SIMEON AND ANNA (LUKE 2:25-39)

Almost all of what we know concerning the Nativity comes from Matthew and Luke, and Luke devotes four times as many verses to the subject as Matthew does. For that reason some have proposed that Mary was the probable source of Luke's information. For more on that subject, see my post titled “Did Mary Write Part of Luke's Gospel?”

It is easily recognized that Luke's Nativity narrative is build around a series of comparisons and contrasts. These include Zechariah and Joseph, Elizabeth and Mary, John the Baptist and Jesus, and Simeon and Anna. J.B. Green has therefore proposed the following organization based on the pair: John and Jesus.

Cycle I

    A. John

        1. parents introduced (1:5-7)

            2. birth announced (1:8-23)

                3. mothers respond (1:24-25)

    B. Jesus

        1. parents introduced (1:26-27)

            2. birth announced (1:28-38)

                3. mothers respond (1:39-56)

Cycle II

    A. John

        1. child is born (1:57-58)

            2. child is circumcised and named (1:59-66)

                3. prophetic response (1:67-79)

                    4. child grows (1:80)

    B. Jesus

        1. child is born (2:1-20)

            2. child is circumcised and named (2:21-24)

                3. prophetic responses (2:25-39)

                    4. child grows (2:40-52)

My own proposal for the organization of this passage, also based on pairs of individuals, is shown below:

A. Temple witness to John the Baptist (1:5-25)

B. Gabriel and Elizabeth witness to Jesus (1:26-56)

C. John the Baptist is born (1:57-80)

                                    C'. Jesus is born (2:1-21)

B'. Simeon and Anna witness to Jesus (2:22-40)

A'. Temple witness to Jesus (2:41-52)

It is Section B3 concerning the responses of Simeon and Anna on which I would like to concentrate, beginning with some insights from Jen Wilkins, writing in Christianity Today magazine.

“Deuteronomy 19:15 decrees that 'a matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses,' a theme that can be traced throughout the Bible. We need both Simeon and Anna in our Advent imaginations because they are placed there to establish a credible witness. Together, they testify to the fulfillment of God's promise.”

She notes that Anna's age is 84, the product of 7 and 12, both numbers symbolic of divine completeness. Also her father's name, Phanuel, comes from Penuel, the location where Jacob saw God face to face. Similarly, Anna will see God Incarnate face to face.

Wilkins draws a comparison between Anna and Eve. Both received a prophecy from God regarding a coming child who would conquer the forces of evil. Eve thinks she has gotten such a “man” in her first son Cain (Genesis 4:1). However: “Instead of a life-giver, Cain was a life-taker.” But Anna was able to see the coming of “the one who asks rightly, 'Am I my brother's keeper?' and answers with 'I AM.'”

Below are some other valuable insights I have collected from the scholarly literature on the subject:

    Craddock defines the passage as Luke 2:25-38 inserted in the middle of “the framing story (vv. 22-24, 39-40...The framing story itself has one governing focus: Jesus grew up in a family that meticulously observed the law of Moses. No fewer than five times in this text Luke tells us that they did everything required in the law.”

    Pao and Schnable note, “In the LXX [Septuagint] the expression 'consolation of Israel' [Luke 2:25]...is found in the prophetic literature in reference to the promise of Israel's restoration (cf. Jer. 31:9).”

    “In the case of Simeon three specific 'acts of the Spirit' occur (26ff). He is assured that he will live to 'see' Messiah. He recognizes in Jesus the fulfillment of the promise. And he utters a prayer which, in the context, clearly is to be regarded as prophetic.” (Ellis)

    “The Nunc Dimittis [Luke 2:29-32] is formulated with language borrowed from Isaiah. These allusions point to the universal significance of God's salvific plan for his own people. Christologically, the mission of Jesus is portrayed in the model of the Isaianic Suffering Servant.” (Pao and Schnable) Perhaps this is why Simeon reveals to Mary that opposition will arise against Jesus “and a sword will pierce your own soul too.” (2:34-35)

    “The theme of amazement (thaumazo) at the proclamation of the Messiah runs throughout the Book of Luke...in Luke 1:21,63; 2:18,33; 4:22; 8:25; 9:43; 11:14,38; 20:26; 24:12,41.” (J.A. Martin) Regarding Mary and Joseph's amazement in 2:33, Martin offers a possible explanation: “though they had been told that their Son was the Messiah, perhaps they had not comprehended the scope of His ministry to the entire world – to the Gentiles as well as to the people of Israel.” As a possible demonstration of that idea, note the contrast between Simeon's revelation of that fact with the more circumscribed hope of others for Jerusalem alone (v. 38).

    It is probably of importance that “Anna” is the Greek form of the Hebrew name hanna, meaning “grace.” Not only is the meaning of her name appropriate for God's grace in sending His Son, but it also reminds us of another Hannah who was eagerly looking for a son, which God provided.

    Since Anna hailed from the tribe of Asher (v. 36), Porter notes that it is telling that some of the members of the ten “lost” tribes were not entirely lost at this time. In addition, he states, “Simeon and Anna provide evidence that in the last decade B.C. there were still in the Jewish nation men and women in the highest Old Testament tradition.”

In conclusion, note the pattern of responses to the Good News in the cases of Simeon and Anna: Both praise God (vv. 28,38a) and then speak to others about the event (vv. 33-35,38b). This could well serve as the pattern for out lives as well.

 

SHOULD CHAPTERS 20 AND 21 OF I KINGS BE REVERSED?

Whereas the standard Hebrew text of I Kings places chapter 21 following chapter 20, in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) that order is reversed. Shenkel sides with LXX as the superior text since it better groups together the stories of Elijah and Ahab's interactions. In addition, another effect of the LXX ordering is to combine all the wars with Aram together. Burney agrees for another reason entirely, namely, that the Hebrew text was the one doing the reversing in order to more closely associate (a) the prophecy of Ahab's death with its occurrence and (b) the two descriptions of the king's dismal mood in 20:43 and 21:4. Unfortunately, these two arguments in favor of the Greek ordering have somewhat the effect of cancelling each other out depending on whether one expects a logical order to the text or suspects it.

G.H. Jones states that recent investigations into the text of I-II Kings have resulted in “the acceptance of a more positive attitude towards the Greek translation...” He concludes that “when the Greek diverges from the Hebrew, all the evidence has to be carefully considered in order to assess the significance of each divergence.”

In contrast, Wolters includes the LXX reversal of chapters 20 and 21 among other disagreements with the Hebrew text as “changes [which] do not represent an independent Hebrew textual translation. Instead, they are in all likelihood innovations introduced within the Greek textual tradition itself.”

So obviously, the situation is still up in the air, and Cogan says, “There is no consensus among the commentators regarding the 'original' order of these chapters.” With that being the current impasse, an attempt to enlist the aid of structural analysis seemed to be in order.

The first thing to note regarding these two chapters is that practically all scholars agree that they belong together as a cohesive unit. And the overall form this unit takes is as two parallel stories. Here is how they appear according to the order of the Hebrew text:

Structure of I Kings 20-21 (Hebrew)

1. Ben-hadad wants Ahab's money, wives and children (20:1-6)

    2. Ahab defeats Ben-hadad's forces with a prophet's help but sins in the process (20:17-34)

        3. Judgment is pronounced on Ahab through the prophet (20:35-44)

            4. Ahab's response (20:43)

1'. Ahab wants to buy Naboth's land (21:1-4)

    2'. Ahab gets the land with Jezebel's help but sins in the process (21:5-16)

        3'. Judgment is pronounced on Ahab through the prophet Elijah (21:17-26)

            4'. Ahab's response (21:27)

If the above were all there was to this organization, then it alone would not be very helpful in distinguishing which textual tradition was the superior one, since the two parallel units stand even if the order of the two chapters is transposed. However, one fact needs to be included in the analysis. This nice, neat arrangement above does not even include the end of chapter 21, God's response to Ahab's repentance found in 21:28-29. This ending has no correspondence in chapter 20 and thus disrupts the above organization. But if the order of the two chapters are reversed, the following complete symmetry results:

Structure of I Kings 21-20 (Greek)

CYCLE I

    1. Ahab wants to buy Naboth's land (21:1-4)

        2. Ahab gets the land with Jezebel's help but sins in the process (21:5-16)

            3. Judgment is pronounced on Ahab through the prophet Elijah (21:17-26)

                4. Ahab's response (21:27)

                        CENTER UNIT: God delays Ahab's Punishment (21:28-29)

CYCLE II

1' Ben-hadad wants Ahab's money, wives and children (20:1-6)

    2' Ahab defeats Ben-hadad's forces with a prophet's help but sins in the process (20:17-34)

        3' Judgment is pronounced on Ahab through the prophet (20:35-44)

            4'. Ahab's response (20:43)

Indications that this as the original order are (a) the resulting literary stress of the whole unit on God's mercy in the face of repentance and (b) the perfect inclusio (set of bracketing bookends) it provides in encapsulating both chapters between the opening statement: “Ahab went home resentful and sullen” (21:4) and the conclusion: “The king of Israel set out toward home, resentful and sullen.” (20:43)

This is certainly not the definitive answer to the question at hand, but it is one more piece of evidence leading in favor of the Septuagint's order reversing the order of chapters 20 and 21of I Kings.

 

WHY DID GOD PUNISH PEOPLE FOR CARRYING OUT HIS WILL?

This hard question comes up several times in the Bible. Here are three of those occasions together with ways in which commentators have explained them.

Jehu: II Kings 9:6-10; Hosea 1;4

Elisha sends a young prophet to Commander Jehu to anoint him King of Israel and instructs him that God wants him to totally wipe out King Ahab and his whole house. Jehu faithfully carries out this mission. But the passage concludes in II Kings 10:31 with the statement, “Jehu was not careful to follow the law of the LORD the God of Israel with all his heart.”

However, later on God tells the prophet Hosea (v. 1:4) to name his son Jezreel “for in a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.”

As to why God seemingly turned against the very tool he had chosen to carry out His will, here is how some scholars deal with the subject:

Provan points to the retaining of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan (vv. 29,31) as one example of Jehu's subsequent apostasy.

Hindley also asks why Jehu's house was to be punished if he had wiped out Ahab's evil house. His answer is: “Perhaps he exceeded his duty with misguided zeal (2 Ki. 10:16ff), when he killed a king of Judah or, more likely, his own heart was not right with God (2 Ki. 10:29,31).”

Kaiser elaborates on the first of these reasons: “Jehu showed unnecessary cruelty when he slew not only the house of Ahab at Jezreel, but also the visiting monarch from Judah, Ahaziah, and almost all the members of the Davidic family (2 Kings 9:27; 10:13-14). Jehu furthermore extended this massacre to all the friends of the ruling family (2 Kings 10:11). The point is most evident that divine approval for an act does not thereby carry with it indifference as to how that end is accomplished and how many others it may involve.”

Dearman adds, “Does this mean that Hosea opposes what is elsewhere described as a divine command? Possibly so, but it would not be because Hosea supported the policies of Ahab and Jezebel or because he believed that death was too harsh a judgment for faithlessness toward God...Thus, if the bloodshed in Jezreel of Hosea 1:4 is a reference to Jehu's purge, it could refer more precisely to the murderous excesses carried out by Jehu...”

And here are some comments made by Jacques Ellul regarding the person of Jehu: “Another point worth noting is that during the twenty-eight years of his reign Elisha does not seem to have stepped forth a single time to help and deliver Israel. The fact is that Jehu is no ally of the prophets. He scorns them. He doubts their political competence...He also aims at the throne of Judah after slaying the king of Judah...The real question in the case of Jehu is that of the heart...In fact Jehu is a man who, faithful to God and knowing his will, commandeers this will and makes it his own. He identifies his own cause with God's design. He thus sets out to shape history in the name of God but also in the place of God.”

Assyria: Isaiah 10:5-19

This is an extended poem pronouncing woes upon Assyria even though she was God's own instrument of punishment (“the rod of my anger”) to be inflicted on God's people. So again we are confronted with a party, a whole nation in this case, who has carried out God's will but is punished nevertheless.

D.F. Payne explains the reason for God's actions: “Assyria had been appointed by God as His agent to punish Israel and Judah (cf Is. 5:26, 7:18); but by c. 715 B.C. the arrogant attitude and behaviour of the Assyrians had become scarcely tolerable (10:12) and Isaiah here pronounces the woe upon them which God had declared.”

Wolf notes that a “similar shift in the object of divine punishment occurred in the case of the Babylonians. God raised up the Babylonian armies between 605 and 586 B.C. to punish Judah (Hab. 1:6-11), and then He announced judgment on Babylon (Hab. 2:6-17; Isa. 14:5).”

“The knowledge that the aggressors were wielded by God puts the question of wicked men's success in its proper context, but showing that it serves the ends of justice when it seems to defy them (vv. 6,7), and is neither impressive in itself (v. 15) nor ultimately unpunished (v. 12). Its hollowness is self-confessed, incidentally, in the samples of Assyrian thinking: the complacency of vv. 10,11, the pride of v. 13a, and the thief's mentality of vv. 13b,14.” (Kidner)

Blenkinsopp outlines the contents of this passage as follows: “Assyria in the person of its king is designated by Yahweh as an instrument for the punishment of his people Israel (5-7); the hubris that leads Assyria to go beyond its commission is expressed in a soliloquy spoken by the Assyrian king (8-11,13-14); there follows the prophetic response to the imperial ambitions expressed in the soliloquy (15-19).”

Judas (Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22)

The final example comes from the New Testament. These two parallel passages read as follows:

    Mark 14:21 – “For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would have been better for that on not to have been born.”

    Luke 22:22 – “For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!”

Regarding Mark's version, here are a few selected thoughts found in the literature:

    “Jesus added that although the traitor 's treachery was foretold in the Old Testament..., the traitor was not thereby absolved from personal responsibility for his deed (21).” (Short)

    “On the one hand, 'the Son of Man will go,' that is, He must die, in fulfillment of Scripture. His death was according to God's plan not simply because of the betrayer's action. But on the other hand, ...though he [Judas] acted within God's plan, the betrayer remained morally responsible (cf Mark 14:10-11).” (Grassmick)

And here are two comments on Luke 22:22:

    “Note that Jesus refers in 22:22 to the will of God (for the phrase 'as it has been determined'; see Acts 2:23; 10:42; 11:29; 17:26,31).” (Pao and Schnabel)

    “Judas' accountability and God's sovereign plan for Jesus' death are seen together (v. 22). Jesus had to die, for His death was the basis of salvation for all mankind and the only means for lifting the curse of sin. But the betrayer was accountable for his actions.” (J.A. Martin)

This example points to the sometimes mysterious interaction of human free will and God's foreknowledge and/or predestination.

Finally, the above cases may help explain why Jesus could say to those who had prophesied, carried out exorcisms, and done powerful deeds all in His name, “I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.” (Matthew 7:22-23) Merely accomplishing God's will is no guarantee of salvation. Our motives for doing so are also among the determining factors.

 

PROBLEM PASSAGES IN ROMANS

Some of you who have been following my posts may probably wonder if I am not too fixated on the question of the literary arrangement of the books in the Bible. But as an added demonstration of the value of that tool, below are some passages in Romans which are disputed by some scholars as seemingly displaced in their current settings and therefore should either be relocated to elsewhere in the epistle or omitted entirely as being from another hand than Paul's.

The defense of these “problem children” is necessary since Childs has stated that in addition to the notorious textual difficulties encountered in this epistle, “the interpretation of the letter to the Romans involves some of the most difficult problems within the New Testament.” For reference, my own proposal for the organization of this epistle is shown below and defended in the post “Romans: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”

Figure 1: The Structure of Romans

I. Greetings (1:1-7)

II. Gospel as the Power of God (1:8-17)

III. Gentiles do not Honor God (1:18-32)

IV. Judging Those Outside the Body (2:1-16)

V. Doing the Law (2:17-24)

VI. Present Position of the Jews (2:25-4:25)

VII. Justification by Faith (chs. 5-6)

A. Christ’s Death (ch. 5)

B. United With Christ (ch. 6)

VII'. New Life (chs. 7-8)

B. Dying to the Law (ch. 7)

A. Life in the Spirit (ch. 8)

VI'. Future Position of the Jews (chs. 9-11)

V'. Living in the Spirit (chs. 12-13)

IV'. Judging Those Within the Body (14:1-15:6)

III'. Gentiles Glorify God (15:7-13)

II'. Gospel Preached by the Power of the Holy Spirit (15:14-33)

I'. Greetings (ch. 16)

Romans 2:24

Morris notes that the quotation in this verse ends with “as it is written” instead of this phrase preceding the quote as elsewhere in Paul’s writings. One possible explanation is that this reversed order appearing in Section V provides a mirror image to the only appearance of “it is written” (appearing in normal order) in the parallel Section V', at 12:19. This results in the following symmetrical arrangement:

    A. “as it is written” (2:24a)

            B. Old Testament quotation (2:24b)

            B'. Old Testament quotation (12:19a)

    A'. “as it is written” (12:19b)

Both passages deal with the problem of a believer’s unchristian actions being observed by outsiders and perhaps leading to a poor view of God.

Romans 3:25-26

These verses are held to be a gloss by some scholars, according to Guthrie. If they were eliminated from the text, there would be no major disruption in the book’s literary structure. However, there is an unusual phrase occurring in verse 26, “at the present time,” which appears in Romans again only in 11:5, a parallel passage according to the structural scheme of Fig. 1 (see Sections VI and VI'). This is a possible indication of its authenticity.

Romans 7:7-25

As Morris notes, there is “enormous controversy” regarding these verses. Is Paul concerned only with his personal spiritual journey or with that of others in addition? And if it is the latter, which “others” is he speaking to? A consideration of this passage within the context of the combined chs. 6 and 7 (see Fig. 1) gives some direction. The pronouns mainly utilized in the various literary units of these two chapters show an interesting progression, moving from the personal “we” of 6:1-10 to the “you” of 6:11-23 on to the impersonal “she” of 7:1-3, back to “you” and “we” in 7:4-6 and ending with the “I” of 7:7-25. The most reasonable accounting of this phenomenon is that in these combined center sections of Romans, Paul wished to strongly identify himself with his audience, most prominently at the beginning (6:1-10) and end (7:7-25) of the discourse. Since the former passage clearly addresses all those who have died and been raised with Christ, it seems logical to assume that 7:7-25 addresses this same audience.

Romans 8:1-7

Guthrie notes that some scholars have expressed doubts regarding the authenticity of these verses since they interrupt the flow of argument. This view ignores the possibility, as shown in Figure 1, that ch. 8 is designed as a paired contrast to ch. 7, therefore purposely beginning a new perspective. In addition, of the ten key words that Section VIIA holds in common with its parallel section VII'A, three of them (“peace,” “judgment” and “condemnation”) appear only in 8:1-7. This fact strengthens the probability that this latter passage is authentic.

Romans 9:5

Morris wonders at Paul’s strange use of “Amen” at the close of his own words in this verse. The reason probably lies in its providing an exact verbal parallel to the “Amen” at the close of ch. 11, thus unifying the whole of Section VI'.

Romans 13:1-7

The unusual nature of these verses dealing with civil authority and their weak connection to the surrounding verses have been the source of discussion regarding their authenticity, as Morris points out. The structural analysis of Section V' containing 13:1-7 identifies it as the C' unit in a chiasm with the form:

A. Be transformed (12:1-2)

B. Love within the body (12:3-13)

C. Attitude toward enemies (12:14-21)

                                    C'. Attitude toward authorities (13:1-7)

B'. Love for neighbor (13:8-10)

A'. Put on Christ (13:11-14)

It is thus formally parallel to Romans 12:14-21 dealing with relations to enemies, although it must be admitted that the two units share no common language. If vv. 13:1-7 were removed from the text, the above chiasm would merely shrink to an ABCB'A' form and retain its integrity as a symmetrical organization. Thus, structural considerations alone are of no use in deciding this issue.

Romans 14:1-15:13

Kasemann ponders the question of why Paul presented the Special Exhortation of 14:1-15:13 after the General Exhortation of chs. 12-13 in contrast to his usual order in other Pauline epistles. A look at Fig. 1 reveals that this order was necessary to preserve the desired mirror image arrangement.

Another general question arises regarding these verses: Who are the weak and the strong? Morris summarizes the options and concludes that there are no concrete historical referents intended by Paul. Confirmatory evidence for this view is provided by the overall structure of Romans in which the parallel passage 2:1-11 is specifically addressed to “O man, whoever you are.”

Romans 16:17-20

The suspicion has been voiced that these verses represent a non-Pauline interpolation into the text.

A. Commendation and greetings (16:1-16)

B. Warning against dissenters (16:17-20)

           A'. Greetings (16:21-23)

The three-part analysis of Rom. 16:1-23 presented above shows this dubious verses as the central unit in which greetings constitute the two “A” units. The first “A” unit (or at least vv. 3-16) represents Paul’s greetings to specific people at Rome while vv. 21-23 emphasize others besides Paul from whom greetings are given. The exception to this generalization is the greeting from “all the churches” in v. 16b, which looks like it more properly belongs with vv. 21-23. This would seem to indicate that the intervening verses were a later addition to an originally continuous list of greetings.

However, Murray, who notes this same phenomenon, explains Paul’s grouping of v. 16a with the previous verses as follows: “His solidarity with the church universal governs his consciousness and as apostle of the Gentiles he represents all the Gentile churches in the conveyance of his greetings.” A lack of understanding of this typical ABA pattern above is one reason that commentators such as Jewett delete the center unit as disrupting the flow of Paul's argument.

ROMANS 9:5 THE DIFFERENCE PUNCTUATION CAN MAKE

Believe it or not, I generally shy away from trying to explain highly technical issues of translation in the Bible since I am by no means an expert in either Hebrew or Greek. However, I thought that the following example might prove to be of special interest in showing the great amount of time and energy scholars take over even the smallest issues relating to the proper understanding of the Bible. The particular passage in question is an important one to commentators, as witnessed below, since it deals with the issue of Christ's divinity.

    Concerning Romans 9:5, Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament spends three whole pages discussing the correct punctuation of this one verse.

    Sandlay and Headlam state, “The interpretation of Rom. ix. 5 has probably been discussed at greater length than that of any other verse in the N.T.”

    John Murray appends a four-page discussion of the verse to his two-volume commentary on Romans.

    “F.C. Burkitt once said, with some exaggeration, that the punctuation of Romans 9:5 has probably been more discussed than that of any other sentence in literature.” (Witherington)

    “The meaning of the rest of the verse [Rom. 9:5] is one of the most hotly disputed questions of the New Testament.” (Morris)

I will attempt as best as I can to summarize the main translation aspects involved here in a way that even I can understand.

First, look at how the NIV treats this verse. Their preferred translation (A) is “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” But in a footnote, they offer two alternative translations: (B) “...Messiah, who is over all. God be forever praised” or (C) “...Messiah. God who is over all be forever praised!” Note that the major differences between the three possibilities are caused by the question of proper punctuation (comma or period) and where the punctuation is to be placed.

Deciding between these three options is unfortunately not just a matter of looking for the earliest manuscripts to see where they placed the punctuation. The reason is that for the most part the early manuscripts did not contain any punctuation at all. And, as Metzger and others point out, some of the manuscripts which do contain a certain amount of punctuation cannot be trusted since it is often obvious that later scribes had added them to the documents, sometimes using different types of ink.

Thus, the scholars studying this issue have little or no “external” evidence to go by and must fall back on “internal” evidence arguing, as to the most probable original meaning of the verse (i.e. the one that best fits the immediate context, the theology and writing style of the author, and consistency of teaching with the rest of the Bible).

Recapping the three possibilities laid out by NIV,

Option A treats the whole verse as one sentence with clauses separated by commas, and it states that Messiah (the Christ) is actually over all things, is called God, and is to be forever praised. Adhering to this understanding which equates Christ with God Himself are such translations as KJV, ASV, NRSV (with C as an alternative), NASB, JB, AB, J.B. Phillips, and The Message.

Option B treats it as two separate sentences. The first states that Christ is over all, and the second is a doxology of praise to God. This “compromise” option (a) does not really really resolve any of the real issues separating A and C; (b) of the translations I have canvassed, only The Living Bible takes this view; (c) Fitzmyer for one discards this option as being improbable; and (d) most other commentators do not even mention it as a possibility. Therefore, we will not consider it any further in the discussion below.

Option C also treats it as two separate sentences, but with the break after Christ instead. Thus, according to this translation it ends with a doxology to God who is over all and to be praised. This is the favored understanding of RSV, NEB (with A or B as alternatives), TEV, and commentators such as Barclay and Kasemann.

Option D has also been invoked on occasion. It involves a rearrangement of the Greek text from ho on to hon ho, meaning “(and) to whom (belongs) the one overall, God, blest forever!” Since there is no manuscript evidence for this possibility, commentators such as Fitzmyer reject it as being improbable.

Thus we are left with the “high christology” of Option A or a passage such as C which treats the last part of the verse as a separate doxology to God the Father. Here are some of the main arguments pro and con regarding these two possibilities:

Grammar and Context

Almost all comments relating to these two aspects of the subject are found to be in favor of Option A:

Metzger notes in favor of A the fact that it best suits the structure of the whole sentence. Changing the subject to God at the end is “awkward and unnatural.” In the same vein, Morris says, “To have the doxology apply to God requires a very abrupt change of subject.” Witherington arrives at the same conclusion when he states that “the most natural way to read the grammatically difficult phrase in Romans 9:5” is as one sentence.

And Fitzmyer says, “In the light of the context, in which Paul speaks of his sorrow over Israel's unbelief, there seems to be no psychological explanation to account for the introduction of a doxology at this point.”

“Both the context and the internal development of the sentence imply that this doxology is addressed to Christ.” (Jerusalem Bible) Similarly, Morris notes that “a joyful doxology is out of place.”

Murray makes the following observations: “Grammatically or syntactically, there is no reason for taking the clauses in question as other than referring to Christ.” In terms of the immediate context of the verse, he notes that since Paul is listing the privileges of Israel, “witout some predication expressive of Jesus' transcendent dignity there would be a falling short of what we should expect in this climctic conclusion.”

Christ “according to the flesh”

This phrase appears in the first half of the verse and gives rise to the following observations, again all in favor of adopting Option A:

Davidson and Martin state, “An even more telling point in favour of the ascription of the phrase to Christ is that some such designation of the Lord as 'God over all' seems required to balance 'according to the flesh,' i.e. as regards His human descent. Paul complements this with a statement as regards His eternal being.”

Witherington puts it this way, “Kata sarka in Romans 9:5a is unnatural in its present form if the speaker does not go on to say what Christ is according to something else besides the flesh.”

And Morris echoes this argument when he says, “The reference to Christ 'according to the flesh' looks for an antithesis. It would be very unexpected to have this as all that is said of him.”

External Evidence

As mentioned above, this type of evidence is not necessarily to be relied on too heavily. However, even here, what evidence there is again points to Option A:

“The early Fathers, including many whose native language was Greek, usually take the words [in the last half of the verse] to refer to Christ.” (Morris)

Metzger notes that all of the Church Fathers who mention this verse understood it to all refer to Christ. And thirty early manuscripts place a period after “flesh” leaving the rest of the verse to concern Christ.

Doxology

Option C treats the end of Romans 9:5 as a separate doxology to God whereas in Option A it can be considered as either a doxology to Christ or as just the end of the long sentence regarding Christ rather than being a doxology at all. And again, for several reasons, the evidence points to A as the most likely possibility. Witness the following statements.

Witherington notes that “it is almost a universal pattern for doxologies in the Hebrew and LXX [Greek Septuagint] to be 'blessed be God,' not 'God blessed,' as we have here if one translation [Option C] is followed. So the likelihood is that 'God blessed' does not express a wish that God be blessed forever, but that the Messiah, who is God, is by nature blessed forever.” Fitzmyer also brings up this fact.

Zahn introduces another piece of evidence by stating that Paul's true doxologies always attach themselves to that which precedes. But that is not at all the case here; if it is a doxology to God, it is introduced as a totally separate thought (some would say a rather jarring thought) compared to Paul's ideas in the previous verses.

Murray aptly summarizes the situation thusly, “The reasons necessary to support the thesis that Paul had here departed from the usual, if not uniform, formula for doxology would have to be conclusive.”

So what are the “conclusive” rebuttals offered by those who adhere to Option C as the proper understanding of the verse? The few offered are summarized below with corresponding rejoinders by those who hold to Option A instead:

Doxologies are always offered to God, not to Christ.

This is an exceedingly weak argument in light of two facts: (a) As explained above, those who prefer Option A generally do not consider Romans 9:5 as a doxology at all, and (b) Fitzmyer notes the following doxologies in the NT which are addressed to Christ – Revelation 1:6; 5:13; 7:10; II Peter 3:8 and possibly II Timothy 4:18 and I Peter 4:11.

Consideration of I Corinthians 15:27-28

Fitzmyer points to those treating Romans 9:5 as two separate sentences (Option C) as citing I Cor. 15:27-28 as a “definitive” passage for rejecting Option A. That is because it explains that after all things are accomplished, Jesus will become subordinate to the Father. Thus, there is no way that Paul could consider Christ to be equal to God. I have dealt with this subject earlier in my post titled “The Son's Eternal Submission to the Father,” but suffice it to say here that Christ's submission to the Father by no means precludes him being a full part of the Godhead even if the respective functional roles of the members of the Trinity differ.

Paul's “low” Christology

In his report on the deliberations made by the team working on the third edition of United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, Metzger states that all of the factors given above in favor of Option A were duly recognized but finally rejected since “none of these considerations seemed to be decisive, particularly since nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate 'the Christ' as 'God.'”

Numerous NT scholars, however, have responded to this “decisive” argument by quoting passages by Paul in which he strongly infers the full deity of Christ. One could even begin by citing Metzger himself who states that Philippians 2:6 comes close to making this statement. He also admits that the Committee did not take Titus 2:13 (“...while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”) into account due to its supposed non-Pauline origin.

Other passages dealing with the divinity of Christ that have been suggested by commentators for study include: I Cor. 8:6;12:3; II Cor. 3:17: Phil. 2:6,11; Col. 1:19; 2:2,9; and II Thess. 1:2,12. Thus, as Murray concludes, “it is may not be dogmatically affirmed that Paul never uses the predicate theos of Christ.”

In the final analysis, however, it must be admitted that if Option A is the correct interpretation of this verse, it demonstrates in a much more definite manner the high christological belief of Paul. L.C. Allen believes he has an explanation as to why Paul would come down so definitively on this point in this particular epistle: “In the face of the general Jewish denial that Jesus was the Messiah, Paul is driven in reaction to avow his own recognition of Him in terms stronger than he tends to use elsewhere.”

 

THE ORGANIZATION OF ROMANS 5-8

In my post titled “Romans: Introduction to the Literary Structure” I proposed the following symmetrical structure for the book:

Figure 1: The Structure of Romans

I. Greetings (1:1-7)

II. Gospel as the Power of God (1:8-17)

III. Gentiles do not Honor God (1:18-32)

IV. Judging Those Outside the Body (2:1-16)

V. Doing the Law (2:17-24)

VI. Present Position of the Jews (2:25-4:25)

VII. Justification by Faith (chs. 5-6)

A. Christ’s Death (ch. 5)

B. United With Christ (ch. 6)

VII'. New Life (chs. 7-8)

B. Dying to the Law (ch. 7)

A. Life in the Spirit (ch. 8)

VI'. Future Position of the Jews (chs. 9-11)

V'. Living in the Spirit (chs. 12-13)

IV'. Judging Those Within the Body (14:1-15:6)

III'. Gentiles Glorify God (15:7-13)

II'. Gospel Preached by the Power of the Holy Spirit (15:14-33)

I'. Greetings (ch. 16)

Since the center of this organization encompasses Romans 5-8, a closer consideration of that portion of the book is in order.

In Stott’s introduction to his excellent little commentary on these verses, he states that “chapters 5-8 do form a compact unity. They are without doubt among the greatest and most glorious chapters of the whole New Testament.” This is appropriate considering their central position in the structure shown in Fig. 1. In these chapters, “Paul sketches a drama of bondage and liberation. A trilateral power alliance of sin, flesh and death – plus an unwilling accomplice, the law – stand opposed to the reign of God.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

A number of scholars prefer to include ch. 5 with the previous literary unit instead, perhaps because, as Becker formulated, it acts in a way as a hinge between these two adjacent sections. However, thematically, Romans 5 belongs with the following chapters due to their common emphasis on sin (Morris), the Christian life (Morris), and the law of Moses (Childs). Kasemann similarly rejects inclusion of ch. 5 in the previous section as a confusion between justification and sanctification. Another argument in favor of treating these four chapters as a unity is its “long drought of direct citation of the Scriptures” compared to the rest of the book, only broken by the quotation in 8:36. (Seifrid)

Stott divides these chapters thematically into four subunits: Peace with God (5:1-19), Union with Christ (5:20-6:23), Freedom from the Law (7:1-8:4), and Life in the Spirit (8:5-39). A fourfold division along present chapter lines seems more justified by literary considerations, most notably their similar endings:

“Eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (5:21)

                        “Eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (6:23)

                        “Law of God...Jesus Christ our Lord” (7:23)

                        “Love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:39)

Romans 5 is unified by its repetition (11x) of the word “one.” Romans 5 and 6 (VIIA and B) share an emphasis on the death of Christ (5:10; 6:3-9), the fact that sin’s power has been broken (5:18-19; 6:3), and the concept of our life being in His (5:10; 6:8). Each of the two chapters begins with a long passage in which the use of “we” is pervasive. In these passages, we learn that “[o]ur election, calling, justification, standing in Christ, is fully accomplished by his saving work.” (Harvey and Towner) It has also been noted by Allen that 6:15-23 “is the application of 5:12ff to the Christian’s moral life.” Chapters 5-6 contain four examples of the sentence construction “just as..so” (5:12-18,19,21; 6:4). Words commonly utilized in Section VII include “offenses,” “increase” and “offer.”

On the other hand, Morris notes that chs. 7 and 8 (VII'B and A) appear to purposely contrast one another in that the “I” of the former chapter is almost wholly replaced by “the Spirit” in Rom. 8. The key word “body” is quite prominent throughout Section VII'. And McGuinn points out the presence of sexual metaphors in 7:1-6 and 8:18-25. Kasemann calls these two chapters “The End of the Law in the Power of the Spirit.” In addition to this proposed division, there is a symmetrical correspondence uniting all four chapters that takes the following form:

                                                VIIA. Chapter 5

VIIB. Chapter 6

                                                            VII'B. Chapter 7

VII'A. Chapter 8

Kasemann has similarly pointed to the common motifs in Romans 5 and 8, the connected thoughts of chs. 5 and 6, and the close relationship between 6 and 7.

Brauch, alternatively, sees two implied questions brought up in Rom. 7:1-4. The first one is addressed briefly in 7:5 and then in more detail in 7:7-24 while the second question is answered briefly in 7:6 and then expounded upon further in 8:1-17.

VIIA and VII'A (Romans 5 and 8)

Kasemann entitles ch. 5 “Freedom from the Power of Death” and subdivides it with a new unit beginning at vs. 12, as does Stott. Stott also notes that this chapter ends as it began, with “the privileges of the justified.” One of the major themes of ch. 8 is the work of the Spirit (the latter word occurring almost twenty times in this chapter). We are prepared for this emphasis by a crucial pronouncement earlier in ch. 5:

“God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.” – Rom. 5:5

The role of the Spirit in giving the Christian eternal life is found in 5:21 and 8:9-11. Another common theme to these two chapters is the implications of faith-righteousness found in 5:1-11 (a sub-unit defined by a framework consisting of the word complex “boast / through our Lord Jesus Christ / justified / reconciled”) and 8:31-39, which effectively brackets the whole of the combined sections VII through VII'. There is a possibly similar function served by the references to Christ / Spirit helping us in our weakness (5:6; 8:26). Similar themes within these passages include (a) the sharing by Christians in God’s glory (5:2; 8:30), (b) boasting in our sufferings since it leads to glory (5:2-4; 8:18), (c) perseverance in the midst of suffering (5:3; 8:35), and (d) Christ’s dying for sinners (5:6-8; 8:32). The effects of the Fall on mankind and nature are described in 5:12-20 and 8:19-22, respectively.

Some specific verbal correspondences between these parallel sections include: “peace” (5:1, 8:6), “justified” (5:1,9; 8:30,33), “hope” (seven times in 5:2-5; 8:20-24), “not only that” (5:3,11; 8:23), “patience” (5:3-4; 8:25), “God's love” (5:5,8; 8:35,39), “Lord Jesus Christ (5:8; 8:11),” “saved” (5:9,10; 8:24), “enmity with God” (5:10; 8:7), “his son” (5:10; 8:29,32), “likeness” (5:14; 8:30), “condemnation” (5:16;18, 8:1), and “life” (5:17,18; 8:6,10).

There is also a roughly chiastic correspondence between the major sub-themes of these two chapters:

1. Justified / at peace with God (5:1-2)

2. Suffering–hope–Spirit (5:3-5)

3. Law increases the trespass (5:6-21)

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

                                    3'. Law of Spirit frees (8:1-17)

2'. Suffering–hope–Spirit (8:18-27)

1'. Justified / at peace with God (8:28-39)

All of the above structural considerations work against the contention of Campbell that all or part of Romans 8 should be considered closely together with chs. 9-11.

VIIB and VII'B (Romans 6 and 7)

Ch. 6 is titled “Death to the Power of Sin” by Kasemann and consists of three parallel units: vv. 1-11, 12-14 and 15-23. The first and last of these begin in an identical manner and conclude with a contrast between life and death including the phrase “in Christ Jesus.” The middle unit (6:12-14) has been treated by others as either part of the first unit (Stott), the theme to the last unit (Kasemann), or as transitional verses (McGuinn). Romans 7 has as its major theme “Death to the Law” (closely allied with the theme of the previous chapter) and contains three sub-units with openings using language borrowed from ch. 6.

            A. QUESTION – “What shall we say then?” (6:1)

B. ANSWER – “Certainly not!” (6:2)

                        C. QUESTION – “Do you not know?” (6:3)

A. QUESTION – “What then..?” (6:15a)

B. ANSWER – “Certainly not!” (6:15b)

C. QUESTION – “Do you not know?” (6:16)

C. QUESTION – “Or do you not know, brethren?” (7:1)

A. QUESTION – “What then shall we say then?” (7:7a)

B. ANSWER – “Certainly not!” (7:7b)

A. QUESTION – “Has then..?” (7:13a)

B. ANSWER – “Certainly not!” (7:13b)

Each of these five units figuratively describes a spiritual truth: dying with Christ, freed from slavery, freedom to remarry after a spouse dies, killed by sin through the commandment, and an alien entity living within, respectively. Key words and phrases found in both chapters are: “no more” (6:2,9; 7:17,20), “by no means” (6:2,15; 7:7,13), “raise up” (6:4,9; 7:4), “body” (6:6,12; 7:4,24), “serve” (6:6; 7:6,25), “mastery” (6:9,14; 7:1), “desires” (6:12; 7:7-8), “members” (6:13,19; 7:5,23), “thanks be to God” (6:17; 7:25), and “slavery” (6:19; 7:6).

The center unit beginning at 7:1 has been linked thematically with both the preceding verses and those that follow by Thimmes.

            More substantial thematic similarities have been noted in the literature:

            Objections to Christian discipline (6:1,15; 7:7-8)

            Various things are nullified or discharged (6:6; 7:2,6)

            Paul’s “sin-dominated personality” (6:6; 7:24)

            Going from death to life (6:13; 7:5-6,10)

The figure of marriage applied to the law (6:14; 7:1-6)

            The law is not evil (6:14; 7:7)

            Being under sin compared to slavery (6:17-18; 7:6,14)

            Mind/body dualism; “members” (6:19; 7:23-24)

An additional factor uniting these two chapters is found in their respective conclusions in which the phrase “Christ Jesus (or Jesus Christ) our Lord” is prominent. Likewise, the first unit of ch. 6 and the last unit of ch. 7 both end with quotes from Psalm 119 (v. 133 in 6:14 and v. 7 in 7:22).

Finally, L.C. Allen has proposed that the second half of Romans 7:25 more properly belongs with the following chapter, but this proposal is countered by others (see Morris) who would actually rearrange the text to move 7:25b to a position before 7:24.

THE ANGELS' INTEREST IN MANKIND

One of the topics that Christians have been quite intrigued with for centuries is the nature and role of angels. Therefore it is somewhat gratifying to learn from Scripture that apparently that curiosity has been reciprocated. There are at least three tantalizing passages in the New Testament that address this subject.

I Peter 1:10-12

These verses talk about things on earth into which the angels long to look. The key verb here is parakyptein, which means to stoop or bend down to look. Stibbs and Walls note that it appears in two other contexts in the NT: Luke 24:12 (paralleled in John 20) in which Peter, and later Mary, look into the tomb and James 1:25 where it refers to those who look into the perfect law and persevere.

Raymer states, “The reality of the Christian's living hope was held in awe and wonder by the angelic hosts of heaven.” And Wheaton elaborates further: “This salvation was the subject of careful investigation by the prophets who foretold it, and they were shown that the things they were proclaiming would be finally understood only by those to whom the good news of Jesus Christ was preached. So wonderful is this salvation that it has not yet been fully revealed even to the angels (see Rom. 8:19).” This cited verse refers to creation (presumably including the angels) waiting eagerly for the revealing of the children of God.”

In view of the fact that Peter is known to quote from non-biblical sources in his epistles, it is understandable that the source of his statement might similarly arise from inter-testamental Jewish writings. Thus, J.D. Charles provides the following information: “No explanation of or direct parallel to this phenomenon is to be found in the Old Testament...In the text of I Enoch 9:1, the angels are said to observe carefully from the heavens the events on earth. The verb that describes the angels' activity, parakyptein, is the same verb used in I Peter 1:12. In Targum Neofit Genesis 28:12 one finds a description of the angels ascending and descending in order to observe Jacob. According to the text, they 'earnestly desired' to see this righteous man. It is possible that in his allusion to the angelic aspect of divine mystery Peter is making use of imagery and language associated with a midrashic tradition.”

Along the same lines, Michaels states, “The notion that some heavenly mysteries are hidden even from the angels who dwell in heaven is found...in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g. 1 Enoch 16:3; 2 Enoch 24:3)...The very fact that angels know so much enhances the sense of wonder at the things they do not know.”

Michael Heiser appends another possible implication of this passage: “There is no reason to suppose Satan and demons, hostile to God's plan, knew more [than the angels].” If that is true, it would help explain why Satan would push to have Jesus crucified when that very act would bring about the eventual end of him and his kingdom.

Luke 15:7,10

These two verses form the moral of two short and similar parables of Jesus involving lost items, a sheep and a coin, respectively. The first verse announces: “There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous persons who need no repentance.” And in contrast to this comparative statement, v. 10 says, “There is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

Note that these passages connect humanity's salvation with the concern of the angels, just as in I Peter 1:10-12.

One immediate question arises regarding v. 10, “Is anyone so righteous that they don't need to repent?” That is why I have addressed that issue separately in a post with the same title as found in these quotation marks. But at this point, I will just quote one commentator on the subject: “Jesus was not saying the other 99 sheep were not important. Instead, He was emphasizing that the one sheep not in the fold corresponded with the sinners with whom Jesus was eating (vv. 1-2).” This intended emphasis is made more clear in v. 10 in which only the lost are mentioned at all. This verse also makes it obvious that the joy in heaven in v. 7 refers specifically to the joy of the angelic host.

The previous sentence above needs, however, a little more clarification. Thus, Marshall says, “Joy in heaven and before the angels of God are both circumlocutions for saying that God Himself rejoices. At the same time, it is implied that God's people share in His rejoicing.” And Fitzmyer feels that “in heaven” in v. 7 may mean “among God's angels” (as in v. 10) or on the part of God Himself, if the phrase is meant as a substitute for the divine name.”

For a closing thought on this passage, Gendenhuys says, “Note the tone of certainty in Jesus' pronouncements on what happens in heaven.” He was certainly not nearly as tentative as the scribes and Pharisees, who tended to quote previous experts on Scripture rather than make any pronouncements on their own authority.

Ephesians 3:10

In this passage Paul states that somehow the Church reveals God's wisdom to the heavenly authorities. And again, the context is the subject of salvation. But this passage is a little more controversial than the previous two in that there is some uncertainty regarding the identity of the “heavenly authorities” as well as the nature of the revelation itself, as you can see from the following statements by commentators on the subject.

Hoehner: “As the angelic hosts witness the church, they must admit that having Jews and Gentiles in one body is evidence of God's wisdom.”

Harpur: “Angels baffled by the amazing liberties allowed to Satan and men can now justify God as they behold the clear deliberate purpose of God in the ages now unfolded in the Messiah, both Himself personally and His members corporately.”

Simpson: “The church is a spectacle to angels as well as men. From her chequered story and long-drawn conflict, the celestial hosts learn secrets of the Creator's wisdom not elsewhere divulged. The strange vicissitudes in her status, the yet stranger throes of tribulation through which she is to pass, and, strangest sight of all to the heavenly onlookers, the submission of her illustrious Head to the reproaches and agonies of the cross, are fraught with priceless instruction to these sons of morning...”

Vine defines “principalities” in this verse as “holy angels” and says that “the Church in its formation being to them the great expression of 'the manifold (or 'much-varied') wisdom of God.'”

Contrary to Vine's definition, R.P. Martin says, “The church on earth is the witness to and the vehicle of this revealed 'mystery' and the hostile angelic powers are not only held in wonder at this but their death-knell is sounded with the proclamation that God in Christ has decisively acted for cosmic salvation.”

And for a third view regarding the nature of the “principalities and powers,” one can even go back to the previous verse 3:9 in which the “ages” (aiones) from whom this was hidden “need not be time spans but can be angelic or demonic beings, or both.” (M. Barth)

 

SYMMETRY IN THE BOOK OF JUDGES

At a first reading, this book appears to present a series of characters one after the other without much 

of an overall organization. But in my post “Book of Judges: Introduction to Literary Structure” I 

presented the proposed arrangement for the book shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The Structure of the Book of Judges

                I. Introduction (1:1-3:6)

                A. Political Situation (1:1-2:5)

                B. Religious Perspective (2:6-3:6)

                        II. Israel under the Judges (3:7-16:31)

                I'. Concluding Appendix (17:1-21:25)

                B. Religious Perspective (chs. 17-18)

                A. Political Situation (chs. 19-21)

Sections I (Judges 1:1-3:6) and I' (Judges 17-21)

The importance of the opening section of Judges in setting the tone for the whole book, both politically 

and morally, is well recognized. See, for example, Howard’s comment that “the breakdown in Israelite 

society detailed in 1:1-2:5 forms the keynote for the book.”

Within Section IA, the success of Judah as outlined in 1:3-21 is followed by the failures in the north under the house of Joseph portrayed in 1:22-36, with verses 1:1-2 and 2:1-5 serving as a framework for the whole. Large portions of IA recap the history given in Joshua 15-19. The literary symmetries within the two major parts of Section IA have been ably demonstrated by Webb. Unit IA concerns foreign wars in which the ban (i.e. total warfare to the point of extinction) is applied while I'A applies the same ban to domestic battles. Unit IB describes the problem of foreign idols while I'B deals with domestic idols.

Davis portrays the organization of Section IB as shown below (with an appropriate opening and closing section added). Although a decline in spirituality is in evidence, the structural focus of this section demonstrates the constancy of God’s loving kindness.

Introduction: the generation of Joshua serves the LORD (2:6-10)

Apostasy (2:11-13)

Wrath (2:14-15)

Grace (2:16)

Apostasy (2:17-19)

Wrath (2:20-23)

Summary: the following generation tested by the LORD (3:1-6)

Webb's analysis of these same verses is similar except that he includes all of Judges 2:16-19 under the 

umbrella of grace (even in the face of Israel's repeated failures). He also sees a symmetrical 

arrangement to Judges 2:23-3:4 which can easily be extended as follows:

    1. Yahweh's test (2:20-23)

        2. Identity of the remaining nations (3:1a)

            3. The test (3:1b-2b)

                a. Subjects of the test (1b)

                    b. Parenthesis regarding the test (2a)

                a'. Subjects of the test (2b)

        2'. Identity of the remaining nations (3:3)

1'. Results of the test (3:4-6)

A number of commentators note that the section labeled IB forms a parallel to IA (with their similar introductions and references to the death of Joshua) and takes up the narrative left off at the end of the Book of Joshua.

Section I'B has a simple structure (following Webb) in which three episodes ending in a priest being appointed are separated by set formulas:

    1. Micah installs his son as a priest (17:1-5)

            2. “In those days” (17:6)

    1'. Micah installs Levite as his priest (17:7-13)

            2'. “In those days” (18:1a)

    1''. Danites install Jonathan and sons as priests (18:1b-31)

This story begins with Micah being revealed as a thief and ends with others robbing him.

Section I'A also utilizes the same “in those days” statements, this time as an inclusio for chs. 19-21:

    1. “In those days” (19:1a)

        2. The rape of the Levite's concubine (19:1b-30)

            3. Assembly at Mizpah (20:1-17)

                4. War against the Benjaminites (20:18-48)

                    a. Inquiring of the LORD (20:18)

                        b. First battle (20:19-21)

                    a'. Inquiring of the LORD (20:23)

                        b'. Second battle (20:22,24-25)

                    a''.Inquiring of the LORD (20:26-28)

                        b''.Third battle (20:29-48)

             3'. Oath taken at Mizpah Assembly (21:1-9)

        2'. Taking the women of Jabesh-gilead and Shiloh (21:10-24)

    1'. “In those days” (21:25)

Vannoy states, “The obvious parallel between a two-part introduction and a two-part epilogue in itself indicates the book’s structural symmetry.” This symmetry is pictured in Fig. 1 as a mirror-image relationship between the two respective sub-units of sections I and I'. Section IA describes the geo-political situation existing at the start of the book where the tribes of Israel are found to be occupying a territory but imperfectly conquered. By the end of the book (I'A), the tribes are seen to be turning against one another, demonstrating that they are their own worst enemies. 

a. Armerding re-casts these two themes as pointing to (a) the charismatic leadership at the time 

and (b) the covenant life of the people as a whole. The parallelism between these two sub

sections is strengthened by the following similarities:Incidents involving the gruesome hacking 

off of body parts are found in 1:6-7 and 19.29.

 Alter comments that these are appropriate for capping this bloody period in Israel’s history.

 Josipovici adds that these episodes “stress in a quite literal way the notion of fragmentation” 

that is the hallmark of this book.

        b. The only mention of involvement by the tribe of Judah in the books comes in the almost                         identical dialogues found in 1:1-2 and 20:18:

“Who shall go up first?”

                        “The LORD said, ‘Judah shall go up first.’”

c. Jebusite opposition (1:21; 19:10-12) and the Israelites weeping (2:1-5; 20:21-26) are 

incidents found here. Also, it is only in these two sections of the book that Jerusalem is 

mentioned.

d. Offerings at the altar of Bethel are made in 2:1-5 and 21:2-5.

            e. From a chronological viewpoint, the events of chs. 20-21 more properly belong with those                     that start the book. (Howard) The present order makes sense structurally, however, and does                 not necessarily relegate Section I'A (or I'B) to the mere status of what has been called (Gray)                 “a redactional appendix.”

            f. Of the eight appearances of the phrase “10,000 men” in Judges, three occur in these two                         sections (at 1:4; 20:10,34).

            g. In this book, Israel's landholdings are described as her “inheritance” only at 2:6 and 20:6.

            h. Webb mentions that the close association of these two sections has been noted in commentators as early as Josephus and Rabbi Samuel ben Nahmani.

            i. The book begins (1:1-2) and ends (21:2-14) with a major assembly of the people.

            j. Boda cites 1:1 and 20:8-9 as rare examples of inquiries to God in which the answer is not a 

                simple yes-no. In both instances, the question involved which tribes/people would be sent off 

                to battle. The phrase “the Israelites inquired of the LORD” appears prominently at 1:1 and 

                20:23,27.

The deteriorating religious situation is the theme of Section IB, which sets the stage for the various cycles of disobedience to God that trigger the periods of oppression for the people. This religious disobedience is still present at the end of the period of judges, as shown by the incidents in the structurally parallel Section I'B concerned with the Danites taking a private priest and his graven idols by force. The chapters that comprise this latter section (labeled “Divine Sarcasm” by Davis) proceed with an “almost novelist movement” (Gray) and are held together structurally by use of literary frameworks (a) at 17:3-4 and 18:18-31 with their mention of graven and molten images and (b) at 17:5 and 18:31 with their contrasting house of gods and the House of God, respectively. (Davis)

Turning next to the center section, it can be pictured as a four-part symmetrical organization (Figure 2). The parallels between the two cycles A and A' are given in the post referenced at the start of this discussion. That only leaves a consideration of the similarities between IIB and IIB'.

Figure 2: The Structure of Section II

A. Ehud Cycle (3:7-31)

B. Deborah and Barak Cycle (chs. 4-5)

B'. Jephthah Cycle (10:1-12:15)

A'. Samson Cycle (13:1-16:31)

Deborah/Barak (Judges 4-5) and Jephthah (Judges 10:1-12:15) Cycles

The Deborah Cycle contains two parallel account of a key battle related in narrative and poetic fashion, 

respectively. It is not worth rehearsing the numerous differences in these two chapters, many of which 

can be attributed to the respective genres utilized. Davis has analyzed the prose account in ch. 4 as a 

seven-part chiasm centered on “Yahweh the Warrior” in v. 14a. Similar literary analyses have been 

performed on the song of ch. 5, about which there is no space to comment. However, it is of note that 

there is a purposeful contrast between Deborah as “a mother in Israel” in verse 7 and the tragic mother 

of Sisera at the end of the poem, as pointed out by Webb.

The analysis of the Jephthah Cycle follows that of Noth in that it includes the five minor judges that flank the Jephthah narratives. Noth’s major reasoning for this inclusion is that the story of Jephthah shares the closing refrain also found in the three minor judges following. Additional rationale for this decision is given below:

a. The locales of the judges in this section appear to form a symmetrical structure when plotted 

in their order of appearance:

Ephraim (Tola)

Gilead (Jair)

                                                Gilead (Jephthah)

Zebulun? (Ibzan)

                                                Zebulun (Elon)

Ephraim (Abdon)

b. If Jair is counted within the Jephthah Cycle, there results a total of exactly 21 references to  

    Gilead. 

            c. The mention of thirty sons of Jair is matched by the thirty sons and daughters of Izban and the                 thirty nephews of Abdon. Satterthwaite sees a deliberate contrast between these minor judges                 and their progeny with the situation of the central character in the cycle and the loss of his                 only child. This tie-in between the flanking stories of the minor judges and the Jephthah saga                 itself is reinforced by the appearance of “Israel(ite)” thirty times in the latter.

The first part of the Jephthah narrative itself is divided by Webb into two episodes (10:6-16 and 

10:17-11:11) having parallel scenes and development. However, if this division is made at the chapter 

end instead, there is no disruption in Webb's parallel scheme, and it has the dual advantage of (a) 

concluding both sub-sections with mention of an appointed head of Gilead (two of the rare instances in 

the OT where the Hebrew ro's means “authority,” according to Brauch and (b) beginning a unit with 

the designation “Jephthah the Gilead,” a phrase found in two other structurally important spots in the 

narrative (see below). This extended introduction is balanced by the closing statement in 12:7 

regarding the reign of Jephthah over Israel. The center of the Jephthah cycle can be pictured 

chiastically:

            A peace overture fails (11:12-29)

                    Vow to God (11:30-31)

                            Battle (11:32-33)

                    Vow to God fulfilled (11:34-40)

            A peace overture fails (12:1-7)

This analysis confirms Webb's contention that 11:32-33 marks the turning point of the whole Jephthah 

narrative.

Deborah (the most prominent figure in the former narrative) and Jephthah share the fact that they both come from outside the traditional leaders of Israelite society. Jephthah is the son of a harlot (11:1) and, of course, Deborah is a woman. The lowly status of the latter is stressed in the Deborah narrative when she tells Barak that Sisera will fall by the hand of a (“mere” implied) woman (4:9). 

 Both cycles also contain interactions between individual men and women with the latter coming off as the most noble or heroic: (a) Deborah/Balek and Jael/Sisera in Section IIB and (b) Jephthah and his daughter in Section IIB'. In both cycles, a warrior is “laid low” by a woman (5:27; 11:35). There are parallel scenes in 4:18, 5:1 and 11:34 in which a woman comes out to greet an approaching warrior, two involving songs. Significant events are commemorated by repetition in 5:11 and 11:39-40. The bargain between Deborah and Balek may also have a parallel in the vow that Jephthah made to God. (Brauch) 

In addition, sections B and B' (see Fig. 2) all feature prominent people riding on donkeys, as a possible foreshadowing of the coming Messiah, according to Kaiser. The literary function of coupling these two cycles is to stress that God's Spirit rests on whomever He chooses, as spelled out in Joel 2 and later quoted by Peter on the Day of Pentecost.