look in the mirror while combing one's hair may be temporarily absorbing, but it normally bears no practical results when one engages in the business of the day. It is useless. The momentariness and lack of real effect is the point of the parable, not a comparison with a different type of mirror or a different way of seeing.” (Davids)

“To simply hear the word and not do it is like those looking in a mirror (moral example) who quickly forget what they saw when they walk away from it (do not imitate). Perseverance in the perfect law of liberty (moral example) is required in order to be hearers who do not forget but act.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

“The contrast appears to be a simple one. On the one hand is the careless man who looks at his natural face in a mirror...His face may be soiled, careworn or wrinkled, but he goes away, and becoming absorbed in other matters, soon forgets. On the other hand is the earnest man who 'looks closely' into the divine mirror, and instead of going away 'lives in its company' (cf. Ps. 1:2) and, instead of forgetting, 'acts upon it' (NEB). He is the man who will receive the blessing.” (Carson)

 

MARK 6:5 -- IS GOD OMNIPOTENT?

To accuse Jesus of not being God because he was not able to do something (i.e. a lack of omnipotence) is no different than accusing God the Father of not being God because of the things he couldn't do (see post on “Mark 6:5 Is Jesus omnipotent?”). I have run against atheists who try to find something or other that God can't do as proof that if He does exist, He certainly is not all-powerful.

This is, in fact, one of the two key pillars upon which the classic definition of the problem of evil is based:

    God is all-powerful.

    God is good.

    A good God would have created a perfect world.

    This is not a perfect world.

    Therefore: either God is not good or not all-powerful, or He does not exist.

I have already discussed this issue in some detail in an earlier post titled “Theodicy: The Problem of Evil” for those who are interested. But the bottom line is that the above reasoning is no more decisive than the arguments of Job's friends concerning why Job was suffering.

I first ran up against a form of theodicy when in high school. A friend got this example from his atheist father. The supposedly unanswerable question to ask theists was: If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift? One could immediately object against the obviously anthropomorphic way it describes God as if he had hands and arms and the very dubious reasoning that mere weight makes something powerful. But the main problem with the question lies in the definition of omnipotence.

I apologize for not being able to remember where I got these definitions from, but they all make sense:

    1. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.

    2. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (Thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie. See Hebrews 6:18)

    3. If it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent then it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.

    4. A deity can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation. So he can't make 2 + 2 = 5 for instance.

    5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its world plan.

For example, I Timothy 2:3-4 states that God desires everyone to be saved; and II Peter 3:8-9 says that he does not want anyone to perish, but for all to come to repentance. But if God wants those things to happen, why doesn't He in his omnipotence make it come to pass? Unless one believes in universal salvation, as some do, the answer has to lie in some sort of self-imposed limitation God in His infinite wisdom places on Himself or in the inherent impossibility of all being saved without violating their free will.

Here is another related criticism I got off the internet from an atheistic source. Matthew 19:26 says that God can accomplish all things, but He is apparently defeated by some chariots in Judges 1:19. The first thing to note is that “he” in the Judges passage refers to Judah, not God.

Next, the Matthew reference does not guarantee that God will do all things just because He can.

Also, even though the presence of chariots is given as a reason for the failure of Judah's army, there is obviously more to it that that considering that God has no trouble whatsoever in defeating an army of chariots three chapters later in Judges 4-5. In an ancient Jewish targum (commentary), the explanatory phrase “after they had sinned” was added to Judges 1:19 to make that point clear.

The same thing is true of Jesus' “inability” to carry out miracles in Nazareth as stated in Mark 6:5. The mere fact that He was ableto heal some demonstrates that one must delve onto the subject in a little more detail before arriving at any hasty conclusions.

 

MARK 6:5 -- IS JESUS OMNIPOTENT?

As yet another supposed proof that Jesus could not be God, I was forwarded this verse to explain. It appears in the story recorded in both Matthew and Mark concerning Jesus' rejection by the people of Nazareth. The verse says, “He was not able to perform any miracles there.” But, the argument goes, if Jesus is God, then Jesus is omnipotent and “able” to do anything. Since Jesus was not able to perform miracles there, that means that he was not omnipotent and therefore he is not God.

I sincerely trust that few of you are swayed in any way by such a specious argument. But in case it bothers anyone, here are a few things to keep in mind:

    1. Jesus was not totally “unable” to perform miracles in Nazareth, as the continuation of verse 5 demonstrates: “except that he placed his hands on a few sick people and healed them.”

    2. The parallel passage in Matthew 13:58 merely says that Jesus “did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.” This clarification points to the root cause: the people's hardheartedness, not Jesus' inability.

    3. Even if it were proved that Jesus lacked total omnipotence while on earth, that says absolutely nothing regarding his abilities before and after his incarnation. Philippians 2:7 specifically states that he emptied himself when he came to earth. In another post, I will go through some of the things of which he temporarily emptied himself, and it would certainly not be surprising to find omnipotence included in that list.

In addition to the above considerations, there are two other factors to take into consideration:

The Source of Jesus' Power

Joel Marcus points out an underlying point in this passage. The people admit that Jesus has power but wonder what its source is (Mark 6:2). So when they become offended at him (Mark 6:3), it is no doubt because they attribute that power to Satan (as did other Jews on different occasions). Thus, the more miracles Jesus would have performed in that town, the more convinced the people would have been that Jesus was some sort of tool of Satan.

Hugh Anderson expresses this idea in different words: We should not subject this statement to psychologizing interpretation, as if it were saying that Jesus could not cure those who had no confidence in him. Rather, in terms of the Marcan account, Jesus' authoritative words and works led the people of Nazareth not to faith but unfaith.”

Jesus' Mission on Earth

This concern is expressed by scholars even more often as an explanation of Jesus' “inability.”

    “Mark's statement...does not imply that Jesus was in any sense powerless, but that He could not proceed in accordance with His purpose where faith was absent.” (Swift)

    Because of the unbelief of the people of Nazareth, Jesus was unable, consistently with the principles on which He acted, to do miracles among them, apart from His healing a few sick people, who, presumably, did display a modicum of faith in Him.” (Short)

    “There was no limitation on His power, but His purpose was to perform miracles in the presence of faith. Only a few here had faith enough to come to Him for healing.” (Grassmick)

    “When Mark poignantly remarks that Jesus 'could not do any mighty work' in his hometown, the stress is on Jesus' sovereignty not to reveal to those who refuse to believe.” (Reeder)

    “So integral to faith in Jesus' healings that, apart from the exorcisms, all the healing stories include some expression of trust in Jesus before, during, or after the healing.” (Twelftree)

Conclusion

Finally, William Lane's interpretation of this verse contains elements of both the two reasons above: “It is not Mark's intention to stress Jesus' inability when he states that he could perform no miracles at Nazareth. His purpose is rather to indicate that Jesus was not free to exercise his power in these circumstances. The performance of miracles in the absence of faith could have resulted only in the aggravation of human guilt and the hardening of men's hearts against God.” Lane cites Goppelt and Ridderbos as expressing the same view.

We actually see the same concern shown by Jesus in his teaching mainly by way of parables. They had a way of simultaneously revealing the truth but at the same time hiding it from those who were not quite ready to accept them or Him.

As a final point, in his earthly state Jesus could only do those things which God the Father gave him to do. This fact is repeatedly stated in John's Gospel (see 5:19; 5:30; 6:38; 8:28-29; and 14:10). Thus, if one questions Jesus' divine nature on the basis of his inability to do something, one is really also questioning the divinity of God the Father as well. I will have more to say on the omnipotence of God in a companion post.