IS THERE ANY ORGANIZATION TO ECCLESIASTES?

The scholarly consensus to this question is a resounding “No!”

    “One of the difficulties in determining the literary structure of Ecclesiastes is that there is no logical progression of thought by which the book is held together (except in chaps. 1-2).” (Bullock)

    “Qoheleth's unique method of argumentation makes a coherent outline of this work almost impossible.” (LaSor, et al)

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

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

    “It is evident to any reader of Ecclesiastes that the book is not a systematic treatise...in general, no progression of thought from one section to another is discernible.” (Whybray)

    “The task of delimiting units of thought in Qoheleth has been, and remains, notoriously difficult.” (Ogden)

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

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

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

In my post “Proverbs: Introduction to the Literary Structure” I explained that the key to understanding how the book was organized is to first realize that each discrete section ends with a piece of positive advice immediately followed by a negative qualifier, such as those shown below:

    “There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to happen among those who come after.” 1:11

    “Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had spent in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.” 2:11

    “This also is vanity and a striving after wind.” 2:26b

    “Who can bring him to see what will be after him?” 3:22b

    “For he will not much remember the days of his life.” 5:20a

    “...so that man may not find out anything that will be after him.” 7:14b

    “...man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. However much man may toil in seeking, he will not find it out; even though a wise man claims to know, he cannot find it out.” 8:17b

    “...for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.” 9:10b

    “...but let him remember that the days of darkness will be many. All that comes is vanity...But know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment...for youth and the dawn of life are vanity.” 11:10b

    “For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.” 12:14

The second step is the ordering of the resulting sections according to the symmetrical pattern shown below.

Figure 1: Overall Structure of Ecclesiastes

    A. Prologue (1:1-11)

        B. The ultimate futility of pursuing wisdom (1:12-2:11)

            C. The common fate of the wise man and fool (2:12-26)

                D. God’s time for everything, including judgment (3:1-22)

                    E. Enjoyment of work better than pursuit of riches (4:1-5:20)

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

                    E'. Prosperity and adversity both come from God (6:1-7:14)

                D'. God’s time for everything, including judgment (7:15-8:17)

            C'. The common fate of the righteous and the wicked (9:1-10)

        B'. Live wisely but realize that success is uncertain (9:11-11:10)

    A'. Epilogue (12:1-14)

Besides the general association of similar themes shown above, the parallel sections also contain similarities in language. These were not listed in my original post, so I have included some of them below as typical examples to illustrate the point.

Sections E and E'

The “better than” proverbs are located almost exclusively in E and E'. Both of these sections begin by noting the finality of death and the prevalence of earthly injustice, and both end with mention of the key words “advantage” and “vex.” In addition, the following parallels may be cited:

    a. the only references in Ecclesiastes to not being able to rejoice/enjoy (4:16 and 6:2)

    b. five of the seven instances in the book where “fear of God” is mentioned

    c. two-thirds of the “wise / poor” pairings in the book

    d. three references in each to the finality of death

    e. similar pairing of “come / go,” referring to birth and death, respectively

    f. “his eyes are never satisfied” (4:8) // “his appetite is not satisfied” (6:7)

    g. parallel admonitions in 5:2 (“let your words be few”) and 6:11 (“the more words, the more vanity”)

    h. parallel thoughts in 5:11 (“what gain has the owner but to see them with his eyes?”) and 6:9 (“better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of desire”)

    i. “the few days of life” in 5:18 and 6:12

    j. the majority of comments in the book on “toil”

    k. “there is an... evil which I have seen under the sun” followed by similar anecdotes at 4:13-17; 5:13-17 and 6:1-6.

    l. the Hebrew word translated “extortion” or “oppression” (4:1-3; 7:7)

    m. Section E ends with “I have seen to be good...” while E' begins, “There is an evil that I have seen...”

Sections D and D'

The key theme of time in Section D is revisited in D' with striking parallels between Ecclesiastes 3:1 (“For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.”) and 8:5-6 (“For every matter has its time and way”). Other commonalities between these two sections include the following:

    a. The problem of injustice in the world is a parallel theme as well as mention of God's judgment.

    b. Many of the “uncertainty” passages occur here, with phrases such as “can't find” or “who knows?”

    c. There are references to “God's gift” and “all evil” at the approximate centers of each section.

    d. Almost all the appearances in the book of the words “wicked” and “righteous” are in these units.

    e. Section D starts with the same theme that concludes D': the inability of man to decipher the works of God, however much he may try.

    f. Similar cryptic sayings with identical beginnings occur in these sections: “That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away” (3:15) and “That which is, is far off, and deep, very deep; who can find it out?” (7:24)

    g. Childs sees a similar eschatological motif in 3:17 and 8:11-12.

    h. The majority of the references to “matter” appear in D and D' (see especially 3:1 and 8:6).

    i. The thought in 3:11 is parallel to the teachings in 7:27-28 and 8:17.

    j. The phrase “there is nothing better” appears in 3:12; 3:22 and 8:15.

    k. The Teacher observes examples of oppression in 3:16 and 8:9.

Sections C and C'

The certainty of death is a common theme appearing in the first half of both these sections, followed by a discussion of its negative aspects. Both, however, end with a reference to “pleasure.” The most important verbal parallelism between these units appears in their respective final verses where the phrase “wisdom and knowledge” occurs (only twice elsewhere in the book). Other specific parallels between the two units are:

    a. the only two pairings of the “good” and the “offender” in the book (2:26 and 9:2)

    b. most occurrences of “fate,” in the sense of death

    c. half of the eight usages of the word “already,” two in each section

    d. two of three occurrences of the word “forgotten”

    e. “desire of the eyes” in both summary statements

    f. “hand of God,” which ends C and starts C'

    g. a possible corrective in 9:4-6 to the negative statement regarding life in 2:17

    h. pessimistic statements regarding knowledge in 2:21 and 9:10

    i. two appearances in each section of the phrase “in my/their heart.”

All of the above demonstrates that one should never sell the authors of Scripture short in terms of their ability to organize their writings in a carefully thought-out manner, especially when the supervising author is the Holy Spirit.

SAMSON AS A TYPE OF CHRIST

The whole subject of typology is an interesting one in the way it highlights the manner in which figures and events in the Old Testament foreshadow the New Testament revelations, especially regarding the life and death of Jesus the Messiah. When we think of such “types,” Moses probably comes to mind first since the Gospel of Matthew, for example, is quite clear in picturing Jesus as a new and superior Moses. Or there is the fact that He is also viewed as the Second Adam. And in Hebrews 5-7 the mysterious OT character of Melchizedek takes center stage as prefiguring the high-priestly nature of the risen Christ. We could even add to the list OT personages such as Joseph who, although never specifically pointed out in the NT, paralleled Jesus' life in a number of ways.

But then we also run into the rather despicable personage of Jonah, who might almost be called an anti-prophet. However, he is clearly cited as a type of Jesus Christ in passages such as Matthew 12:39-41 (paralleled in Luke 11:29-32) and Matthew 16:4. So obviously a “type” does not have to share all the characteristics of Jesus in order to be considered one. This brings us to the rather unlikely example of Samson, who could almost be called an anti-judge due to his totally out-of-control lifestyle. Nonetheless, one can even find parallels with Jesus here.

It all begins with the totally unexpected angelic announcement to Samson's mother, who had been barren up to that time, that she would bear a son who “shall deliver Israel.” (Judges 13:3-5) It is not at all hard to see the close parallel here with the angel Gabriel's announcement to Mary that she would bear a son who “will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1:26-35)

Compare these two similar pronouncements:

    “The boy shall be a Nazirite to God” (Judges 13:7)

    “He will be called a Nazorean.” (Matthew 2:23)

Blomberg states that “perhaps Matthew is alluding to Judg. 13:7...especially since this verse also includes a promise that the woman will conceive and bear a son, similar to Matt. 1:21. Although Jesus was not a literal Nazirite..., he could be seen as a charismatic individual empowered by the Spirit just as Samson had been.”

Subsequent confirmations of the announcement are given by the angel(s) to Samson's father and Joseph (Judges 13:8-23 and Matthew 1:19-24, respectively) and both accept the miraculous origin of the coming event.

It is not unusual, however, that the two descriptions of birth are somewhat stereotypically similar:

    “The woman bore a son and named him Samson” (Judges 13:24a)

    “And she gave birth to her firstborn son...and he was called Jesus.” (Luke 2:7,21)

The same could be said regarding the brief accounts of their early years except that Pao and Schnabel feel that Luke modeled his purposefully around those of Old Testament heroes such as Isaac (Genesis 21:8, Samson, and Samuel (Genesis 2:21,26):

    “The boy grew, and the LORD blessed him” (Judges 13:24b)

    “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” (Luke 3:52)

Auspiciously, Samson is called one who is dedicated to God (literally, “the Holy One of God”) in 13:7 and 16:7. Pao and Schnabel point out that variations on “the Holy One of God” as a title are also applied to Aaron (Ps. 106:16), Elisha (II Kings 4:9), and Jesus (Luke 1:35; 4:34).

Regarding Samson, “The spirit of the LORD began to stir him...” (Judges 13:25) Similarly, we read concerning Jesus, “He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.” (Matthew 3:16) And in Luke 4 it states that Jesus was “full of the Holy Spirit” (v. 1) and “filled with the power of the Spirit” (v. 14)

At this point in the Samson narrative, the lives of Jesus and Samson demonstrate more of a purposeful contrast between the two than a series of parallels. For example, Samson shows that he has absolutely no respect for his parents when he bullies them into getting him a Philistine woman for a wife. But the reader is told that this is all part of God's plan. (Judges 14:1-4) By contrast, early on Jesus shows his respect for Mary by giving into her plea for miraculous help at the marriage in Cana even though it did not really fit into the divine plan. (John 2:1-11)

Samson continues to demonstrate his lack of respect to his father and mother when he feeds them honey that had been ritually contaminated by coming out of an animal's carcass (Judges 14:5-9). Again, Jesus presents a contrasting picture when even on the cross he takes the time to make sure that his mother is well taken care of after his death. (John 19:25b-27)

When the time comes for Samson's wedding, he sets a challenge to his future in-laws to figure out the hidden meaning of a riddle he sets for them, which they do only by getting his future wife to wheedle it out of him. (Judges 14:11-20) I see a very rough parallel here with Jesus' practice of talking to the crowds, especially the unbelieving scribes and Pharisees, in veiled language by the use of parables and dark sayings which require a certain amount of meditation and spiritual discernment to figure out. On several occasions, even Jesus' apostles express bewilderment regarding the underlying meaning of his words.

Next, Samson takes revenge on the Philistines by burning down their fields. And from that point on, they are out to kill him. But they are unable to do so. (Judges 15:1-17) Again, there is a rough similarity here to the enmity the Pharisees had toward Jesus and their vow to kill him. And just as in the case of Samson, Jesus is easily able to walk away from danger unharmed. The major difference, of course, is that Jesus' actions were completely passive while Samson survived through his mighty acts of violence.

In Judges 15:118-19, we learn that God miraculously provides Samson water when he is dying of thirst. The reader should be immediately be reminded of the aftermath of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness when angels provided for his physical needs. (Matthew 4:11)

Chapter 16 of Judges presents us with another futile attempt of the Philistines to capture Samson, followed by him falling in love with a woman named Delilah. Just as on the previous occasion when Samson shared a secret with his future wife, Delilah is able to worm out of him the secret of his strength, his long hair. But she is secretly in league with the Philistines and they are able to shave him while he is sleeping and take him captive. The betrayal of Samson through the actions of one close to him has its close parallel with Judas' giving secret information regarding Jesus' whereabouts to the hostile Jewish authorities so that he could be arrested. (Luke 22:21,47-54)

The first thing the Philistines do to Samson is to blind him. (Judges 16:21a) Compare this to: “Now the men who were holding Jesus began to mock him and beat him; they also blindfolded him and kept asking him, 'Prophesy! Who is that struck you” (Luke 22:63-64; see also Matthew 27:27-31)

Then after putting him to work grinding grain in prison, the Philistines later have him taken to a large temple where about 3,000 men and women expect Samson to entertain and be mocked by them.

In a similar manner, the mocking of Jesus does not stop with the guards. Even while on the cross, Jesus receives the mockery of passers-by and the thieves on either side of him. (Matthew 27:38-44)

At this point in the Samson story, he at last turns to God in prayer. (Judges 16:28) There are both similarities and contrasts here with Jesus' words as he was also facing death. The parallel comes from Jesus' “seven sayings” on the cross, most of which were also directed to the Father. But whereas Samson prayed for vengeance on his enemies, Jesus prayed that God would forgive those who were crucifying him. (Luke 23:34)

“In [Luke] 23:42 the penitent criminal's request, 'Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom,' echoes texts such as Ps. 115:12; Judg. 16:28; 1 Sam. 1:11,19, where Yahweh's 'remembrance' is a source of divine blessing in keeping with his covenant.” (Pao and Schnabel)

It is noteworthy that both Jesus and Samson die with their arms stretched out on either side of them. (see Judges 16:29)

The dramatic effect of Samson's pulling down the two pillars is to bring down the whole pagan temple, killing all those inside. This occurs right after Samson prays to God to let him die along with the Philistines. (Judges 16:30a) It is after Jesus declares to God and the spectators “It is finished” that Jesus voluntarily gives up his own life. And at that point, a similarly dramatic event happens in the Jerusalem temple in that its curtain is ripped in two from top to bottom.

Next, look at the effect brought about by the two deaths. In the case of Samson, the narrator points out that this final judge was able to accomplish more for the people of Israel in his death than in his whole life (Judges 16:30b). Of course, the death of Jesus accomplished much more than that, not only for the Jews but also for the whole world.

Finally, both men are buried, Samson by his family (Judges 16:31) and Jesus by the closet believers Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus (John 19:38-42). But whereas Samson always had a family to come back to and they were the ones who arranged for his burial, in the case of Jesus he had no place to hang his head while alive (Matthew 8:20) and even had to be buried in a borrowed tomb.

 

IS PHILIPPIANS ORGANIZED?

This popular epistle of Paul has caused an unusual amount of confusion among Bible scholars concerning the way in which it is organized. The major concern is due to the unexpected appearance of the word “finally” at 3:1, nowhere near the actual conclusion to the letter. Since the material which follows is more negative in tone than what has preceded, there is the suspicion that another letter of Paul's has been included at this point, or that Paul wrote the letter over several separate time periods. (R.E. Brown, Childs)  Reumann's major commentary on Philippians actually defends the proposal that portions of three different letters were cobbled together in no chronological order to form our current text. He sees no proof from either a literary analysis or rhetorical criticism that would argue for the unity of the letter.

But contrary evidence supporting a unified composition may come from the fact that “believe/belief” appears ten times in the text as do references to practical wisdom with the word group phron- (Tousley and Kallenberg); “Jesus” with an added term such as “christos” occurs exactly 21 times; “in Christ” some fourteen times; “in the Lord (Jesus)” and koinoina seven times; and theos for God and mou 24 times. Such multiples of symbolic numbers appear in other biblical texts as a sign of purposeful intent.

If there is in fact a digression beginning around 3:1, scholars are in disagreement as to where it actually ends (3:19, 3:21, 4:1, 4:3, 4:7 and 4:20 have all been proposed). This last controversy stems, in turn, from another difficulty: the absence of clear markers to delineate the individual sections of the epistle. Melick, for example, notes: “The fabric has few clear seams since firsthand references and bases of appeal occur throughout.” And Ryken states, “The book is nearly impossible to outline.” In spite of this difficulty, a random sampling of ten commentaries showed that at least six agreed on the following verses as starting points of literary divisions within the letter: 1:3, 1:12, 1:27, 2:19, 3:1, 4:1, 4:10 and 4:21.

Finally, Paul's epistles often begin with doctrinal discussions followed by ethical considerations. This is not the case with the present work under consideration. The poet Dana Gioia characterizes the structure Paul employs here as “subjective and digressive,” “confusing” and “conversational.” This pattern of digression may actually provide a major clue as to the letter's organization. Thus, Melick discerns an alternation between the use of indicative verbs in 1:12-26; 2:19-30 and 4:10-15 (sections in which Paul provides information about himself) and the use of imperative verbs in 1:27-2:18 and 3:1-4:9 (exhortations to the church). Craddock formulates the more elaborate pattern shown below involving the above elements plus that of thanksgiving.

    Salutation (1:1-2)

        Thanksgiving (1:3-11)

            Autobiographical Disclosure (1:12-26)

                Exhortations (1:27-2:16)

            Autobiographical Disclosure (2:17-3:1a)

                Exhortations (3:1b-4:9)

        Thanksgiving (4:10-20)

Closing (4:21-23)

Raymond Brown's proposed divisions for this epistle also lend themselves to a roughly chiastic organization.

    Address and thanksgiving (1:1-11)

        Paul's situation (1:12-26)

            Exhortation (1:27-2:16)

                Paul's interest in the Philippians (2:17-3:1a)

                    Warning against false teachers (3:1b-4:1)

            Exhortation (4:2-9)

        Paul's situation (4:10-20)

    Concluding greeting and blessing (4:21-23)

In favor of this latter structure are the following considerations: (a) it places the word “finally” appropriately at the conclusion of the first half of the letter and (b) it provides a purposeful contrast in the center sections between the motives of Paul and coworkers and those of the “evil-workers.”

Reumann reviews several additional (semi-)symmetrical structures for the book, summarized below:

    a. Rolland proposes a chiastic (i.e. mirror-image) structure with 1:1-11 // 4:10-23; 1:12-2:18 // 3:1-4:20; and 2:19-30 as an “interlude.” Pesch further subdivides the first set of parallels into 1:1-2 // 4:19-23 and 1:3-11 // 4:10-18.

    b. Aspen's chiastic structure is similarly flawed in not even including 3:2-4:1 or 4:10-20.

    c. Wick proposes two parallel cycles for the letter, which he supports by examples of similar language in the paired sections. It can be diagrammed as follows:

Prologue (1:1-2)

    A. 1:12-26

        B. 1:27-30

            C. 2:1-4 (+ 5-11)

                D. 2:12-18

                    E. 2:19-30

    A'. 3:1-16

        B'. 3:17-21

            C'. 4:1-3

                D'. 4:4-9

                    E'. 4:10-20

    Postscript (4:21-23)

Note that this organization does not include Philippians 1:3-11 and places the hymn 2:5-11 in an ambiguous position. However, Wick does recognize that there may be parallel as well as mirror-image relations in the letter. Reumann inexplicably labels the hymn the “center” of this proposal.

    d. Luter and Lee propose a thorough-going chiasm for the letter which incorporates all of the present text.

    Opening Greetings (1:1-2)

        A. Prologue (1:3-11)

            B. Comfort/Example (1:12-26)

                C. Challenge (1:27-2:4)

                    D. Example/Action (2:5-16)

                        E. Midpoint (2:17-3:1a)

                    D'. Example/Action (3:1b-21)

                C'. Challenge (4:1-5)

            B'. Comfort/Example (4:6-9)

        A'. Epilogue (4:10-20)

    Closing Greeting (4:21-23)

This attractive proposal has, however, been severely critiqued in the literature for its inadequacy in proving the parallel nature of each pair of sections.

    e. Finally, Davis proposes a somewhat similar structure to that of Luter and Lee in which all the elements relate back to 2:19-30:

    A. 1:1-2

        B. 1:3-26

            C. 1:27-2:18

                D. 2:19-30

            C'. 3:1-4:9

        B'. 4:10-20

    A'. 4:21-23

Parenthetically, Reumann concludes by rejecting all these structural analyses since they “vary and often contradict each other.” However, an alternative method of analysis by assigning classical rhetorical categories to each section of the letter results in even more disagreement among its proponents, as amply demonstrated by the examples he provides in his commentary. This is not surprising, perhaps, in light of evidence cited by Weima showing that the principles of classical rhetoric had little effect on the actual composition of letters in the Greco-Roman world.

My own proposal is a minor variation of Craddock's structure, tweaked so that the section divisions coincide better with the majority consensus and a firmer internal structure for each division results.

Figure 1: Structure of Philippians

I. Introduction (1:1-2)

II. Thanksgiving and Prayer (1:3-11)

III. Paul's situation (1:12-26)

IV. Exhortation (1:27-2:16)

III'. Paul's situation (2:17-3:1a)

IV'. Exhortation (3:1b-21)

II'. Thanksgiving and Prayer (4:1-20)

I'. Conclusion (4:21-23)

Detailed evidence for such a symmetrical arrangement is given in the post “Philippians: Introduction to the Literary Structure.” But even it admits of a possible alternative variation.

Most scholars see the literary unit beginning at 1:27 as ending at either 2:16, 2:18 or 2:30. However, such a division is not universally held (see, for example, the paragraph divisions in RSV). It is possible to consider redrawing the lines so that Section IV concludes at 2:11 and Section III' now consists of 2:12-30. The most compelling reasons for considering such a division are:

(a) It places as the conclusion to Section IV, and the conclusion of the second half of the whole epistle, the glorious hymn of Phil. 2:5-11, which has been the subject of numerous monographs and a book-length commentary by Ralph P. Martin. Even Dana Gioia, who has little good to say elsewhere concerning the style of Paul's letter, praises this passage as being “the spiritual and literary focus” and “the most eloquent and mysterious part of Paul's epistle.”

(b) It causes Section III' to now begin with the common opening address “beloved” (also found at the start of II').

(c) It repositions all six appearances of “glory” to the end of major sections II, II', IV and IV'.d) 

(d) Although Craddock opts for the traditional limits to Section IV, he sees close ties between parts of ch. 1 and 2:1-11, but not the subsequent verses.

So, in conclusion, the question with which I started should probably have been reworded as “Which of the many proposed organizations of Philippians is the correct one?” rather than “Is Philippians organized?”

 

THE HIDDEN CENTER OF JOHN 10

I recently heard an excellent lesson on John 10, Jesus' teaching regarding the Good Shepherd. But one little verse was skipped over that seemed to be somewhat extraneous to the overall thrust of the chapter – John 10:16. In the NRSV, it reads:

    “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”

I would like to make the modest proposal that this one verse is actually the center point of the whole chapter. And I base this opinion on the way the whole chapter is organized so as to highlight it, as diagrammed below.

Organization of John 10

    A. Jesus is the Good Shepherd (10:1-14)

            B. The Father and Jesus know one another (10:15)

                    C. Another flock (10:16)

            B'. The Father loves Jesus (10:18)

    A'. Jesus and God are one (10:19-42)

As justification of the above proposal, first consider how the indicated parallel verses echo one another.

Sections A and A' have in common the following words, phrases and concepts:

    In v. 6 the Jews do not understand Jesus' figurative way of speaking, and in v. 24 they ask Him for a plain answer.

    “I know my own” appears in vv. 14 and 27.

    There is a contrast between Jesus saying that he knows his own (v. 14) and the Jews who “do not belong to my sheep” (v. 26).

    “The sheep hear his/my voice” (vv. 3,4,27)

    “The sheep follow him/me (vv. 4,27)

The parallelism between B and B' is indicated in two ways: Two of the grand pronouncements of Jesus regarding his identity appear in v. 15 (“The Father knows me and I know the Father) and 17 (“The Father loves me”). Secondly, both sections stress the voluntary nature of Jesus' upcoming sacrifice through the repeated phrase “(I) lay (it) down” at John 10:15,17,18(2x).

Next, one can look at the internal literary structure that exists within the two longer units A and A'. The first of these sections presents us with an extended back-and-forth contrast between the Good Shepherd Jesus and those who do not care for the sheep:

Organization of John 10:1-14

    Thief and bandit (v. 1)

        Shepherd (vv. 2-4)

    Stranger (v. 5)

            Conclusion: The people do not understand (v. 6)

        “I am the gate” (v. 7)

    Thieves and bandits (v. 8)

        “I am the gate” (v. 9)

    Thief (v. 10a)

            Conclusion: “I came that they might have life” (v. 10b)

        “I am the good shepherd” (v. 11)

    Hired Hand (vv. 12-13)

        “I am the good shepherd” (v. 14)

Then we come to Section A' in which some of Jesus' listeners are prepared to accept that Jesus is who he says he is while others turn against him.

Organization of John 10:19-42

    Divided reactions of the Jews (v. 19)

        Negative (v. 20)

            Positive (v. 21)

                “The Father and I are one” (vv. 22-30)

    Divided reactions of the Jews (vv. 31-42)*

        Negative (vv. 31-39)

            Positive (vv. 40-42)

*This unit is bracketed by two similar statements at the start and end:

    “The Jews took up stones again to stone him” (v. 31)

    “Then they tried to arrest him again” (v. 42)

Getting back to my contention that verse 16 is the “hidden” center of John 10, let us assume (as do most scholars) that it refers to the eventual forming of one people of God from the Jews and Gentiles united under the banner of Christ. Then that theme is certainly an important enough one for John to highlight in his Gospel. After all, Paul devoted three chapters (Romans 9-11) to an elaboration of that same concept.

Unfortunately, that idea alone has not served to unite Christians together and has actually provided us with yet another secondary issue to divide Christendom. For the two main views concerning the eventual role of the Jews in God's kingdom, a very helpful resource to consult on this and other issues is the excellent book by Carl Amerding and Ward Gasque titled The Layman's Guide to Biblical Prophecy.” Chapter 14 of that book presents a debate of sorts between Clowny and Leonard on the relationship between Israel and the Church.

And, in closing, I would be remiss if I didn't note that there are other views concerning what John 10:16 is hinting at. For those interested, see my post titled “Are American Indians the 'Other Sheep' of John 10:16?”

 

"MOCKING" IN THE BIBLE: PART 1

 Whenever I carry out a word study on a Hebrew or Greek word found in the Bible I am reminded anew how word usage differs from language to language. In the present case, I chose the Hebrew root htl and words derived from it. But then I found that there was a related set of words stemming from tll. Carpenter and Grisanti explain, “Scholars debate the relationship of the verbs tll and htl...Fensham suggest that both tll and htl derived from an original biconsonantal form tl. Consequently tll and htl represent parallel forms rather than primary and secondary forms, respectively. Scholarly consensus, however, suggests that htl is a secondary development of tll.”

The next thing I learned was that the verb hathal could mean either to deceive or to mock, two ideas which are not really that closely aligned in English. Below is a quick summary of the various places in the Old Testament where this class of words occurs.

Genesis 31:7

Jacob explains to his wives that “your father has deceived me,” in reference to his wages being changed frequently. Of course, the reader recognizes that this is a case of divine retribution for the way Jacob had earlier deceived his own father into giving him the preferred blessing. Note two telltale echoes of the earlier event that help to bring out this point. First is the fact that Laban disguised the identity of Jacob's first bride to deceive him just as Jacob had disguised himself. Secondly, is the present of “goats” in both cases since it was goat-skin on his arm that Jacob used to deceive his father just as the promised wages to Jacob involved the color of the goat-skins of the flocks.

Exodus 5-10

This key word pops up next in the story of the plagues of Egypt. Toward the end of the 10 plagues, at 8:29, Moses says to God, “Let not Pharaoh deal deceitfully (hathal) any more.” And, in fact, God turns the tables on Pharaoh, which He explains in 10:2 as mocking (hit'allel) the Egyptians. This demonstrates the second basic meaning of the root htl, translated here variously as lording over (AB), making fools of (TEV) or making sport of (NEB). Durham even expresses the meaning as “I amused myself aggravating the Egyptians.” Prop says, “The nuance of hit'allel is to act with capricious power.”

But we must be careful at this point to avoid ascribing human emotions to God. Cole clarifies that the concept of God making sport of Egypt “represents not an emotion but the effect produced. It is an anthropomorphism, an expression of divine activity in human terms, like God's laughter in the Psalms (Ps. 2:4), and must not be unfairly pressed as a theological point.”

However, there is a good theological point brought out by Exodus 10:2, as explained by Sanderson, who feels that this verse together with Exodus 9:14-16 is “one of the fullest statements of God's complex purpose” since it demonstrates that God has a way of accomplishing more than one goal through the very same action. Thus, by making sport of the Egyptians through the plagues, God mocked the Egyptian gods, demonstrated to the Egyptians that He was incomparable, made His name resound throughout the world, and provided stories of His might for the Jews to tell their descendants.

Judges 16:10,13,15

Toward the end of the story of Samson, three times he mocks Delilah's attempts to determine the source of his strength. One could equally translate the key word as “mock” or “deceive” in chapter 16 since Samson is doing both at the same time. When Samson finally he gives in, the Philistines are able to capture him. After blinding him, they force him to provide the entertainment at one of their gatherings so that they can mock (different Hebrew word) him in turn. Of course, it is Samson who has the last laugh.

I Kings 18:27

The context of the next example is similarly a battle between God and pagan gods. It concerns the contest of Mt. Carmel where Elijah faced off against all the priests of Baal. Elijah mocks the priests in their vain attempts to rouse their god. “Laden with sarcasm and irony, Elijah's remarks are clearly intended to belittle and berate Baal and his prophets. The intensity of his taunts moves beyond making fun to defamation.” (T. Powell) Concerning the validity of Elijah's tactics, Krummacher notes, “Where reason no longer avails, and where proofs are no longer acknowledged, such irony may occasionally serve a good purpose.”

Cogan has an interesting, but unlikely, take on this passage: “In regard to meaning, htl conveys dishonesty; it is both 'to cheat' (Gen 31:7) and 'to lie' (Jer 9:4), even 'to be two-faced (Isa 30:10); thus rather than the usual translation 'mock', perhaps it means Elijah 'deluded' the prophets into thinking he was serious when he said Baal was a god.” Personally, I feel it is preferable to admit that the root word can have more than one meaning.

Job 13:9

Job accuses his friends of “deceiving (NRSV)” God in v. 9 and then in the following verse prophesies rightly that God will rebuke them. Pope translates the key word as “trick” and notes that Job stresses the futility of any such attempts to fool God. Hartley says, “With more searching questions, Job leads the friends to ponder the responsibility of both their reasoning falsely and their condescending attitude toward him. They must not assume that they will be rewarded or vindicated for their deceptive words when God hears Job's case.”

Isaiah 30:10

In this interesting verse the people of Israel are accused of not listening to God's instruction and instead say to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us smooth things.” (NRSV) Carpenter and Grisanti state, “The unique form, mahatalla...signifies the illusions God's children wanted to hear rather than the sober truth from the Holy One of Israel.” Unfortunately, Christians today are not immune from preferring a comfortable lie to an uncomfortable truth.

Jeremiah 9:4-5

NRSV reads, “All your kin are supplanters and every neighbor goes around like a slanderer. They all deceive their neighbors, and no one speaks the truth.” The Hebrew word for “supplanter” in this verse is a pun on Jacob's name so that D.R. Jones paraphrases 'aqobyaqob as “every brother stoops to Jacob's trickery.”

By contrast, NEB translates v. 5 as “they make game of their friends,” thus going with “mock” in place of “deceive” as the basic meaning of mahal in this case.

In either case, it is intriguing that the first and last usages of this word appear in the context of Jacob, the arch-deceiver. In a future post on other words for “mocking” in the Bible I will show that the patriarchs were intimately associated with the concept.

DOES AMOS 5:1-17 NEED CORRECTING?

 I am the last one in the world to defend the King James Version as an accurate rendering of the original Greek and Hebrew text as best we are able to reconstruct it. And I realize that, on occasion where the text appears to make no sense whatsoever, one is best advised to go to early translations to see if there might be a preferred reading to be found. However, in reading at least two modern translations, New English Bible and Jerusalem Bible, even I think that some modern scholars have gone way too far in jettisoning the received text in favor of a critical reconstruction that they feel makes more sense. This is especially dangerous when they have absolutely no textual evidence to go on, just their own feelings as to how they would have written it instead to “make more sense.” As an example, look at Amos 5:1-17, a passage which is usually taken as a discrete literary section by scholars.

I came across this passage when randomly looking for occasions where the Jerusalem Bible actually rearranged the order of the verses in the Bible, and I didn't have far to look. This is the sort of thing that would be very easy for a reader to miss unless he or she bothered to look at the small digits in the margin indicating the verse numbers. As you go through the passage, you will note that JB has moved verse 7 to a place between 9 and 10. And you can search through the numerous notes at the bottom of the page in vain for any explanation of why that move was made.

The only justification appears to be so that the warning in v. 7 (“Trouble for those who turn justice into wormwood, throwing integrity to the ground.”) can be placed in proximity with the equally negative comments in vv. 10-11. However, scanning Amos 5, one can see a regular alternation of positive and negative comments, none of which the translators of JB felt needed emending.

Consulting other translations of Amos 5, I ran across an even more egregious example in the New English Bible of tampering with the text. It also moved v. 7 between 9 and 10, but in addition took the final phrase of v. 8 (“The LORD is his name.”) and relocated it at the conclusion of v. 9. The notes in NEB give no justification for either of these drastic moves, but it appears that they were done in order to produce a text that had a more “logical” way of presenting the material. The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes the only sort of organization allowable is a logical one, not a literary arrangement instead.

As Carroll R. states, “Critics sense an abrupt shift from the imperatives of vv. 4-6 to the participial opening of this line and deem v. 7 to be awkward intrusion into the flow of the passages.” Therefore they emend the passage. In doing so, this “reflects a linear logic that misses the chiastic structure of 5:1-17.” J. DeWaard explains the same thing in more scholarly language:

“It has long been recognized that Amos v 1-17 forms a discourse unit... Amos v 1-17 is both opened and closed, in verses 1 f. and verses 16 f., respectively, by the same theme of mourning which encloses all the other sayings...Research[s] into the 'prehistory' of the text or endeavors to disentangle the layers of textual tradition...have their own merits, though it should be noted that in the past decisions in these domains have often been taken on the basis of a supposed lack of meaningful relationships within a given discourse. In modern times, in which research into the meanings of discourse structures has increasingly become the joint concern of both linguists and philologists, scholars are much more careful and it is to be hoped that nobody wants any longer to defend the thesis that meaningful relationships do not exist since they have not yet been discovered.”

DeWaard therefore proposed the following literary organization to explain the current order of the verses without recourse to any rearrangements:

Figure 1: DeWaard's Structure for Amos 5:1-17

1. Lament for Israel by Survivors (5:1-3)

2. Seek God and Live (5:4-6)

3. Warning to Sinners (5:7)

4. The Power of God to Create (5:8a)

5. The LORD is his Name (5:8b)

4'. The Power of God to Punish (5:9)

3'. Warning to Sinners (5:10-13)

2'. Seek Good and Live (5:14-15)

1'. Lament for Israel by Survivors (5:16-17)

A number of scholars have followed his lead with some variations:

    Dorsey offers a similar symmetrical arrangement in which the paired sections 5:1-3 & 5:16-17, 5:4-6a & 5:14-15, and 5:6b-7 & 5:10-13 flank the center passage 5:8-9.

    Paul Noble’s own variation on DeWaard’s organization also revolves around 5:8-9 but involves some textual rearrangement of its own to achieve its symmetry.

    Chisholm offers the same structure shown above except that he does not break out verses 8 and 9 into separate sections as pictured there. In addition, he notes that each of the sections in the second half of the chapter expands on its parallel in the first half.

The only problem with Figure 1, as noted by DeWaard himself, is that Amos 5:13 (“Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time; for it is an evil time.” – RSV) seems ill-placed in Unit 3' whose thrust is a warning to sinners. But there are several ways around that rather minor issue:

One is to take the statement as an ironic one giving sarcastic advice to the sinners (“And so, keeping quiet in such evil times is a smart thing to do.” – TEV).

Or one could paraphrase the verse as in The Message: “Justice is a lost cause. Evil is epidemic. Decent people throw up their hands. Protest and rebuke are useless, a waste of breath.” In other words, v. 13 merely accentuates the sinful condition of the day.

The Living Bible takes the view that the warning in v. 13 only applies to the Day of Judgment itself. “Therefore those who are wise will not try to interfere with the Lord in the dread day of your punishment.” This interpretation indicates that no one should try to defend their own evil actions or the evil actions of others. One advantage of this view is that it answers the objection of Andersen and Freedman who are concerned that this verse teaches silence on the part of the righteous when rampant evil prevails in society.

Andersen and Freedman come up with their own interpretation of v. 13 to say that it does not express advice to the righteous to keep their mouth shut, but instead explains that the times are so evil that the righteous have been forcibly silenced by others.

The bottom line is that we should be very cautious before attempting to “correct” Scripture and be highly suspicious of translations who make a practice of that custom.

IS THERE ANY OVERALL ORGANIZATION TO THE BOOK OF EXODUS?

In my post titled “Exodus: Introduction to Literary Structure” I presented detailed analyses regarding the individual sections within the book but refrained from making any pronouncements regarding the way the book as a whole was organized. Below is what little I can say regarding that subject.

At first glance the book of Exodus would appear to be a straightforward narrative with none of the complexities of Genesis. In overall outline, the book can be viewed in several ways depending on the criteria chosen. One possible basis of division is geographical (Hamilton):

A. Egypt (1:1-12:36)

            B. To Sinai (12:37-18:27)

            C. Sinai (19:1-40:38)

Variations on this theme include ending the first section at 11:10 (Cole), 13:16 (Durham), 15:1 (Sarna), or 15:21 (Childs) and combining sections B and C. Both Enns and Radday propose to combine A and B while splitting C into two parts at the end of Chapter 24. William Propp favors a three-part structure (1:1-11:10; 12:1-15:21; 15:22-18:27) in which the Song of the Sea (15:1-21) functions as the transition between the second and third sections. It has even been said that the whole of 1:1-15:21 follows, in order, all of the elements found in a lament psalm. (Enns, Radday)

One standard topical division that has been proposed by H.R. Jones is into two parts:

A. Judgment and Deliverance (1:1-19:2)

            B. God's New Society (19:3-40:38)

A variation by Baroody and Gentrup places the division between chs. 19 and 20. In addition, some others would further subdivide Section B into

1. covenant and law (chs. 19-24)

                        2. the tabernacle (chs. 25-40)                     (Sarna)

or

1. covenant and law (chs. 19-31)

                        2. rebellion and renewal (chs. 32-40)      (Cole)

VanGemeren sees a chiastic arrangement to the book.

A. Revelation of Yahweh’s Royal Power (chs. 1-13)

B. Royal Provision & Israel’s Complacency (chs. 14-18)

C. Covenant: Israel’s Conservation as a Covenant People (chs. 19-24)

                                    C'. Covenant: Plans for the Tabernacle (chs. 25-31)

B'. Idolatry, Forgiveness, Covenant Renewal, God’s Presence (chs. 32-34)

A'. Construction of Tabernacle, Revelation of Yahweh’s Royal Glory (chs. 35-40)

Hamilton summarizes yet other possible divisions for Exodus.

It is natural at this point to question whether there really are any intended divisions present in Exodus. As Sarna notes, “The structure and content of the book are somewhat complicated. The work does not easily lend itself to separation into clear-cut divisions.” One premier commentator on Exodus, Brevard Childs, has made similarly pessimistic statements regarding this subject due to the book's lack of “formal literary markers,” such as are encountered in Genesis:

“We find the material of Exodus somewhat loosely arranged according to a historical sequence...There is no obvious way to divide the book into its parts...We have suggested that the principal effect of the canonical shaping of Exodus did not lie in an overarching structure of the book.”But it is premature to give up entirely on the quest for a definitive outline of Exodus. Olson opts for topical divisions consisting of Exod. 1-15, 16-18, 19-24, 25-31, 32-34, and 35-40. Fokkelman combines the last four sections to arrive at a topical breakdown with Exodus 1-15 labeled “Liberation” and Exodus 16-40 as “Covenant.” In addition, he has devised the following more detailed outline for the book that provides an excellent starting point for illustrating the difference between a mere outline and an actual literary structure:

Figure 1: Fokkelman's Outline of the Book of Exodus

I. Exposition

frame (1:1-6)

                        Israel enters slavery, Moses' youth (1:7-2:22)

                        frame (2:23-25)

                        YHWH reveals himself, Moses' call (chs. 3-4)

                        oppression, command, genealogy (5:1-6:27)

II. Confrontation

prologue (6:28-7:13)

                        nine plagues (7:14-10:29)

                        tenth plague, Passover, Exodus (11:1-13:16)

                        passage of the Reed Sea, Egypt destroyed (13:17-14:31)

                        conclusion: hymn (15:1-18 [sic])

III. Introduction: making for Sinai

crises in Israel over food, war, governance (15:22-18:27)

IV. Revelation on Sinai and Covenant: I

narrative text (19:1-25)

                        normative text, Decalogue (20:1-17)

                        narrative text (20:18-21)

                        normative text, Book of the Covenant (20:22-23:19)

                        narrative text (24:1-18)

instructions from God on sanctuary and worship (chs. 25-31)

V. Revelation on Sinai and Covenant: II

crisis around idolatrous people, Moses mediates (ch. 32)

                        revelation and covenant (chs. 33-34)

Moses and artisans follow instructions (chs. 35-39)

conclusion (speech/report): sanctuary in use (ch. 40)

At this point, it is necessary to offer a broad outline of Exodus as a whole (shown in Fig. 2) before revisiting the question that opened up this chapter. These section divisions may be compared with those presented by Richard Schultz, who proposed a three-part organization for Exodus based on the following formulation:

    “ I will be your God,”                       Chs. 1-18          Sections I-IV

    “ you will be my people,”                 Chs. 19-24        Section V

    “ and I will dwell in your midst.”     Chs. 25-40        Section VI

Alternatively, Ryken's three-part structure based on geographical location also reflects the divisions in Figure 2 with different groupings:

    Israel in Egypt                                  Chs. 1-10          Sections I-III

    From Egypt to Mt. Sinai                  Chs. 11-24         Sections IV-V

    Israel at Mt. Sinai                             Chs. 25-40         Section VI

Figure 2: Proposed Structure of the Book of Exodus

    Section I: Conflict with Egypt; Moses Preserved (1:1-2:25)

Introduction (1:1-7)

                Cycle A (1:8-2:10)

                Cycle B (2:11-22)

Conclusion (2:23-25)

Section II: Moses' Objections Met; Pharaoh's Heart Hardened (3:1-7:13)

Cycle A (3:1-6:1)

            Cycle B (6:2-7:13)

Section III: Plagues Do Not Move Pharaoh's Heart (7:14-10:29)

Cycle A (7:15-8:19)

            Cycle B (8:20-9:12)

            Cycle C (9:13-10:29)

Section IV: Instruction and Disobedience (chs. 11-18)

A. Passover narrative and regulations (chs. 11-13)

B. Five Crises (chs. 14-17)

A'. Teaching the statutes and judging the people (ch. 18)

Section V: Yahweh's Presence and Instruction (chs. 19-24)

A. Theophany on Mt. Sinai (19:1-25)

B. Decalogue (20:1-17)

C. Moses' Message to the People (20:18-21)

B'. Commentary on the Decalogue (20:22-23:33)

A'. Theophany on Mt. Sinai (24:1-18)

Section VI: Instruction, Disobedience, Obedience, Yahweh's Presence (chs. 25-40)

A. Pattern of the Tabernacle Given (chs. 25-27)

B. Aaron and the Tabernacle to be Consecrated (chs. 28-31)

C. Aaron and the People are Disobedient (ch. 32)

D. The Glory in the Tent, Pillar of Cloud (33:1-11)

E. Moses Sees Yahweh, Commandments Given (33:12-34:35)

A'. Tabernacle Constructed According to the Pattern (chs. 35-38)

B'. Aaron and the Tabernacle to be Consecrated (39:1-40:15)

           C'. Aaron and Sons are Consecrated (40:16-33) 

                       D'. The Glory in the Tabernacle, Pillar of Cloud (40:34-38)

When the section descriptions (derived from the contents of the respective subunits) are thus highlighted, it appears that they fall into two broad groupings: sections I-III (chs.1-10) in which there are major conflicts between Yahweh and either Moses or Pharaoh, and sections IV-VI (chs. 11-40) which treat of Yahweh's relationship with Israel. These same groupings are strengthened by their literary structure in that the first three sections are composed of repeated cycles of events (seven in total) whereas the last three are all symmetrical chiasms. The repeated cycles in the first half of the book hint at the unresolved nature of the events portrayed while the chiasms of the second half may suggest that a certain resolution has been attained.

The opening three sections, which constitute the first half of the book, fall into a simple overall pattern in which Moses is born in Egypt, leaves Egypt, and then returns to his land of birth. The second half of the book, sections IV-VI, is unified by several literary devices:

(a) Themes which are stated in the beginning chapters of Section IV recur toward the end of Exodus (Knight):

                gifts to the Jews from the Egyptians 12:33-36 35:10-12

                census of the people 12:37-42 38:26

                redeeming the firstborn 13:11-16 34:20

            (b) There is a Sabbath emphasis at the structural centers of both IV and VI.

            (c) The few chronological indicators in Exodus occur at the start of IV (beginning of Exodus), the start of V (arrival at Mt. Sinai three months later), and toward the end of VI (Exod. 40:16: erection of the Tabernacle one year after the Exodus began). (Cole)

            (d) The strong parallels between the closing verses of sections V and VI have been noted by several commentators. (Childs) The major difference between these two passages is that in the latter case Moses is not permitted to see Yahweh as he did on Mt. Sinai. This has been explained as due to the superiority of the Tabernacle as a more permanent way to extend the experience at Mt. Sinai (Hamilton) or in terms of the unique nature of the Sinai experience itself (Milgrom).

In regard to the last point above, Fee states that “ presence motif...is the structural key to the book of Exodus.” Durham says, “the only unity that is of any real importance in the Book of Exodus is theological unity...The centerpiece of this unity is the theology of Yahweh present with and in the midst of his people Israel.” Cole echoes this opinion that the “theology of the presence...is a recurrent note throughout the entire book of Exodus.” This overriding theme is especially evidenced in chs. 3-4, 19-20, 24, 33-34 and 40. (Durham)  

These passages occur at prominent locations in the structure of Fig. 2: the start of Section II, start and end of V, and center and end of VI, respectively. Rooker calls the Exod. 33 incident when the Shekinah glory came down “the crowning event of the book of Exodus.” Thus, the structural organization again adds emphasis to one of the major points (if not the major point) of the book. Exodus ends with Israel “stepping out on the march with God and by God..., bearing with her the promise, through the very nature of the Word, of still more revelation to come.” (Cole)