HOW IS MICAH ORGANIZED?

At first pass, it would seem that the only scholarly agreement possible on this book is in regard to its chaotic structure:

“Micah is a blatant example of this seeming jumble [found in the books of prophecy].” – Allen

            “[S]ome conservative commentators have been tempted to impose on the book an artificial unity which its sometimes abrupt changes of topic can hardly sustain.” – Clark

            “The character of the book is somewhat desultory. Micah does not present one long, sustained argument, but...passes from one subject to another.” – Young

“As the example of Micah illustrates, redactional 'order' in the Prophets is not always perspicuous. The received texts are cluttered and chaotic, and the signs of literary shaping have studiously to be recovered from under a welter of vestiges and interpolations.” – Marks

“The book's somewhat jerkiness of style is due to his binding together of formerly independent oracles.” – Waltke

“The Book of Micah has no overarching macrostructure; it appears to be a loosely arranged anthology of speeches.” – Chisholm

Childs does the best job of summing up the current state of structural scholarship on Micah: “In spite of many good insights and interesting observations of detail, the growing confusion over conflicting theories of composition has increasingly buried the book in academic debris. Needless to say, no general consensus of the book's form or function appears in sight.” To this statement, McConville concurs: “No structure of Micah is perfect or commands agreement.”

Previously Proposed Structures

All of the above, though, is not to say that scholars have entirely given up on the attempt to discern an organizational plan. Even Childs states, “The book of Micah gives every evidence of being arranged in a clear pattern of alternating sections of judgment and salvation.” The problem lies in the fact that it is hard to know which is worse, a book that has no sort of organization or one which does have a definite order on which no one can agree. A brief review of some proposed divisions for Micah and how the individual sections relate to one another will illustrate what I am talking about:

1. Archer sees the major sections as consisting of ch. 1 (sentence upon both kingdoms); chs. 2-3 (oppression by the upper classes); chs. 4-5 (God's ultimate grace upon Israel); ch. 6 (God's controversy with Israel); and ch. 7 (covenant promises to the faithful remnant). There have been few followers of this viewpoint.

Interestingly, the best evidence for the unity of Micah 2-3 comes from Andersen and Freedman’s symmetrical structure although these authors treat these chapters as only part of a larger section (see discussion below).

A. Social justice denounced (2:1-5)

B. Attack on prophets (2:6-11)

A'. Attack on rulers (3:1-4)

B'. Condemnation of prophets (3:5-8)

A''.Condemnation of rulers (3:9-12)

2. A more popular way of dividing the book is into three chapter groupings: 1-3 (God's judgment on his people), 4-5 (hope for the future), and 6-7 (condemnation and consolation). Verbal inclusions indicating the limits of each respective sections are formed by the presence of “Jerusalem” and “mountains” in the context of destruction,” eschatological references, and “sin/transgression.” (Andersen and Freedman) Childs rejects this analysis out of hand as being a mere product of “a historical critical evaluation of the history of the book's composition.”

Andersen and Freedman ably defend the unity of chs. 1-3 throughout their commentary on Micah, noting the inclusio formed by similar doom passages against Samaria in 1:6-7 and Jerusalem at 3:12, and the presence of 2:12 as a focal point with its expression of hope. They, however, admit that the formal literary structure of this section is harder to find than its thematic unity.

Special attention has been given to the center section of Micah according to this scheme. Renaud's chiastic analysis of chs. 4-5 is shown below with each of the six sections moving from a hopeless situation into hope. Willis arranges these same verses into seven units that parallel one another and have the same judgment-hope combination recognized by Renaud: 4:1-5; 4:6-8; 4:9-10; 4:11-13; 5:1-6; 5:7-9; and 5:10-15. Dorsey’s seven-part chiastic structure differs from both of these proposals in its divisions and pairings as does that in the Anchor Bible commentary, which is based on occurrences of the keyword “now.”

Renaud’s Structure                                              Dorsey’s Structure

A. 4:1-4                                                                  A. 4:1-5

B. 4:5-7                                                          B. 4:6-7

C. 4:8-5:1                                                 C. 4:8-10

            C'. 5:2-6                                                          D. 4:11-5:1

                        B'. 5:7-8(9?)                                                         C'. 5:2-5a

A'. 5:10-14                                                                  B'. 5:5b-9

        A'. 5:10-15

Andersen and Freedman’s Structure

A. 4:1-8

B. 4:9-5:3

1. 4:9-10a

2. 4:10b

3. 4:11-13

1'. 4:14

2'. 5:1-3

A'. 5:4-14

            3. Several other commentators see only two major sections to the book with the break after ch. 3 or ch. 5. Mays offers the following substructure as evidence for the latter division:

I. To a Universal Audience (1:2-5:15)

A. Yahweh's Judgment (1:2-3:12)

                                        B. Redemption of Zion and Israel (4:1-5:9)

                                            C. Punishment of the Nations (5:10-15)

II. To Israel (6:1-7:20)

A. Yahweh's Judgment (6:1-7:7)

                                        B. Salvation of God (7:8-17)

                                            C. Divine Forgiveness (7:18-20)

According to this scheme, Section I begins with a divine summons for all the peoples to listen to Yahweh (1:2) and ends with a threat directed at those who do not (5:15).

4. Another well defended viewpoint treats Micah as a three-fold composition in which each prophecy begins with the admonition “hear!” (The similar commands at Micah 3:9; 6:2 and 6:9 are usually ignored in this analysis): chs. 1-2 (judgment), chs. 3-5 (salvation), and chs. 6-7 (admonition to repentance). (Kaiser, Hart) Each of these sections is said to begin on a negative note and end with hope for the future. A variation using the same three-fold division sees each section to begin with a double warning followed by oracles of judgment and salvation. (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery) Further refinements of this scheme have been attempted by Renaud and by Allen. The latter scheme is outlined below:

I. Judgment (chs. 1-2)

A. Negative (1:2-2:11)

                            B. Positive (2:12-13)

II. Hope (chs. 3-5)

A. Judgment (ch. 3) + Hope (4:1-5)

B. Hope (4:6-5:9)

1. Hope (4:6-8)

2. Distress leading to Hope (4:9-5:6)

1'. Hope (5:7-9)

A'. Judgment (5:10-14) + Hope (5:15)

I'. Judgment (chs. 6-7)

A. Negative (6:1-7:7)

                            B. Positive (7:8-20)

            5. Willis detects four specific parallel elements between sections I and I' of the above scheme, but they do not occur in the same order in each case:

Covenant Lawsuit                  1:2-7              6:1-8

            Lament                                  1:8-16             7:1-6

            Impending Catastrophe         2:1-11             6:9-16

            Oracle of Hope                     2:12-13           7:7-20

More recently, Allen has devised another variation on a theme for the center section of this structure:

A. 3:1-4:5 [judgment (3:1-12) + hope (4:1-5)]

B. 4:6-8 (remnant: hope with distress allusions)

C. 4:9-10; 4:11-13; 5:1-6 (three sections of increasing hope)

B'. 5:7-9 (remnant: hope with distress allusions)

A'. 5:10-15 [judgment (5:10-14) + hope (5:15)]

            6. Redditt, following Cuffey, proposes a four-part structure for the book: Micah 1-2; 3:1-4:8; 4:9-5:15; and 6-7 in which each section has an oracle of doom followed by one of hope.

            7. David Dorsey detects a seven-membered chiastic organization for this book. He arrives at his section divisions by grouping together chs. 4 and 5 and dividing ch. 7 into two separate literary units.

A. Coming defeat and destruction (ch. 1)

B. Corruption of the people (ch. 2)

C. Corruption of leaders (ch. 3)

D. Glorious restoration (chs. 4-5)

C'. Corruption of leaders (ch. 6)

B'. Corruption of people (7:1-7)

A'. Future reversal of defeat and destruction (7:8-20)

Indirect support for this structure comes from those commentators who take the close correspondences between chs. 3 and 6 as evidence that Micah 4-5 was inserted at a later date (Redditt) and from Jeremias, who treats 7:8-20 as an excursus.

            8. Ryken differs from all of the above schemes in postulating a three-section division in which each unit contains a judgment followed by salvation passage:

                A. Judgment (1:1-2:11)

                        B. Salvation (2:12-13)

                A'. Judgment (ch. 3)

                        B'. Salvation (chs. 4-5)

                A''. Judgment (6:1-7:13)

                        B''. Salvation (7:14-20)

As confirmation of this organization, he notes that each of the three cycles begins with a call to “hear.”

In sum, just about every possible pairing of chapters has been seen for the major divisions of Micah except for my own proposal: Micah 1-3; 4; and 5-7. As to why I feel these groupings are defensible, see my post “Micah: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”

 

WHO IS MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR WRITING THE NEW TESTAMENT?

This may seem to some people as a rather simple thing to determine, while for others it is an unanswerable question. I tend to fall into the last category for a number of reasons. In the first place, we need to clarify whether one is taking into account human actors only. If not, then of course we have to say that without God in the first place, there would be no Bible at all. And without the Holy Spirit to inspire the writings, we would be also be without it. Of course, the Second Person of the Trinity cannot be forgotten either since the whole New Testament is one long tribute to Christ's works and words.

But even if we limit our discussion to human personages, it is still not an easy question to answer. Let us start by assuming that the traditional attributions of authorship are correct. Keeping that simple criteria in mind, you might want to stop at this point and take a guess as to who contributed the most words of text among the obvious three candidates: John, Luke, and Paul.

Let's see how well you did:

If you add up John's Gospel, his three short epistles, and the Book of Revelation, you arrive at a little over 18% of the NT. But that assumes that one discounts the opinion of J. M. Ford who thinks that John the Baptist wrote most of Revelation, as well as numerous critical scholars who feel that a later person named John is responsible for that book. If either school of thought is correct, the contribution of the apostle John drops to only 12% of the total.

Moving on to Luke, we can count his two-part history, Luke-Acts, which amounts to a whopping 26% of the NT. Almost all scholars are confident that Paul's companion Luke was the author of that history. But that may not be the whole story, as we shall see in a minute.

It would also seem to be easy to add up all the epistles of Paul to determine how much of the NT was written by him. According to the traditional attributions, Paul is responsible for almost one-quarter of the total text.

So by that criterion, it is a neck-and-neck race between Paul and Luke, with John coming in not far behind. Of course, that is not the end of the story. For example, the elephant in the room, even for evangelical scholars, is the rather large Epistle to the Hebrews which contains no obvious attribution of authorship. In our present traditional order of NT books, it appears at the end of the Pauline letters and before the General Epistles written to a wide audience. That could mean that the early church lists which included it could have considered it to be part of Paul's writings, to which it shows a number of similarities.

There are still fundamentalist believers today who are adamant that Paul himself wrote Hebrews, and if so then that would clearly make Paul the winner. But the vast majority of evangelical scholars and laymen admit that it is unlikely Paul wrote it. However, a number of other names have been proposed as candidates for the honor, most of whom would not help us break the two-way tie between Paul and Luke. But high on the list among those names is Luke himself. I won't go into all the details for that possible identification except to point to David L. Allen's 2010 book titled Lukan Authorship of Hebrews in which he spends over 400 pages defending his thesis by a discussion of the historical, linguistic, and theological similarities between Hebrews and the authentic writings of Luke. In addition, I have come to the same conclusion regarding Luke's authorship of the book based on structural arguments (see the post on “Hebrews: Introduction to Structural Analysis”). If Luke is indeed the author of that anonymous book, then that would bring his contribution to the NT up to 31%, putting him ahead of Paul.

However, since I worded by title question as “who was most responsible” rather than limiting it to actual authorship, there is another way to look at it. The second half of Acts may have been written by Luke, but it would not be there if it weren't for the actions and words of Paul who is the main protagonist there. So we could share credit between the two of them for those chapters, decreasing Luke's total to 22% without Hebrews and 27% with that anonymous book included. At the same time, Paul's contribution would increase to 29%, putting him slightly ahead of Luke. Or, if you want to attribute Hebrews to him as well, his lead increases to almost 37% of the total.

We are not done yet since according to the noted NT scholar R.E. Brown, “At the present moment [1997] about 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter [of Colossians]. And similar negative comments have been expressed toward the authorship of Ephesians. The latter is of special interest since Brown, Puskas, and Kasemann are among the scholars who take seriously the possibility that Luke may have written it instead of Paul.

And then we come to the Pastoral Letters of I-II Timothy and Titus. There is even more doubt among liberal scholars concerning Paul's authorship of those. Donald Guthrie says, “Because of the close linguistic affinity of the Pastorals with Luke/Acts, it has been suggested that Luke may have been responsible for the stylistic peculiarities. But it is open to question whether Paul would have allowed such freedom [to a secretary such as Luke].” Holzman calls those similarities “remarkable.”

Hanson explains, “The argument in favor of Luke is largely built on similarities of vocabulary, particularly striking in the case of Ac. 20:18-35 in comparison with 2 Tim. 4:6-8. Compare also 2 Tim. 4:11.” It has been proposed that either Luke wrote down the Pastorals at Paul's direction or used some notes of Paul to compose it after his death.

And in all of the above reasoning, the apostle Peter has been ignored. It is true that we only have two short letters under his name, but remember that he is the major figure for most of the first half of Acts and figures heavily in the Gospel accounts as well. In addition, there is strong early church tradition that Mark relied heavily on Peter's reminiscences in composing his Gospel account.

In conclusion, I have no sure answer to give you, but personally I lean toward Luke as the most prolific writer in the New Testament. And if you think the situation is confusing for the NT, it is ten times worse for the Old Testament.

THE GOSPELS: GUIDE TO TOPICAL STUDIES

Since I am getting close to my 2,000th post, it is probably a good time to provide a guide to some of my earlier essays, beginning here with a listing of studies that cover more than one gospel or more than one passage within a given gospel. You can find these on this site by searching for the following titles. In addition, I have written a number of posts on particular verses, passages, or chapters which can be found by searching the appropriate biblical reference.

General

Andrew the apostle: the go-to go-between

Biblical Contradictions: Jesus' early life and ministry

Biblical Contradictions: Jesus' teachings

Biblical Contradictions: Jesus' later ministry and death

Biblical Contradictions: Jesus' resurrection

Burial of Christ in the four Gospels

Christ's seven last words on the cross

Capernaum: archeological evidence

Chronological Bibles

Contradictions between the Gospel accounts

Contradictions between the gospels and the epistles

Deaths of the apostles and other church leaders

Difficult sayings of Jesus: lesson plan

Faith healing in the Bible

Great Commissions

If Jesus was wholly God, why did he have to grow in wisdom?

Illustrating the gospels

James and John: exclusionist sons of thunder

Judas Iscariot

Nathanael: the truthful liar

Philip: the clueless facilitator

Silencing the Demons

Simon Peter: trailblazer with second thoughts

Thomas: pessimistic but fearless believer

Two fish stories

Unrecognized resurrected Christ

What did Jesus know?

What is the order of the three temptations?

“What must I do?-one question, four answers

When was Jesus born?

Why did Jesus have to get baptized?

Matthew

Contradictions in the Gospel of Matthew

Gospel of Matthew: questions and answers (in three parts)

Gospel of Matthew: proposed organizations

Matthew: introduction to the literary structure

Mark

Ending of the Gospel of Mark

Gospel of Mark: introduction to the literary structure

Gospel of Mark: questions and answers (in two parts)

Old Testament in Mark's Gospel

Proposed organizations for the Gospel of Matthew

Luke

Did Mary write part of Luke's Gospel?

Excuses of non-disciples

Luke: introduction to the literary structure

Luke: questions and answers (in two parts)

John

Beloved disciple

Genesis within the Gospel of John

Gospel of John: introduction

Gospel of John: questions and answers

Irony in John's Gospel

Jewish festivals in John's Gospel

John's Gospel: introduction to literary structure

Old Testament in John's writings

Strange endings in the Bible

Was John's Gospel originally written in Hebrew?

 

EZRA 4:1-4

In this passage, the returning exiles are approached by the inhabitants of the land north of Jerusalem who offer to help them rebuild the Temple. But the Jewish rulers turn down their offer. The question to ask is “Why?” Actually, several reasons are actually given in the text, but that may not tell the whole story. Let us start with the stated reasons given to the northerners, who later became the Samaritans.

In verse 3 they are told, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God.” The Anchor Bible translation reads, “You do not have the same purposes as we do in building a house for our God.” This statement comes right after the northerners had told the Jews that they worshiped the same God. Obviously, there is a hint here that the Jews disputed that fact since they pointedly said “our God” rather than “the God of both of us.”

But a more concrete reason is given next. Fensham says that “their reply to the Samaritans..is a no, built on legal grounds. The Persian king granted the right to rebuild the temple only to the returnees, not to any other people. But as a background we have the old political and religious differences.” And these latter contributing factors probably represent the real reason for the refusal.

Eskenazi delves into the historical background which it is necessary for us to understand at this point.“According to 2 Kings 17, Assyria forcibly repopulated Samaria after deporting the Israelites, and these foreigners developed a syncretistic religion (2 Kings 17:41). Their history and practice may account for their rejection...the returnees claim that Cyrus's decree applies only to them. They consider themselves the sole legitimate remnant of Judah, the heir of the Israel called by God out of Egypt.”

Similarly, Cundall explains the background to the phrase “people of the land” in verse 4. “The significance of the...phrase varies considerably in the biblical period. Originally it indicated an influential group, possibly the principal land-owners (cf. 2 Ki 23:30). Haggai appears to apply it to the returned exiles (Hg. 2:4) whereas his contemporary, Zechariah (c. 530 BC) uses it of those who had not gone into exile (Zc. 7:1-5). By the Chronicler's time (c. 400 BC) it refers to the hybrid population, later known as the Samaritans, descended from groups settled in the area by the Assyrians (cf. 2 Ki 17:24-41).” Thus, the people of the land are “local inhabitants who did not share the experience and ideology of the returning exiles.” (Eshenazi)

Nonetheless, as Clines puts it, “The categorical rejection of 'the people of the land' (v. 4) who claimed to be Yahweh-worshippers seems offensively exclusivist and even racist.” And Sparks seems to agree with that charge in his explanation: “Older laws that once excluded certain foreigners from the Israelite assembly were interpreted as a general rejection of foreigners (cf. Deut 23:4-8: Neh 13), and 'Israel' came to refer mainly to Jews returning from Babylon, so that the natives of Palestine, however 'Jewish,' were excluded from the community.”

To counter this charge of racism, it is first necessary to explain a little further what the “syncretistic” religion of the Samarians was like. Clines says, “As for the religious practices of such Assyrian settlers, they are likely to have been similar to those of colonists of Sargon who 'feared the Lord, and also served their graven images' (I Kg. 17:41; cf. 17:24-40). For a non-Israelite the worship of the gods of one's homeland together with the god of one's adopted country was entirely natural...We might think it a nice question whether worship of Yahweh in such a context has the right to be called worship...of Yahweh, but for the returned exiles the answer was clear, that since Yahweh demanded exclusive worship, and moreover had driven his people into exile because of their disobedience on this very score, the restored community was obliged to separate itself from those who did not share its understanding of Yahweh's exclusive claims.”

Short agrees that it was not primarily racial differences that divided the Samaritans and Jews when he says that “the Jewish leaders refused their request because they considered these neighbors to be grossly in error as to their religious practices, and that to permit such cooperation would be likely to cause the faith of the Jews to become contaminated.” And Clines also brings up that last consideration when he says that “co-operation in the actual work of rebuilding would naturally involve co-operative arrangements about the cultus of the restored temple.”

In summary, “the major reason for rejecting the proposal of the peoples of the lands no doubt was that they were regarded by the returnees as mongrel groups and hence not true worshipers of Yahweh.” (Myers)

As a major piece of evidence confirming that it was a religious, rather than racial, issue with the Jews comes from subsequent decisions found in Ezra-Nehemiah. Eskenazi points out, “At a later period Ezra-Nehemiah shows some readiness to include outsiders (see Ezra 6:21).” But that was only after those people had “separated himself from the pollutions of the peoples of the land to worship the LORD, the God of Israel.” (RSV) “In other words, although variations in the intensity of ethnic sentiment are visible in the biblical sources from beginning to end, these sentiments are consistently secondary to religious identity, which permitted outsiders to assimilate to Israel/Judaism.” (Sparks)

This is not the only time in biblical history that the question arose concerning the acceptance or rejection of outside help. Way back in Genesis 23 we see that Abraham first turned down the Hittite offer of one of their tombs in which to bury his wife. Then he turned down the gift of a plot of land in which to bury her. He insisted on purchasing it instead. In that manner, the Jews had a legal right to land in Canaan and were not dependent on a pagan ruler for it.

Unfortunately, subsequent kings of Israel and Judah did not learn from this example, but continually sought military help from major world powers around them, a move which God consistently condemned through the prophets and which often eventually backfired on the Jews.

We see this same issue even cropping up later in the NT, as for example in Acts 16 when Paul is followed around by the possessed slave girl who keeps testifying that he and his companions “are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation.” He commands the spirit to come out of her. The reason for Paul's action is best summarized by Shel Silverstein in his poem “Helping.”

    Some kind of help is the kind of help

    That helping's all about

    And some kind of help is the kind of help

    We all can do without.

Unfortunately, Christians today seem to have forgotten these lessons and continue to make unholy alliances with either left- or right-wing politicians who do not at all share their religious convictions but who do promise to give us the help we feel we need but are not getting from God Himself in a timely enough manner.

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW: PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONS

Any survey of the literature on this gospel account will reveal that scholars are united in praising Matthew’s organizational skills – “an author with an astonishingly orderly mind,” in Guthrie’s words. On the other hand, there is a surprising diversity to the various structures that have been proposed for this work. Osborne notes, “I am in the process of doing a major commentary on Matthew and am quite discouraged by the unbelievable plethora of suggestions regarding the outline of the book. I am even more discouraged over how many of them sound plausible.”

Contrary to the above consensus is the contention of Breck that “Matthew has produced a work whose individual units are often presented in a tight chiastic or parallel pattern, while an overall parallelism is less clearly present.” Thus, he presents chapters 1-8 as a series of unrelated chiasms, most of which are rather weak examples. And then he states that “Matthew does not abandon chiasmus outright after the Sermon; he merely allows it to deteriorate, to unravel, as it were, to the point where its presence in a given pericope can at times be neither proven nor disproven.” The analysis presented below will, it is hoped, totally disprove Breck's contention.

For convenience sake, the primary approaches may be categorized as follows: (a) the older geographical or chronological divisions – nearly abandoned in recent years; (b) topical, “conceptual” or linear structures, which are not really literary structures and will not be further discussed (see Childs, Bauer); (c) five-part organizations based on the similar statements which conclude the major discourses in the book; (d) three-part divisions based on two similar introductory statements in the text; (e) combinations of the last two approaches; and (f) chiastic, or mirror-image, structures. These last four types are discussed below.

Five-Part Divisions

This view, first proposed by B. W. Bacon in 1930, is perhaps the most popular. It begins by recognition of five similar statements in the book, each of which directly follows a block of discourse material.

“And when Jesus finished these sayings...” (7:28)

            “And when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples...” (11:1)

            “And when Jesus had finished these parables...” (13:53)

            “Now when Jesus had finished these sayings...” (19:1)

            “When Jesus had finished all these sayings...” (26:1)

The discourses which precede these pronouncements are well recognized to be arranged topically and to cover subjects that are, respectively, ethical, missionary, kergymatic, ecclesiastical and eschatological. But Brown notes, “Although each major discourse has a different focus, the theme of God's reign is accented in each of them.” Each of the discourses also ends on a note of judgment. Those who hold that these passages constitute the main structural markers for Matthew’s composition generally emphasize Jesus’ teaching ministry over his identity as the Son of God as the major theme of the Gospel. According to this view, Jesus is portrayed as the new Moses throughout the book, especially in his giving the fulfilled law to the people in five discourses that parallel the books of the Pentateuch.

With the above markers to start with, one would expect formulation of an overall structure for the Gospel to be relatively simple. Unfortunately, there are still several issues to deal with:

1. The bounds of the Infancy Narratives must be determined.

            2. The indicators of where the five discourses begin are not as clear as where they conclude, as Bauer notes.

            3. The relationship between the teaching and narrative sections is sometimes muddy.

Because of these uncertainties, a number of different five-part proposals have been put forth. Gundry’s divisions are representative of those schemes pairing up each discourse section with a preceding narrative:

Part     Narrative             Discourse

A         3:1-4:25              5:1-7:29

B         8:1-9:34              9:35-11:1

C        11:2-12:50           13:1-52

D        13:53-17:27         18:1-35

E        19:1-22:46           23:1-25:46

Variations on this basic structure have narrative sections ending instead at 9:35; 9:38;10:4;10:42; 12:45;13:54;17:21;17:23 and/or 23:39, depending on which commentator you follow. On the other hand, Bauer points out that the five formulas clearly connect the preceding discourses with the narratives that directly follow as well as with what precedes. Other objections to this method of dividing the Gospel include the following:

1. It relegates the Passion and the Resurrection to a mere supporting role, an epilogue to the teaching ministry of Jesus. There is a similar problem with its treatment of the infancy narratives.

2. It is by no means clear that the theme of Jesus as the new lawgiver pervades the Gospel although parallels between the lives of Moses and Jesus are certainly present. Blomberg points out that Matthew actually spends more time contrasting Jesus’ teachings with the Law than paralleling them.

3. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the five sections of Matthew and the five books of the Pentateuch. This is especially true in the case of Leviticus, according to Albright and Mann.

4. Hill rightly states that the five formulas above are “unable to bear the symbolic and structural strain placed on them by this theory.” Instead they appear to be only connecting links or transitional phrases between one sub-unit and the next.

5. The “all” in Matthew 26:1 is felt by some to clearly reference the totality of Jesus’ teaching ministry, not just the immediately preceding discourse.

6. The number “five” does not appear to have any symbolic significance for Matthew

elsewhere in his Gospel although series of threes and sevens are quite common. To counter this objection, one could note that a five-fold body with a prologue and epilogue could be viewed as a seven-fold structure. And that is an important symbolic number for Matthew.

The seven occurrences of “righteousness” are particularly of interesting since their appearances seem to form a chiastic pattern:

John's ministry of baptism for repentance (3:15)

    The need to hunger and thirst after righteousness (5:6)

        The reward for those who are persecuted in this life (5:10)

            Our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (5:20)       

        No heavenly reward for those who get admiration in this life (6:1)

    The need to strive first for the kingdom of God (6:33)

John's ministry of baptism for repentance (21:32)

The genealogy that begins Matthew's Gospel contains three groups of fourteen names each, perhaps an example of gematria since the numerical values of the letters in David's name total fourteen. In addition, the Gospel contains fourteen appearances each of “Father in heaven,” “people (referring to Israel),” “repent” and “hypocrite.” The phrase “your Father” appears fourteen times in the Sermon on the Mount (as two groups of seven interrupted by one “our Father” at 5:9). Within the Sermon are fourteen teachings, each structured the same. There are fourteen references to Jeremiah's prophecies in the book. Also, the phrase “I tell you the truth” (without gar) is present 28 (4x7) times in the gospel.

However, certain key words and phrases do appear exactly five times in the book, and several sets of three throughout the Gospel have also been noted, as well as seven clauses in the Lord's Prayer, seven parables in Matt. 13 and seven woes.

7. The difficulty in force-fitting alternating blocks of narrative and discourse into a five-fold pattern, as evidenced by the many conflicting proposals, must be considered a major objection to this approach. The weak relationship between some of these pairings is an issue that proponents of this view must address as well as the predominance of narrative material over discourses. (Lohr)

Three-Part Divisions

At two points in the text, similar statements appear to signal the beginning of major literary units.

“From that time Jesus began to preach...” (Matt. 4:17)

            “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must...suffer.” (Matt. 16:21)

Thus, these marker passages could be said to herald, respectively, the preaching ministry and the Passion story. According to this view, a process of elimination defines Matthew 1:1-4:16 as the first major unit, dealing with the pre-ministry events in Jesus’ life. An interesting contrast results from this approach in that the second division (4:17-16:20) ends with Jesus instructing his disciples to tell no one that he is the Christ while the last major section of the book (16:21-28:20) ends as the risen Christ tells his followers to go and make disciples of all nations. Childs dismisses this three-part structure, attributed to Krantz, as having met with little reception elsewhere. However, a major breakpoint in the text after 16:20 was recognized as early as E. W. Bullinger, and an increasing number of modern scholars appear to have adopted this basic view as the starting point for more detailed proposals.

Objections to this scheme have also been offered:

1. The phrase “from that time” also appears in Matt. 26:16 with no important structural significance attached, according to Brown.

            2. This viewpoint tends to ignore or downplay the role of the five parallel statements that end the discourse units.

            3. A three-point division to such a large book is insufficient to adequately define its method of organization. Even Thiemann, one of its defenders, admits that the second division “does not exhibit the tight structure of the first and last sections.”

Combination of Three- and Five-fold Structures

Kingsbury treats the three-fold divisions as primary to the Gospel, but also takes into account the five-fold structural indicators:

I. The presentation of Jesus (1:1-4:16)

IIA. The ministry of Jesus to Israel (4:17-11:1)

1. Narrative (4:17-25)

2. Discourse (5:1-7:29)

1'. Narrative (8:1-9:34)

2'. Discourse (9:35-10:42)

Conclusion (11:1)

IIB. Israel’s repudiation of Jesus (11:2-16:20)

1. Narrative (11:2-12:50)

2. Discourse (13:1-52)

1'. Narrative (14:1-16:20)

III. Journey to Jerusalem and events there (16:21-28:20)

1. Narrative (16:21-17:23)

2. Discourse (17:24-18:35)

1'. Narrative (19:1-23:39)

2'. Discourse (24:1-25:46)

1''.Narrative (26:1-28:20)

Interestingly, Kingsbury’s structure, as plotted above, consists of fourteen sections. Despite some very attractive features of this view, it has so far failed to convince most students of this Gospel.

Blomberg starts with the same basic approach (a primary tripartite structure and a secondary five-part structure) to obtain somewhat different results:

I. Birth and Early Events (1:1-4:16)

A. Birth (1:1-2:23)

                        B. Pre-Ministry (3:1-4:16)

II. Teaching Ministry (4:17-16:20)

A. Discourse (4:17-7:29) followed by Narrative (8:1-9:35)

                        B. Discourse (9:36-10:42) followed by Narrative (11:1-12:50)

                        C. Discourse (13:1-52) followed by Narrative (14:1-16:20)

III. The Passion (16:21-28:20)

A. Narrative (16:21-17:23) followed by Discourse (17:24-18:35)

                        B. Narrative (19:1-22:46) followed by Discourse (23:1-25:46)

                        C. Two-Part Narrative (chs. 26-27 and ch. 28)

This approach eliminates some of the problems associated with other schemes but points out the difficulty in deciding which narratives should be paired topically with which discourses.

Chiastic Structures

Many scholars have pointed out parallels between the Infancy and Passion Narratives. These similarities are obvious and numerous enough to warrant the supposition that they are purposeful. If so, it is attractive to look for further examples of parallel sections within the rest of the book that might reveal an overall chiastic structure. Several such schemes have been proposed, two of which are shown below:

1. Several scholars adopt a variation of the organization shown below in which Chapter 13 constitutes the center of the chiasm.

A. Birth and beginnings (chs. 1-4)

B. Blessings; entering the kingdom (chs. 5-7)

C. Authority and invitation (chs. 8-9)

D. Mission discourse (ch. 10)

E. Rejection by this generation (chs. 11-12)

F. Parables of the kingdom (ch. 13)

E'. Acknowledgment by disciples (chs. 14-17)

D'. Community discourse (ch. 18)

C'. Authority and invitation (chs. 19-22)

B'. Woes; coming of the kingdom (chs. 23-25)

A'. Death and rebirth (chs. 26-28)

Ellis states that ch. 13 is a natural dividing point of the Gospel since afterward Jesus speaks only to the disciples rather than to the Jews as a whole. Similarly, both Kingsbury and Drury label Chapter 13 as the turning point in the Gospel, a statement that Snodgrass feels is an overstatement. This above scheme suffers from reliance on section divisions and markers not generally adopted by others and by weak parallels between supposedly corresponding sections, especially between C-C' and D-D'.

2. H. B. Green’s chiastic structure places ch. 11 as the focal point of the Gospel. He reasons that this chapter contains a summary of the whole Gospel and that after this point Matthew tends to follow Mark fairly closely. He pairs up the following chapters: 1-2 // 26-28, 3-4 // 24-25, 5-7 // 19-23, 8-9 // 14-18, and 10 // 12-13. Note that there are no correspondences between this scheme and the chiasm shown above in terms of parallel groupings and virtually no similarities in section divisions. Bauer assesses the supposed parallels in this structure to be even weaker than those of the previous chiastic scheme.

A New Look at Section Divisions

The diversity of opinions regarding the intended structure of Matthew’s Gospel appears to be caused by approaches that start out with assumptions regarding the overall organization of the book and only then attempt to flesh out the details in a consistent manner. I have pursued a fresh approach, one in which bounds are first placed on the individual literary units by looking for signs of topical coherence, chiasm and inclusio. Only then can an adequate definition of overall structure begin. The results of such an approach are summarized in the post “Matthew: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”

 

BIBLE CONTRADICTION: PROVERBS 4:7 vs. ECCLESIASTES 1:18

I ran across this gem on the internet with the eye-catching title “Does God Want Us Smart or Stupid?”

Let me first quote these two verses (in the New English Bible):

    “The first thing is to acquire wisdom; gain understanding though it cost you all you have.” (Prov. 4:7)

    “For in much wisdom is much vexation, and the more a man knows, the more he has to suffer.”

(Eccles. 1:18)

I see at least three problems with such a one-to-one comparison under the above title question.

    1. The author of the contradiction is confusing two different categories here: “Smart vs. stupid” has a great deal to do with one's innate intelligence, which is to a large extent beyond one's control. “Wise vs. foolish” has more to do with how one applies one's intelligence and knowledge.

    2. He is also confusing categories of God's desire (in the title question), God's command or advice (in Proverbs), and the attendant consequences which may result here on earth (in Ecclesiastes).

To explain this with a New Testament example that is surprisingly close thematically, consider the statement in II Peter 3:9 that God desires that all should be saved eternally; that is what God wants for us. However, Jesus promised his followers persecution on earth (Mark 10:29-30). That is the attendant consequence of following God's will.

    3. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, the formulator of this contradiction has totally ignored the respective contexts of the two isolated verses.

In the book of Proverbs, one must first accept that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom (1:7; 9:10; 15:33) as well as the fact that there are limitations to human wisdom (16:1-2,9; 21:30). In addition, as H.C. Washington puts it, “Wisdom (generally equated with righteousness) brings success; folly (or wickedness) leads to destruction.”

In stark contrast, wisdom in Ecclesiastes is defined as comprehension of “all that is done under the heavens, all the deeds that are done under the sun.” (1:13-14). Those are both descriptions of earthly things, not heavenly ones. When the author of the book pursues these, he reaches the inevitable conclusion that it all amounts to “a chasing after the wind” which only leads to frustration and sorrow. And part of that frustration is due to the fact, pointed out above in Proverbs, that man's wisdom will always be limited.

Here are some additional comments from the literature expressing the difference between the two different meanings of the word “wisdom” as expressed in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, beginning with those on Proverbs 4:7.

    “This 'getting' is a costly business and requires not academic ability but a willingness to make an effort to learn and do what is right.” (C.G. Martin)

    “What it takes is not brains or opportunity, but a decision.” (Kidner)

    “Wisdom involves a right attitude and approach to all areas of life. In spiritual life, it includes a commitment to follow the teachings of the holy and righteous God who expects his people to reflect his qualities and a moral commitment to do what is right and to avoid what is wrong.” (Woodcock)

By contrast, here is what scholars have to say regarding Ecclesiastes 1:18:

    Fleming states that “wisdom is an “intellectual inquiry which the author finds inadequate for an understanding of life's meaning.”

    Hendry calls it “the philosophical approach” and says, “Man cannot rest content with a meaningless existence. There is within him an irresistible urge to find rhyme or reason in it...Yet it only adds to man's torment; for the jig-saw puzzle of life cannot be completed; some of the parts are missing.”

    Whybray says this verse “is a warning to those who think that the human mind is capable of finding an answer to all questions.”

    Longman points out, “This verse does not summarize Qohelet's attitude before his search, the point from which he presses on, but rather negatively on the process and the conclusions of his search for meaning...It is most likely that the suffering Qohelet envisions as the result of an increase in knowledge is mental anguish.”

    Finally, Jacques Ellul summarizes the difference between “wisdom” in Ecclesiastes and Proverbs when he says that “in Qohelet we are not dealing with the wisdom of God. Rather than delightful Wisdom who played before the Lord at the creation of the world (see Prov. 8), we have mere human wisdom: our creation, expression, and criteria, our way of living and thinking.”

 

WHO RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD? (JOHN 2:19-21; ACTS 4:10)

 

An atheist site on the internet came up with this biblical contradiction. Most such accusations are rather easy to counter, but I must admit that this one posed a bit of a challenge for me. Fortunately, I have a number of reliable sources to consult besides my own limited capabilities.

The problem is this: In John 2:19-21, Jesus says that if the temple is destroyed, he will raise it up in three days. John explains this statement as referring to Jesus' body. However, in Acts 4:10 it is clearly stated that God was responsible for raising Jesus from the dead. Actually, the person who posed this contradiction could have cited a number of other places in the NT where it is indicated that, in Furnish's words, “Christ's resurrection is...an act of God himself.” For this concept, see Romans 4:17; 5:6ff; 6:4; 10:9I Corinthians 6:14; 15:54ff; and II Corinthians 13:4. By contrast, Guthrie points out that “there is no parallel reference to Jesus raising His own body.” Therefore the best approach to resolving this issue would seem to be a concentration on the passage in John, especially since, as several commentators note, it is rather cryptic and subject to several different interpretations.

Any one of the following lines of reasoning would seem to lead to an adequate resolution of this apparent contradiction, although some are certainly more likely than others:

1. The verb forms in the Bible are not as much distinguished as in modern English.

When a sentence is written in the active voice, the subject performs the action; in the passive voice, the subject receives the action. Thus, John 2:19 Jesus uses the active voice of the verb to indicate that he will be doing the raising. By contrast, in the other references to his resurrection cited above, it either states that God raised Jesus or in the passive voice that “he was raised.” Note that the passive leaves it vague as to which person was responsible for doing the raising, but it generally refers to someone other than the one on the receiving end of the action.

Blomberg in commenting on Matthew 28:5-7 says, “No text of Scripture ever speaks of Jesus raising himself but always as being raised by God...John 2:19-20 is the sole possible exception. Jesus does use the active voice to speak of himself as raising the temple, which John interprets in v. 22 (sic, 'v. 21') to refer to Christ's body. But, interestingly, in that (sic, 'the next') verse, as the interpretation is given, the passive voice reappears.”

Another possible biblical example of this phenomenon is seen in the story of the ten plagues visited on Egypt. The passage seems to move between statements regarding pharaoh's heart in which either (a) he hardened his own heart, (b) God hardened his heart, or (c) pharaoh's heart was hardened. We can consider these three options as expressing exactly the same thought or, possibly, see some sort of progression in hardening as the plagues continued.

2. John 2:21 referring to Jesus' body should be excised from the text as an explanatory note written by a later hand and introduced into subsequent manuscripts either accidentally or purposely.

This sort of approach should always be one of the last resort. And in this case, there is very little reason to suppose that it these are not the authentic words of John. For one thing, there is no variant manuscript evidence to back up such a claim. One could, I suppose, make a big point of the fact that, as Motyer says, John 2:21 “is the only instance in the Johannine writings where soma [“body”] does not mean dead body or slave (cf. Rev. 18:13).” But the content of the verse is consistent with John's writings elsewhere in this Gospel account, such as when Jesus says in 5:21: “Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes.” Or when Jesus states, “I am the resurrection...” (John 11:25)

3. John 2:21 speaks to the close unity of God the Father and Jesus, His Son.

Of all the gospels, John is the most insistent on the unity of Jesus and God, even while Jesus was on earth. As just two pertinent passages, look at John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”) and John 14:17 (“If you know me, you know my Father also”). Thus, it is hard to distinguish where God's actions end and Jesus' begin. As two example:

    Whereas Genesis 1:1 has God creating the universe, John 1:3 ascribes this action to the pre-incarnate Christ.

    John 5:19 states that Jesus' works on earth were not done without God's involvement.

Most importantly, John 5:21 reveals that “just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes.” And it is just possible that statement includes Jesus raising himself from the dead as well. Other passages expressing a similar thought include John 6:39,44,54.

All judgment is given to Christ according to John 5:22,27; judgment will be carried out by both God and Christ as stated in John 8:16; and God is the sole judge in passages such as John 8:50; Acts 17:31; and Romans 2:16.

Therefore, saying that God raised Jesus can be taken as another way of stating that Jesus raised himself (through the power God delegated to him).

4. Both “temple” and “body” are to be taken to be figurative rather than literal.

In all the above approaches, it is assumed that John is speaking of Jesus' literal body in verse 21. Raymond Brown mentions that some scholars felt that Jesus may have indicated that understanding by pointing to himself as he was talking, but that is mere speculation. Instead, it turns out that a majority of modern evangelical commentators prefer to understand the passage to be highly metaphorical. Thus, both “temple” and “body” point to something entirely different. Brown discusses the possible meanings for “temple,” beginning with the observation that the parallel passage in Mark 14:58 refers to the rebuilt “temple” as being “not made with hands.” Brown breaks down the sub-categories of this general interpretation into three:

    1. The Christian temple is the Church (Ephesians 2:19-21; I Peter 2:5, 4:17).

    2. The Temple is the individual (I Corinthians 3:16, 6:19).

    3. The Temple is a heavenly one (Revelation 11:19; Hebrews 9:11-12).

Brown concludes: “Which of these views of the spiritual Temple Mark held is not clear; but, after all, they are only slightly different aspects of the same reality.”

Others pointing to the “temple” with the same meaning are quoted below;

    Reisner says that Jesus “described himself...as well as the redeemed community he founded...as the new, spiritual Temple.”

    “John has a heightened focus on the city and the temple, but he portrays Jesus as replacing the temple as a means of access to God (e.g. Jn 2:18-22; 14:6-7).” (Walton)

    In commenting on Matthew 12:6 (“something greater than the temple is here”), Hill states, “If this saying is interpreted as referring not to the Messiah, but to the messianic community and its precedence over the Temple, then it may anticipate John's distinctive interpretation of the Temple of Christ's body, which replaces the old order of Temple worship (Jn 2.20-1).”

    Barclay thought that Jesus was speaking 'of the temple as a living force.' “Thus, by this view, Jesus was predicting the abolition of the Temple worship through animal sacrifices and replacing it with an approach to God in which the Jerusalem Temple was no longer needed.” (Morris)

    Keener: “Believers may be part of the new temple, but Jesus is the foundation stone (cf. Jn 2:21)...Jesus is Jacob's ladder connecting heaven and earth (Jn. 1:51) and is the new temple (Jn 2:21)...”

    “It is quite possible that Jesus thought of himself as the foundation of a new community of faith and worship.” (Evans and Novakovic)

In a similar manner, “body” may not point to Christ's literal body, but to the church instead.

    “In Colossians we see this double meaning strongly emphasized. In Colossians 1:22 the body is the crucified body of the Lord Jesus. Yet in Colossians 1:18 and 1:24, Paul is clearly using the same term for the Christian community...Christ is so closely identified with the church that to persecute the church is to persecute Christ. The crucified body of Jesus and the ecclesial body, the Church, therefore cannot be separated...John in particular emphasizes the function of the community, Jesus' body, as the temple that bears God's presence.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

    Ellis: “The body of Christ is a regular Pauline metaphor for the church (cf. Eph. 2:21f). Further, just as in a parallel passage (Mk 11:17) the true house of God is a 'house of prayer for all nations' so through the Holy Spirit the same will be true in Christ's Body – the Church.”

    Wright, Cullmann, and Morris all agree that “body of Christ” often refers to the church rather than Jesus' literal body, although Morris rejects that interpretation in the case of John 2:19-21.

Morris' objection to this metaphorical interpretation of “body” is based on what seems to be an overwhelming barrier to its acceptance, i.e. the specific prediction of raising the temple (or body) in three days. Brown's response to that criticism is to say, “Perhaps the best solution lies in recognizing that 'three days' was an expression that meant a short, but indefinite time...By promising that the messianic Temple [the church, that is] would be rebuilt in such a short time Jesus may have been hinting at its miraculous nature.” As proof for that biblical usage of the phrase to denote a short, but undefined, time period Brown cites Exodus 19:11; Hosea 6:2; and Luke 13:32. In rebuttal, Morris says that such an interpretation may apply in OT times “but it is not common in the Gospels.”

In re-rebuttal, one could point out two things regarding the NT usage of this time period:

    There are many references in the Gospels and Acts to Christ's resurrection occurring “in three days,” three days and three nights,” “on the third day,” or “after three days,” which, technically speaking, are not literally consistent with one another. Neither are “after three days” or “three days and three nights” consistent with the most apparent chronology of the actual events in Scripture since, at most, it appears as if Christ was buried on Friday just before the Sabbath began and arose before or at dawn on Sunday. These apparent contradictions disappear if the Gospel usage of “three days” is idiomatic for “a short period of time.”

    There are other occasions in the NT narratives where something other than the resurrection is said to have occurred “on the third day” or “three days later” (cf. Mark 8:3; John 2:1; Acts 9:9; 25:1; 27:19; 28:7,17). This recurring time period is either quite a coincidence or, again, the phrases are stereotyped idioms for, “a little time later.”

Any one of the four approaches above results in a resolution to the seeming contradiction regarding who raised Jesus from the dead.

THE ORGANIZATION OF GENESIS 1-11

The major divisions within the Primeval History in the Bible (i.e. Genesis 1-11) are generally based on the almost universal assumption that toledot, usually as the phrase ellah toledot ('These are the generations of'), “clearly and consistently structurally marks the beginning of new sections.” But things are not that clear-cut. For example, Wright makes that assertion just after admitting that the same phrase in Genesis 36:9 does not function in that manner.

The first usage of toledot in Genesis does not actually occur until Gen. 2:4, where there is the question of whether it signals the beginning or conclusion of a passage. Since most subsequent occurrences of this marker appear to begin new sections, most commentators feel that the word functions in the same manner in this verse. A dissenting view was voiced by Wiseman, who cited Babylonian cuneiform evidence that toledot might have a retrospective function instead to summarize what had gone on before. One literary observation possibly supporting such a use, at least in Gen. 2:4b, is that the chiastic pair “heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1) ----earth and heaven (Gen. 2:4b)” may be intended to enclose the first major section of the book.

Turner also brings up caveats. Besides agreeing with Wiseman regarding the function of toledot at Gen. 2:4a, he points out, “Additional uses of the formula or equivalent occur, which summarize (Gen. 10:32) or reiterate (Gen. 25:13; 36:9) a toledot already introduced, but these do not have a structuring function.” This last assertion is a little strange considering that Gen. 36:9 can be seen, along with 36:1 to mark the beginning of two A units in the genealogy sub-section Gen. 36:1-43, and this is a definite structuring function.

    A. The descendants of Esau (36:1-5)

        B. Narrative Unit (36:6-8)

    A'. The descendants of Esau (36:9-43)

Turner also notes that 5:1 departs from the traditional toledot formula by saying “This is the book of the descendants of...”

And lastly, Duane Garrett makes an interesting case for toledot only functioning as a heading for genealogical material, with the narratives coming from a separate source. Thus, he treats its appearances at 25:19 and 35:22 as introductions to the Isaac genealogy interrupted by the story of Jacob; its use at 37:1 and 46:8 to begin Jacob's genealogy interrupted by the Joseph narrative; and its appearance at Genesis 2:4 as a later addition to the text in imitation of the other introductions.

Because of these uncertainties in conventional wisdom, it is interesting to see what results if one momentarily ignores the assumed role of toledot and instead relies solely on the internal symmetries within each section. Then one can see what role the word actually plays in each individual case and also look for any overall symmetry for the whole of Gen. 1-11 which may thus result.

Section A: Creation (Genesis 1-2)
Scholars have often pointed out that a common literary Hebrew pattern was to broadly describe an event and then proceed to go into increasingly more detail. This can be seen in the creation story with a general introduction given in Gen. 1:1, followed by more details in 1:2-2:4a, and finally zeroing in on a particular geographical location and human couple in 2:4b-25.The parallels between Gen. 1:1-2:3 and 2:5-25 are so strong that a two-part organization to these combined chapters seems inevitable, whether one treats the second half as a reiteration of the first creation or as a special creation in a particular location. By viewing it in this manner, the structural function of Gen. 2:4 becomes obvious and explains why the toledot here is so controversial. This key verse contains two lines:

    "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. (v. 4a)

    In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..." (v. 4b)

Note the chiastic (mirror-image) elements within these semi-poetic lines. This verse takes the form of introverted parallelism found quite often in the Psalms (see “Psalms: Introduction to the Literary Structure”). And this even extends to the reversed order of the two elements “heavens and earth” in the last line – a sure sign of an inclusio marking out the borders of the literary unit.

One unusual feature of this verse is that its first line appears to point forward to the rest of Genesis 2 as similar occurrences of toledot do. However, Gen. 2:4b looks backward to the very beginning of Genesis where the same phrase is used with another reversal of the same “heaven and earth” elements. Thus viewed, the structural function of ellah toledot here is neither as an opening nor closing phrase. Instead it is part of a hinge verse tying together the two halves of Genesis 1-2.

Section B: Sin and Expulsion (3:1-4:16)

This section takes the form of two parallel series, both ending with “east of...Eden.”

    A. Adam and Eve sin (3:1-7)

        B. God questions them (3:8-13)

            C. They (and the snake) are cursed (3:14-20)

                D. God cares for them (3:21)

                        E. They are banished (3:22-24)

    A'. Cain sins (4:1-8)

        B'. God questions him (4:9-10)

            C'. He is cursed (4:11-12)

                D'. God protects him (4:13-15)

                    E'. He is banished (4:16)

Section C: Genealogy (4:17-5:31)

There are two genealogies given in this section: Cain's line (4:17-24) and that of Seth (5:1-5:31). The two are tied together in several ways. In the first place, both lines contain names that are the same or similar, and these are given in the same order in both genealogies: Enoch (4:17; 5:18), Methushael / Methuselah (4:18a; 5:21), and Lamech (4:18b; 5:25). Secondly, there is a numerical pattern associated with the two different Lamechs who close out each list of descendants: 7 (4:24a), 77 (4:24b), and 777 (5:31). Thirdly, there is a pronounced contrast between the two Lamechs in that the first one revels in his bloodthirstiness while the second one expresses the pious hope that his son Noah will save them from their curse. Ross notes that there are only two speeches in this genealogy section and that both are spoken by a Lamech. Finally, the seventh son in each line is especially highlighted (4:18-24 and 5:22-24), where the two again present a marked contrast.

Acting as the divider between these two lists of names are verses 4:25-26. This small transition passage ties together the two flanking sections in several ways: (a) the phrase “knew his wife” in 4:25a looks backward to 4:1 and 17 where it first appeared; (b) Cain's murder of his brother is alluded to in 4:25b; (c) the births of Seth and Enosh appear in 4:25-26 and 5:3-6; and (d) the notice in 4:26b that “man began to call on the name of the LORD” looks forward to more hopeful times ahead regarding the spiritual state of Adam's descendants. This is another example of toledot marking the center spot in the section (5:1a).

Section D: Genesis 6:1-4

This short but enigmatic passage has been the source of much controversy, beginning with the proper terminus of the literary unit. For example, Ross offers a rather weak ABC-ABC arrangement for Genesis 6:1-8. Similarly, extending the section to at least v. 7 results in a passage containing exactly seven appearances of “man.” However, limiting this passage to the four verses shown above seems a preferable option. This proposal goes hand in hand with determination of the section's proper context within Genesis. The three possibilities, as laid out by Walton, are: (a) it belongs to the previous genealogical section; (b) it belongs to the flood narrative that follows; or (c) it is an independent literary unit. Ross feels that all are viable alternatives. Another possibility comes to mind, however. What if it serves as a bridge section between the preceding and following section?

There are several pieces of evidence pointing to this fourth option:

1. This would result in two large flanking blocks of material of approximately the same size.

2. This would result in the number “seven/seventh” appearing seven times on each side of the passage.

3. Events before these verses deal with the original creation from chaos while those afterward deal with a new creation out of chaos.

4. It would explain why reasonably defensible arguments have been given to connect this short section with either the preceding genealogy of Seth or as the reason for the destruction by flood that follows.

5. As short as this section is, it forms the center point of several triads within Gen. 1-11:

            a. God decides to limit the (evil) activities of mankind at 3:22-24; 6:3 and 11:6-7.

            b. The phrase “in that day” or equivalents appears only in 4:26; 6:4; and 10:25.

            c. People attempt to make a name for themselves in 4:17; 6:4; and 11:4.

            d. Gen. 6:1-4 is the second of three passages in Gen. 1-11, along with 4:23-24 and 10:9-11, labeled as “short idiosyncratic passages” by J. H. Walton. (He also includes the larger section describing the Babel incident.)

            e. Kaiser identifies the first bigamists in Genesis as Lamech (4:19); the “sons of God” in 6:2-4; and Nahor and Abram (11:9). In each case, the phrase “took wives” appears.

    6. There are verbal clues connecting 6:1-4 to the opening and/or closing verses of Genesis 1-11 and to the Book of Genesis as a whole. This last phenomenon indicates an even broader function for this key bridge section.

        a. “...God saw...was/were good” (1:4; 6:2). “Good” also appears in Gen. 50:20.

        b. “day(s)” (1:5; 6:3,4; 50:10)

        c. “spirit/wind” (1:2; 6:3)

        d. “nephilim” (6:4) / “naphal” (50:18)

        e. Mankind's life span is limited to 120 (6:4), and Joseph is the first patriarch who does not exceed that limit but dies at 110 (50:26).

        f. “days shall be (were)” (6:3 and 11:32)

        g. begat...daughters” (6:1,4; 11:11-25 [8x])

        h. “Twenty” as part of an age designation within Gen. 1-11 is found only at 6:3 and 11:24.

        i. “Mighty” (gibbor) appears only in 6:4 and 10:8-9 (3x).

        j. “Multiply” and “face” only appear together at 1:28-9 and 6:1.

    7. “Flesh” in 6:3 not only harkens back to its only previous occurrences in Chapter 2 (3x), but is also followed by exactly 14 more appearances in Gen. 1-11.

    8. Similarly, the phrase “face of the earth/ground” can be found ten times after 6:1, half also containing the adjective “whole.”

Several internal symmetrical structures for this short unit are possible depending on which of the terms “sons of God,” nephilim, and “mighty heroes” are felt to relate to one another. As one example,

    1. People multiplied on the ground (v. 1a)

        2. Daughters born to men (v. 1b)

            3. Sons of God took wives (v. 2)

                4. Mankind will not live forever (v. 3a)

                4'. Lifetime limited to 120 years (v. 3b)

                    (Nephilim were on the earth in those days) (v. 4a)

            3'. Sons of God took wives (v. 4b)

        2'. Children were born to them (v. 4c)

    1'. These were heroes of old, warriors of renown (4d)

The above arrangement does not answer all questions regarding this obscure passage, but it does seem to indicate that the Nephilim were not the result of the intercourse between sons of God and daughters of men (in agreement with Carr) but that the first part of verse 4 should be treated as a parenthetical comment perhaps added at a later date to the text. This would be in keeping with the other appearances in Genesis 1-11 of “in those days” or equivalent phrases. Comparison of 1 with 1' may also confirm the view of many that the children mentioned in 2' were wholly human. Even Michael S. Heiser, who sees supernatural beings such as the angelic “sons of God” throughout the Bible, paradoxically affirms this understanding although he does hold that the Nephilim are the offspring of these ultimate examples of “mixed marriage.”

Section E: The Flood (Genesis 6:5-9:29)

A number of similar chiastic structures for the bulk of this story have been proposed. Most begin with 6:11 although Ross, for example, starts with 6:9 in order to start with a toledot formula. The following is another variation building on these proposals and expanding their limits. This structure also recognizes the close verbal and thematic parallels between 6:5-8 and 6:11-12.

    A. Wickedness on the earth and God's resolution to destroy all life (6:5-8)

        B. Noah (and his family) is blameless; he walked with God (6:9-10)

    A'. Wickedness on the earth and God's resolution to destroy all life (6:11-12)

            C. Instructions from God carried out by Noah (6:13-7:10)

                D. The Flood (7:11-8:14)

            C'. Instructions from God carried out by Noah (8:15-19)

    A''. God's resolution not to destroy life on earth again (8:20-22)

        B'. Blessing on Noah and his sons (9:1-7)

    A''''. Confirmation of God's resolution (9:8-17)

        B'. Blessings (and curse) on Noah's sons (9:18-29)

The toledot formula in this section serves a structural function in beginning the center of the opening sub-unit 6:5-12.

Section F: Genesis 10:1-32

This division represents another proposed departure from conventional wisdom, albeit in a small way. The only reason for relegating verse 32 to the following section is if one has a prior commitment to the idea that toledot must appear only at the start of a new unit. However, if one abandons that dogma, then it is easy to see that in this particular case it forms part of an inclusio to mark the boundaries of this section:

    “These are the descendants of Noah's sons...after the flood.” (Gen. 10:1)

    “These are the descendants of Noah's sons...after the flood.” (Gen. 10:32)

Section G: Genesis 11:1-9

The sole departure from the traditional understanding in this new proposed division is the absence of Gen. 10:32, which fits better in the previous section. Its presence would be disruptive of the various internal organizations (all beginning at 11:1), whether chiastic or parallel, that have been proposed by scholars such as Fokkelman, Wenham and Ross.

The threefold phrase “scattered abroad” in this transitional section reminds us of people being “spread abroad” in Gen. 10:5,18,32 as well as the earth being divided in that previous section (10:25). Section G also explains how each nation had its own language, a fact anticipated in 10:5.

Section H: Genesis 11:10-26

Except for the introduction in 10a and the conclusion in v. 26 (which prepares for the Patriarchal Narratives), the rest of this section follows the same repeated (8x) pattern:

    “When W had lived X years, he became the father of Y,

    and W lived after the birth of X, Z years,

    and had other sons and daughters.”

Overall Pattern to the Primeval History

Taking the above revised limits for each section as a starting point, it is possible to reconstruct the following scheme encompassing the first eleven chapters of Genesis:

Literary Structure of Genesis 1-11

    A. Sin and Punishment: Out of Eden (3:1-4:16)

        B. Genealogy: Cain (4:17-24)

            C. Transition (4:25-26)

        B'. Genealogy: Seth (5:1-31)

            C'. Transition (6:1-4)

    A'. Sin and Punishment: The Flood (6:5-9:29)

        B''. Genealogy: Noah (10:1-32)

            C''. Transition (11:1-9)

        B'''. Genealogy: Shem (11:10-26)

The following lines of evidence help to confirm this structure:

    (a) Ross notes that the genealogical patterns in B' and B''' are parallel to one another.

    (b) Of the few appearances of “70” in the Primeval History, one occurs at the end of the first Genealogy section and another is found at the conclusion of the last Genealogy section.

    (c) Section C' is linked to the previous transitional passage through the related phrases “at that time” and “in those days.” The three-fold reference to “name” in C and “renown” (same Hebrew root) in C' perform a similar function.

An even stronger link can be seen between “renown” in C' and mankind's attempt to make a “name for ourselves” in C''. This same forward linking can be seen in the actions God takes in limiting man's potential for evil by placing a maximum on his lifetime (Section C') and disrupting his ability to work in concert to the exclusion of God (Section C'').

    (d) Another form of symmetry is seen in the way the center Section C' with its mention of gibborim (“mighty men”) links up with the first genealogy section (where Lamech certainly fits the description of a man who at least talks like a mighty man) and the last genealogy section (where Nimrod is described with the same adjective).

    (e) Sections C and C'' perform the same function in separating two lines of descent, the preceding ones partially or wholly negative and the following ones representing the chosen line.

    (f) The theme of a cursed earth appears at the start and end of the first major block A-B' and also begins the final block A'-B'''.