ZEPHANIAH INTRODUCTION

Several years ago I conducted a short course on creativity for a group of area pastors. As the final exercise to illustrate the importance of thinking outside of the box and not getting into a rut with their sermons, I explained that they needed to build different boxes within which to construct future messages to their congregations. The first step was to collect from the group a collection of random themes, illustrations, holidays, animals and, most importantly, Scripture passages on which they had never preached before. I then chose a selection of these various parameters together to give to each group from which they had about an hour to compose at least an outline of a sermon. I don't know if they or I was more pleased with the results.

I only tell the above story to point to a book in the Bible, perhaps the most minor of the twelve Minor Prophets, as a Scripture passage on which you have probably never heard a sermon preached. The reasons for the neglect this book has suffered are probably many, but I thought that at least I should provide a quick overview in case you should be curious enough to read it for yourself.

Distinctives
Unlike other books of prophecy which cover a wide range of subjects, Zephaniah more than any other concentrates solely on the coming Day of Judgment and its consequences for all nations. In terms of format, except for the first verse, it is written entirely in poetry. Thus, in reading this book one should look for (1) figurative rather than literal language and (2) correspondences in thought connecting the various lines within a given verse.

Organization
One way in which to present the overall contents as well as to show how they are organized is to review the symmetrical literary structure of the book, shown below and also discussed in more detail in my post “Zephaniah: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”

                                            Figure 1: The Structure of the Book of Zephaniah

Superscription (1:1)

    I.  The Day of the Lord: Judgment (1:2-18)
        A.  Universal Events (1:2-3)
            B.  Against Judah (1:4-13)
        A'.  Universal Events (1:14-18)
                II.  Call to Repentance (2:1-4)
                    III.  Oracle to the Nations (2:5-15)
                        A.  Against Philistia (2:5-7)
                            B.  Against Moab and Ammon (2:8-10)

                                C.  Universal Worship of Yahweh (2:11)

                            B'. Against Cush (2:12)
                        A'. Against Assyria (2:13-15)
                II'.  Call to Repentance (3:1-7)
    I'.  The Day of the Lord: Salvation (3:8-20)
        A.  Universal Events (3:8-10)
            B.  Regarding Judah (3:11-18)
        A'.  Universal Events (3:19-20)
Note that the above is a slight variation on the standard prophetic arrangement in which Israel is called out for her sins that are enumerated by the author (Section I), judgment on the other nations is proclaimed (Section III), and finally salvation for the Jews, or at least a remnant of them, is promised (Section I'). The unique feature of this organization, however, is the presence of the two parallel calls to repentance, II and II'. The first is addressed to the nations and the second to Judah and her capital Jerusalem. By placing these two sections where they are located, Zephaniah manages to lump Judah together with the neighboring nations as equally needing repentance while also holding out the possibility of salvation for those pagan countries as well.

Author
One of the most intriguing issues in this book is the identity of the author since although his name is obviously Hebrew (meaning “Yahweh has protected”) with three other personages in the Bible by the same name (see II Kings 25:18; I Chronicles 6:36; and Zechariah 6:10-14), his father is called Cushi, indicating that he comes from Cush, almost always in the Bible referring to Ethiopia. And this possible African descent is even stressed in the book at three significant locations: the start (1:1), the middle (2:12), and the end (3:10). So although there are other characters in the Bible who come from Africa (such as Moses' wife, the Queen of Sheba, and the Ethiopian eunuch converted by Philip), Zephaniah may thus possibly be the only author of Scripture with that distinction. 

Working against that possibility is the fact that Zephaniah's heritage goes back three more generations (a highly unusual occurrence in the Bible) and all of those names are squarely Hebrew, and one of them, Hezekiah, may even refer to the famous king of Judah. For that reason, it has even been proposed without proof by some that those three names were purposely added later by an editor to remove any suggestion of the prophet's African lineage.

Date
The time of writing was probably just before, or at the beginning of, the religious reforms of King Josiah, which would place Zephaniah alongside the prophets Habakkuk and Nahum at about 650-600 B.C. More specific dates around 630 B.C. have been suggested. 

Specific Passages
Below are comments on some verses that warrant special attention:
    Zephaniah 1:4-6  Judah had been combining Yahweh worship with that of pagan gods: Baal (Canaanite), “host of the heavens” (Assyrian), and Milcom (Ammonite).
    Zephaniah 1:7  The last line “Yahweh has prepared a sacrifice; he has consecrated his guests” means that they have been destined for slaughter.
    Zephaniah 1:9  The mention of those who leap over the threshold is a reference to an obscure Philistine rite found in I Samuel 5:5.
    Zephaniah 2:14  Hicks notes that the Hebrew text of this verse is uncertain in meaning. Just compare the following two renderings as an example:
        “In the middle of her the flocks will rest; all the beasts of the valley, even the pelican and the heron will roost round her cornices at night; the owl will hoot at the window and the raven croak on the doorstep, for he has torn up the cedar (or alternatively, “for I shall destroy the city”). (Jerusalem Bible)
        “Flocks shall couch there, and all the wild beasts of the wild. Horned owl and ruffed bustard shall roost on her capitals; the tawny owl shall hoot in the window and the bustard stand in the porch... (last phrase unintelligible).” (NEB)
    Zephaniah 3:8  Dan Curtis writes that “perhaps the most amazing use of the alefbet occurs in Zephaniah 3:8 in which all 22 of the Hebrew letters plus the five special final forms occur in a single verse. Such constructions require author intent and show the literary importance of the Hebrew letters in Hebrew literature.”
    Zephaniah 3:9  The promise of restoration of pure speech to the peoples may indicate a reversal of the curse of Babel and anticipate the events on the Day of Pentecost. (Hicks)
    Zephaniah 3:17 The Hebrew reads yaharish = “he will be silent” (meaningless in this context) or “he will plow” (plausible if a euphemism for sexual relations as a figure of God married to his people). Another possibility is that it is a textual error for yadarish = “renew his love” (as in the early Greek and Aramaic versions).

Use in the New Testament
Most of the NT allusions to Zephaniah take the form of short snippets and involve cases whether more than one OT text may be the referrent.   
Subject                                                                Zephaniah               New Testament
The eschatological banquet                                1:7                           Luke 13:27-29
Nearness of the Day                                           1:7                           Hebrews 6:8
Temple imagery and people about to be slain    1:7,11                      Revelation 8:1
“Great day” of God                                            1:14                         Revelation 16:14
The Day as a day of distress                               1:14-15                   John 15:25
Trumpet on the Day of Judgment                       1:14-16                   I Corinthians 15:52;
                                                                                                            I Thessalonians 4:16
Judgment stressed over deliverance                   1:14-18                    I Thessalonians 15:2
Figurative expressions for judgment on
    on Israel foreshadows Last Judgment            1:14,18; 2:2-3          Revelation 6:17
A fiery judgment                                                1:18                          Hebrews 6:7-8, 10:27
Nations gathered together for war                      3:8                            Revelation 16:14; 19:19
“No guile in his/their mouth”                             3:13                          Revelation 14:5
Renewal of God's kingdom                                3:15                          Luke 4:43
Messiah as King of Israel                                   3:15                          John 1:49; 12:13

 

ESTHER 7:4 -- A REASON OR AN EXCUSE?

In the midst of the several historical, ethical, and literary issues involved in the book of Esther, there is one verse that seems to get lost in the shuffle, and that is the last half of Esther 7:4. It contains the part of Esther's plea to the king in which she attempts to explain why she had not revealed her Jewish heritage to him until then. The first part of her explanation is fairly clear to translate such as “If we had merely been sold as slaves, I would have remained silent...”

Esther starts out with what appears to be just a hypothetical case, but there is another possibility expressed by E.A. Phillips: “Haman may have intentionally played on the similar sounds of 'bd (le abbedam, 'to annihilate them') and 'bd (la'abadim, 'for slaves'). If so, that would explain his appeal to the value of not allowing this unnamed people to 'rest.' It might also provide an interpretive framework for understanding Esther's reference when she revealed Haman's treachery at the second banquet to the effect that if they had only been sold into slavery, she would have kept silent (Esther 7:4). And finally, it might explain why the king seemed so entirely obtuse about the decree to which Esther referred. Perhaps he had been led to believe that Haman's intent was enslavement, when really it was wholesale murder.”

Of course, that explanation for Esther's comment presumes that somehow she was aware of the king's mistaken understanding of Haman's request and that the king had not bothered to read the substance of the subsequent decree written by Haman. The first presupposition seems unlikely in view of the fact that she had not been in the king's presence in the previous thirty days (see Esther 4:11).

But the real difficulties come in with the final clause of Esther 7:4. Moore explains: “Unfortunately, her rationale is far from clear, probably because of corruption in the MT [standard Hebrew text].” He calls the phrase in question “the most difficult clause to translate in all of Esther.” Bendor-Samuel agrees and elaborates on the reason by stating that it is “a very obscure clause in the Hebrew as there is doubt over three of the six words in the clause!” Similarly, Baldwin says that “the last clause is obscure. The word translated affliction elsewhere in the book always means 'enemy'...so far no satisfactory solution has been proposed.”

One of the disputed words is benezeq, appearing only here in the NT. Moore feels that the best explanation as to its meaning is that of Haupt who feels that neqez corresponds to the Aramaic naziqa, meaning “to be easily angered” and the noun nazaqa (“sudden anger, a fit of anger”).

Here is a selection of English translations representing the various ways this clause has been rendered along with some comments from scholars:

Septuagint: “for the slander is not worthy of the king's court.”

This translation is a good example of Baldwin's contention that this “is an ancient difficulty for the early versions [which] do not provide any help.” No modern translations agree with this particular reading.

King James Version: “although the enemy could not countervail the king's damage.”

Baldwin explains this cryptic wording to mean “although the enemy cannot compensate for all that the king will lose in tribute when they have been killed.” She says that at least this version is consistent in keeping the meaning of the word translated 'enemy'. However, “it is not satisfactory because it does not explain why Esther would have held her tongue, and this the context demands.”

Revised Version: “although the adversary [i.e. Haman] could not have compensated for the king's damage.”

Clines ranks this among the older versions which translate hassar as 'the enemy' rather than 'the distress,' meaning that “the damage the king would sustain if he were to lose income from the Jews' taxes.” But this same general translation is alternatively felt to refer to the shame the king would suffer if his queen were dishonored in the process. (Leith) Regarding this second understanding, it is hard to see how the king would have avoided this sort of shame even if she were only sold into slavery instead.

Other versions to stress the potential loss to the king as her reason for speaking out include The Jerusalem Bible, The Living Bible, and New Revised Standard Version.

Revised Standard Version: “for our affliction is not to be compared with the loss to the king.”

To this rendering, Baldwin replies, “The RSV is not satisfactory because it fails to keep the grammatical connection between the clauses, and does not make the sense any clearer.”

New English Bible: “then our plight would not be such as to injure the king's interest.”

But Clines says that “this does not adequately express the force of soweh, 'appropriate, fitting'.”

New International Version, etc: The safest way to translate the verse is just to say that Esther wouldn't have bothered the king with her own problems unless it were a literal matter of life and death. That is also the general tack taken by The Message, TEV, NIV, and AB as well as commentators such as Bendor-Samuel, Clines, and Jeffery, just to name a few.

As one last comment to make, you must forgive me for being a little dubious concerning Esther's stated reason for remaining silent earlier. However it is understood, she gives the impression that she was only speaking out now due to the loss the king, and perhaps her people also, would be suffering. But the fact is that she was fearful of approaching the king at all due to the risk to her own life (see Esther 4:9-11), and she only agreed to do so after Mordecai had first (1) warned her that the decree meant that she would die in any case (vv. 12-13), (2) shamed her into remembering the impending doom for all the other Jews if she did not act (v. 14a), and (3) flattered her with the idea that maybe God had singled her out for this important role (v. 14b).

And Mordecai himself does not emerge from this story entirely unscathed. Remember that it was he himself who told Esther not to reveal her Jewish identity to the king when they were first married. We are not told what his underlying motive for this advice was, but it is likely that Mordecai wished to make sure that he kept her as a valuable ally in the Persian court. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if the king had known his wife was Jewish when Haman first approached him with the idea of exterminating the Jews (or alternatively, selling them into slavery if one accepts Phillips' explanation). There is a good chance that the potential crisis would not have even arisen in the first place. So in a way, Mordecai is likely a partially responsible party in the initial decree being approved by the king.

 

THE PURPOSE OF AFFLICTION: AN EARLY CATECHISM?

Phillip Carrington (along with many others) has pointed out an interesting parallel in the writings of early church leaders as diverse as Peter, Paul and James.

I Peter 1:6-7a                                        Romans 5:3-4                      James 1:2-3

You r                                                    We boast                               Count it all joy

though grieved for a little                                                                  when you fall into

through various temptations                in our afflictions                   various temptations

                                                             knowing that                         knowing that

that the testing of your faith                                                              the testing of your faith

                                                             affliction works patience      works patience

                                                             and patience testing

Another verbal parallel is present in these passages, although not appearing in the same order:

I Peter 1:7b                                          Romans 5:2

result in praise, glory and honor         hope of the glory

Stibbs and Walls remarks on these correspondences: “If the resemblances are accidental, the coincidences are remarkable: if there is literary dependence, the borrowing has been of a most complex type. But if Peter, Paul and James were all weaving their thoughts round a common apostolic pattern of exhortation for believers [a sort of catechism], then both the resemblances and the differences are explained.

I decided to see what other Bible scholars had to say regarding this very unusual verbal agreement between three diverse Scripture authors.

Agreement between Paul and Peter

“Because of Christ, Christians eagerly anticipate the time when they will share Christ's glory, in contrast with their falling short of it now. In that sense He is 'the hope of glory.'” (Witmer) He cites New Testament passages such as I Peter 5:1 for this same idea.

By departing somewhat from the specific verses mentioned above, one can see another correspondence in that zao (“living”) is found in I Peter 1:3 “in the sense found in Rom. 5:5.” (Goppelt)

Agreement between James and Peter

Blue points out that “'trials of many kinds' (peirasmois...poikilois) were also referred to by Peter, who used the same Greek words, though in reverse order (I Peter 1:6)...The testing here (James 1:3) refers more to 'approval' than to 'proving.' The word (dokimion) appears only here and in I Peter 1:7.” However, as Davids notes, the two authors utilize that word in different ways.

Goppelt remarks that the plural “trials” is found in the NT here and in a related passage, Jas.1:2; and in Lk. 22:28; Acts 20:19; II Pet 2:9.”

“Circumstances that tempt people to sin vary widely and are rarely specified. Instead James 1:2 speaks of experiencing 'many kinds of temptations',” and I Peter 1:6 talks of suffering grief 'in many kinds of temptations...' Both passages use peirasmos because they have in mind any number of situations, including persecution, that can tempt a person to sin against God and perhaps fall from faith.” (W.R. Baker)

L.T. Johnson comments on “produce endurance” in James 1:3: “This is James' only use of katergazesthai...although he uses ergazesthai in 1:20 and 2:9...The most striking parallel is provided by Rom 5:3” which utilizes the same Greek word.

Going a little further on in James 1 (verse 18), one also encounters a reference to the new birth, as in I Peter 1:3. Similarly, “undefiled” appears in I Peter 1:4 and James 1:27, indicating a common source behind the start of I Peter and all of James 1.

The refiner's fire in James 1:3 “implies that there is something genuine that will survive the refining process, an idea which I Pet 1:7 also shows to be latent in the terminology: James already assumes that the Christian will pass the test.”

Agreement between James and Paul

Writing on James 1:3, Ward states, “The outcome is steadfastness, the quality of 'staying put' – under 'the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune'. Cf. Rom. 5:3.”

Relationship between the Three Passages

With the above parallels in mind, Verhey relates all three passages to a common tradition. And Davids compares the statements and concludes that they are similar “in both form and content.”

On the other hand are those who stress the differences between the three. For example, Johnson states that the resemblance between the three passages “is more apparent than real. Between James and I Peter there is mainly the sharing of the phrases 'various trials'...and 'provenness of faith'...within the general context of suffering. But the internal connections are entirely different. In Romans, in contrast, we also find the structure of the sorites [i.e. series] as in James, but with a different set of verbal correspondences: the 'accomplishing of endurance' and the 'proven endurance.”

Davids says, “James is verbally closer to I Peter, but his thought is closer to Paul's in that both he and Paul valued the virtues produced by the trying circumstances rather than the test itself, which Peer values (perhaps because it produces a heavenly reward).”

Before reviewing all the similarities and differences, McKnight notes that “some leading scholars today think there is no connection between these texts.”

The Original Source(s) of these Teachings

The above brings us to the important issue of how this complex relationship between the three teachings arose in the first place. And Bible scholars are not at all shy in attempting to answer this question, as you can see below:

In terms of Romans 5:3-4, several commentators merely express the opinion that Paul's own experiences of suffering form the basis of this writing, but they do not attempt to explain the correspondences between this text and the other two in question. An historical background is also proposed by Reasoner for I Peter 1:6-7, which he connects with the fire in Rome and AD 64 and subsequent persecution.

Schnabel feels that Paul's chain reasoning form in Romans 5:3-5 derives from early Jewish wisdom texts. The same would presumably apply to the series in James 1:2-4.

Verhey relates all three passages to a common tradition: “The traditional elements utilized in I Peter [such as that concerning joy in suffering] include what Selwyn called an early Christian 'holiness code'...”

“James draws from a wide assortment of Jewish tradition material – the Old Testament legal corpus..., Jesus' sayings and wisdom literature...The faithful are exhorted in Sirach 2:1 [an apocryphal Jewish book] in much the same way that James admonishes his audience (Jas. 1:2,12).” (Charles)

Johnson cautions us that “James' voice in these verses cannot without loss be reduced to the common chorus of Greco-Roman philosophy or Christian paraenetic [teaching] tradition.” By contrast, Adamson goes to great length to mention the parallels between the James passage and apocryphal Jewish and Greco-Roman thought.

Kistemaker mentions all three texts, noting that “James repeats the thought Jesus expresses in the last beatitude (Matt. 5:11-12).” Elaborating on this thought, Davids says that both look on sufferings as an external trial, neither sees suffering as something to be sought, and both see an eschatological benefit in the suffering.”

Goppelt: In commenting on I Peter 1:6-7, he says, “This interpretation of suffering appropriates primarily an Old Testament-Jewish and primitive Christian wisdom tradition that was already shaped within the same conceptual connections. Jas. 1:2f has such close affinities to I Peter 1:6f – in a different way from Rom. 5:24, which is similar in content – that one must assume that a common primitive Christian tradition is behind them...A direct precursor of this primitive Christian tradition is Wis. 3:5f., though this Christian tradition does not appropriate the idea of education...A more distant background to this interpretation is in Ps. 65(66):10 LXX [Septuagint]: God's people are tested as silver.”

Davids concludes: “The best explanation of both the similarities and the differences among these passages is that all three employ a common traditional form circulating in the early church. Each has modified the form to bring out his own emphases. This form, which probably stems originally from some saying of Jesus (e.g. Mt. 5:11-12) may have circulated as part of a Christian baptismal instruction, having been taken over from Judaism.” Thus, he comes back to the basic understanding of Carrington, Stubbs and Walls which started this discussion.

Kasemann, in writing about Romans 5:3-5 says, “Obviously there is no dependence on James. Both passages and also I Pet 1:6f are linked by a common horatory tradition...which develops the theme of T. Jos. 10:1 [another apocryphal writing]...It may have its origin in the days of the Maccabean persecution.”

Remarking on the 'boasting in affliction' theme in this same Pauline passage, Fitzmyer states, “In making this claim Paul is modifying slightly his Jewish heritage, for the upright Jew also sensed the value to suffering...(Ts. Sol. 3:4)...Cf. Jas. 1:2-4 for a similar sapiential list of qualities; I Pet 1:6-7.”

Conclusion

Despite the seeming disagreement between some of the above opinions, there is nonetheless consensus that (1) no one of these three passages served as the primary source for the other two and (2) all three teach the benefits of suffering in a believer's life and demonstrate that this is an idea that is not at all foreign to Jewish thought over the centuries. Therefore there is probably no need to argue whether the commonality between these NT texts derives from OT teachings and examples, inter-testamental Jewish writings both included and excluded from the OT Apocrypha, Christ's beatitude, or an early Christian catechism.

 

MARK 16:7-8

Unless you are convinced that the King James Version is the only inspired English translation of the Bible, you have to face up to the fact that there is a glaring contradiction between Mark's conclusion and those of the other Gospel writers.

In agreement with every modern translation, it is almost a given that Mark's authentic words end with Mark 16:8 with any subsequent words added much later so as to agree more with the other three accounts. As the textual scholar Bruce Metzger concludes after reviewing the four other existing endings of this Gospel, “on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8.” To all the arguments he adduces to support this view, I have added my own evidence arising from embedded symmetrical word patterns found in Mark's Gospel. See my post “The Ending of the Gospel of Mark” for a detailed description.

But then the problem we are faced with is why Mark ends on such a strange note. We could be left with the unsettling conclusion that in this account, probably the first of the four gospels to be written, no one at all saw the risen Christ, and only two women are witnesses to the words of a man who may or may not have been an angel. Not only that, but it appears that those women didn't tell anyone of their experience. That scenario could easily lead to the theory that those subsequent appearances of the resurrected Christ recorded in Matthew, Luke, and John were only later legendary accounts.

So returning to the postulate that Mark's authentic account ends at 16:8, even that opens the door to several possibilities enumerated by Metzger as to why the conclusion to the gospel is so abrupt.

It was Mark's intended ending
As J. Brown states, “the abrupt nature of the ending of Mark (Mk 16:8) made it a fertile area for discussion of narrative closure – or lack thereof in Mark's case.”

Theological Explanations: Most of the reasons given by scholars for such an apparently unsatisfying conclusion seem, at least in my mind, to make much more sense to modern theologians than to the original intended audience. Thus, we have the following explanations:

    “The message of Mark is that there were indeed resurrection appearances, but first the community must share with the trembling women all the feelings of fear, know those fears to be in the final analysis groundless and only then can they hear the voice the women heard – just as he told you.” (Mann)

    “In point of fact, the present ending of Mark is thoroughly consistent with the motifs of astonishment and fear developed throughout the Gospel...With his closing comment he wished to say that 'the gospel of Jesus the Messiah' (ch. 1) is an event beyond human comprehension and therefore awesome and frightening.” (Lane)

    Hugh Anderson says that “their fearful silence eloquently enough proclaims the truth that the first word and the last word of the good news is not anything men or women can say or do, but God's own witness to his Son (verse 7).”

    Perrin agrees with Hooker's assessment that “Mark creates a situation of suspense to force an existential decision: to follow or not to follow Jesus despite the costs...”

    Childs accepts the ending at v. 8 as being purposeful and explains, “Mark's intention is not to evoke faith in unbelievers, but is addressed to the church. Moreover, his purpose appears to be to remind his audience that the need for a believing response to the crucified Lord – a theme which has dominated his whole gospel – had not been changed by the resurrection. The mystery of Christ's revelation as both concealing and revealing his identity continues past the resurrection.”

    Raymond Brown agrees: “Mark's theology is consistent: Even a proclamation of the resurrection does not produce faith without the hearer's personal encounter with suffering and carrying the cross.”

    Yeung says that it is consistent with the observation that “the believing disciples are continuously found to be lacking in faith and understanding (Mk. 4:40; 6:50-52; 8:17-19; 9:19; 16:8).”

    The impossibility of Jesus being hidden is captured in the irony of the last verse of the Gospel (Mk 16:8).” See the “hidden identity of Jesus” theme throughout Mark (1:34; 1:45; 3:12; 5:19-20; 7:36). (Twelftree)

    Mann presents the view of Crossan: “What we have in this pericope is a symbolic representation of the Jerusalem community in the persons of the women. Their failure to communicate the message of the resurrection is a clear representation of the failure of the Jerusalem community (in the persons of the disciples, especially Peter) to accept the call extended by the Risen Lord given to it by the Markan community.” As Mann responds, “It is very difficult to know what to make of this,” and so I won't attempt to enumerate the problems with Crossan's reasoning.

Stylistic Explanations: Others stress that this ending fits in perfectly with Mark's rough and ready, unpolished mode of writing:

    Perrin: “Among the four Gospels, Mark is the most inelegant in terms of style. Starting with an abrupt beginning (Mk 1:1-3) and coming to a close with an even more abrupt ending (Mk 16:8), Mark's Gospel hurdles forward to its climax.” Although I realize that a number of Bible scholars hold to this view of this gospel being an unpolished first draft at best, my own analysis of the literary structure (see the post “Gospel of Mark: Introduction to the Literary Structure”) leads to the exactly opposite conclusion.

    Brown feels that this “may be a suspended ending...where the readers are expected to complete the story from the hint in the text. Then Mark would be offering and communicating a post-resurrection reunion without narrating it. Opponents respond that this is an attractive answer, but one that supposes considerable subtlety.”

    The same criticism applies to Grassmick's comments: “The abrupt ending is consistent with Mark's style...The reader is left to ponder with awe the meaning of the empty tomb as interpreted by the angel's revelatory message.”

Positive Exegetical Explanations:

Finally, there are those, mainly evangelical scholars, who feel that Mark 16:8 has been badly misunderstood for years and actually presents us with a very upbeat ending in which there is no contradiction at all with the other Synoptic accounts.

    Thus, The Living Bible paraphrases Mark 16:8 as “The women fled from the tomb...too frightened to talk.” This wording could easily be understood as indicating only a momentary silence in the heat of the moment, a silence which was soon overcome. Similarly, The Message says, “Stunned, they said nothing to anyone.”

    Short: “This encounter with the angel startled the women, and they fled from the tomb, and temporarily said nothing to anyone...”

    Grassmick: “For a time they said nothing to anyone...”

    The best champion of this intriguing view is probably K.L Anderson: “Mark 16:1-8 points not to discipleship failure, but rather to the role of the women and the other disciples as witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Contrary to the common interpretation of this passage, the women's response in Mark 16:8 should be interpreted positively in light of the young man's words in Mark 16:7...the double negative 'they said nothing to no one' indicates exclusive, not absolute silence on the part of the women.” As proof of this interpretation he cites Mark 1:44 where Jesus tells the cured lepers to 'say nothing to no one,' but instead to talk only to the priest.

    Also in favor of the positive view of the women's reaction is Lane's observation: “Fear is the constant reaction to the disclosure of Jesus' transcendent dignity in the Gospel of Mark (cf. Chs. 4:41; 5:15,33,36; 6:50; 9:6,32).” However, Grassmick also points to the presence of “fear” in 10:32, which does not fit Lane's pattern.

    Also, to those such as above who feel that the women's responses of fear and trembling are actually proper responses of faith, Mann replies that phugeo ('to flee') never has a positive connotation in Mark's Gospel. In support of his contention, see Mark 5:14; 13:14; and 14:50,52.

Mark was interrupted before he had time to complete his writing

Swift expresses this view as well as the following one when he states, “The generally accepted view is either that the Gospel was, very early on, mutilated at the last page, or that Mark was unable to finish, perhaps owing to the rising tide to persecution.”

I will defend the first of these two explanations below. As to Mark being interrupted, only a few scholars hold to this explanation and their scenarios do not make much historical sense.

The original ending was lost accidentally

After reviewing the above two explanations, Metzger settles on this last possibility as the most probable: “the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription.”

But even if a longer version of the Gospel of Mark did indeed exist (as I believe was clearly the case: see my post, “The Ending of the Gospel of Mark”), what are we to make of the fact that there is a clear contradiction between his account saying that the women decided not to tell the disciples what they had seen and heard versus the other gospels stating that they did tell them immediately. Just compare the following parallel accounts of the angel's (or Jesus' in the case of John) words to Mary Magdalene (and other women) at the empty tomb:

    Mark 16:7-8: “'Go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goes before you to Galilee: there you will see him as he said.' And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid.”

    Matthew 28:7-8: “'Go quickly and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and he goes before you to Galilee. There you will see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.”

    Luke 24:7-8: “'He said that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and rise again on the third day.' And they remembered his words, and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven and to the rest.”

    John 20:17-18 has instead Jesus himself speaking to Mary Magdalene after which she “came and told the disciples, 'I have seen the Lord' and what he had told her.”

It is my feeling that the annotation in The Jerusalem Bible for Mark 16:8 may have inadvertently hit upon part of the explanation for the fact that the women did tell the apostles, as the other three accounts attest. That note proposes that Mark “may have deliberately refrained from speaking of it to avoid having to append an account of the apparitions which he had made up his mind to omit.”

While I do not at all agree that Mark purposely decided to omit all the post-resurrection appearances (presumably for theological reasons of his own), JB does point to the fact that if Mark had said along with the other gospels that the women had relayed the information to the apostles, he could have not very well stopped at that point, but would have needed to continue his narration.

So in conclusion, let me propose that the best explanation for the present ending of the gospel at 16:8 is as follows:

    1. The last page(s) or sheet(s) of the original ending of Mark's Gospel, containing post-resurrection material after 16:8, was accidentally lost at an early date but not before some or all of the other evangelists utilized it as the basis for their own conclusions to their accounts.

    2. Verse 16:8 then read something like that in the other accounts: “ And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.”

    3. But this truncated version made no sense as it stood since readers would have then wanted to know how the apostles got word of the message and knew to go to Galilee.

    4. So an editor altered the wording of that verse to avoid having to explain what happened subsequently.

    5. Finally, this new truncated version was felt to be totally unsatisfying to subsequent copyists and so they added various endings of their own to round out the gospel account as best they could.

I will leave my comments at this point and let you decide for yourself.

PROVERBS 20: TYPES OF HEBREW POETRY

 

                                 Proverbs 20 (collage, 1994)

The foundation of all Hebrew poetry in the Old Testament is based two or three lines of roughly the same length with each line expressing the same idea. But in practice, the inspired authors exercised a great deal of freedom in applying this model. A good example is the variety of types of parallelism exhibited in the poetic saying found in Proverbs 20.

Identical, or Synonymous, Parallelism – The parallel lines in a verse express basically the same thought with each element of each line presented in the same order. The last line often expands on the idea in the first.

    “Take a man's garment when he has given surety for a stranger, and

     hold him in pledge      when he gives surety        for foreigners.” (Proverbs 20:16)

Additional examples are seen in verses 9, 18, 23, and 30.

Antithetic Parallelism – Two examples of opposite behavior are compared with one another.

    “Love not sleep, lest you come to   poverty;

     open your eyes, and you will         have plenty of bread.” (Proverbs 20:13)

“The glory of young men is their strength, but

  the beauty of old men    is their gray hair.” (Proverbs 20:29)

Similar examples are found in verses 3 and 6. The presence of “but” linking the two lines is often an indication of this type of parallelism.

Symbolic Parallelism – Similes or metaphors are utilized in one line and restated in literal terms in the other one.

    “The dread wrath of a king is like the growling of a lion; FIGURATIVE

    he who provokes him to anger forfeits his life.” LITERAL (Proverbs 20:2)

    “There is gold, and abundance of costly stones; LITERAL

    but the lips of knowledge are a precious jewel.” FIGURATIVE (Proverbs 20:15)

Introverted, or Chiastic, Parallelism – Each line of the poem expresses the same basic idea, but the elements of each sentence are presented in opposite order.

    “Loyalty and faithfulness

            preserve

                    the king, and

                    his throne

            is upheld

    by righteousness.” (Proverbs 20:28)

The same sort of mirror-image format appears in verses 8 and 24.

Incomplete Parallelism – Each line expresses the same idea, but one of the elements is missing in the second line.

    “ Wine             is   a mocker,

      strong drink (is) a brawler.” (Proverbs 20:1a)

“A wise king winnows                   the wicked,

and (he)        drives the wheel over them.” (Proverbs 20:26)

Note that the verb is omitted in the first example and the subject in the second one. These omissions are often done so that each pair of lines in a verse ends up to be approximately the same length.

Synthetic Parallelism – The second line merely continues the thought of the first line with no duplication. In this case, “parallelism” is really a misnomer. Basically, these are just literal sentences divided in the middle.

“Diverse weights and diverse measures

                                                               are an abomination to the LORD.” (Proverbs 20:10)

“If one curses his father or his mother,

                                                              his lamp will be put out in utter darkness.” (Proverbs 20:20)

Stair-Step Parallelism – This type is similar to synthetic parallelism except for the fact that the last element in the first line has its counterpart in the first element of the second line.

“An inheritance gotten hastily in the beginning

                                                 in the end will not be blessed.” (Proverbs 20:21)

Since the parallel elements here are actually contrasted with one another, this could be considered a mixed type: antithetic stair-step parallelism. Other examples of mixed types in Proverbs 20 are shown below.

Symbolic Antithetic

“The purpose in a man's mind is like deep water,

but a man of understanding will draw it out.” (Proverbs 20:5)

Introverted Antithetic

“'It is bad, it is bad,' says the buyer; but

when he goes away, then he boasts.” (Proverbs 20:14)

Symbolic Introverted

    “The spirit

            of man

                    is the lamp of the LORD,

                    searching

            his

    innermost parts.” (Proverbs 20:27)

As you can see, the various types of parallelism are all at the disposal of the poets to be utilized singly or in combination with one another in creative ways in order to get their points across to the audience in memorable ways.

 

REVELATION 14:6

Despite the opinion of a minority who state that the book of Revelation is very simple to understand, most of us would vehemently disagree. And as an illustration, I chose at random only one verse, and a rather simple one at that, just to see what kind of agreement or disagreement I might find in the scholarly literature regarding its interpretation.

The verse is Rev. 14:6, which reads as follows in the RSV and is typical of most English translations except a few others which I will note later on: “Then I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people.”

“another”

We don't have to proceed very far without running into a controversy, this one being of a textual nature. Most translations read “another” before “angel,” which appears to make little sense since the only previous mention of an angel was way back in Rev. 11:15. But this is the reading attested in all of the earliest Greek manuscripts. Some later papyri leave out this word so that it is translated as “an angel.” This is the approach used in the NEB. There is even one manuscript which reads “an angel, another.” But all other renderings stick with “another” since, in general, textual scholars go with the earliest and well as the most difficult reading. The reasoning behind that last decision is that it is far more likely that a scribe would be tempted to change a wording which is hard to understand into an easier one than vice versa.

But here we encounter a second difference of opinion. Was the deletion of “another” in those other manuscripts carried out purposefully or by accident? Metzger explains that the absence of 'allon is either an accidental omission due to the similarity of its first letters with those of “angel” ('aggelon) or “more probably a deliberate excision owing to its seeming lack of relevancy.” Beale goes along with that explanation.

But if “another” is the original reading, then what does it mean? Morris says, “Perhaps it differentiates this angel from those mentioned later, and another is common in this chapter (verses 8,9 in the best mss, 15, 17, 18).” This is likely since Bruce points out that “allos in a sequence like this is used for both 'one' and 'another.'”

“flying in mid-heaven”

The literal meaning of mesouranem, appearing also in Revelation 8:13 and 19:17, is indeed “mid-heaven.” However, NIV translates it as “midair” while the Jerusalem Bible has “high overhead.” There is probably no great difference between these various renderings. However, there is some disagreement as to the importance of the term. Mounce says that is where it flies “to be seen and heard by all.” Conversely, Ford feels that “mid-heaven” refers to “the zenith, the point of heaven where he was able to see men spread out on the whole face of the earth. His position is symbolic of the universality of his message.”
At this point, one could get into a detailed discussion as to whether this verse teaches that the author believed in a “flat earth,” all of which which one could view from a stationary point up above. But it is sufficient to note that the angel is not stationary at all, but is in flight from above the globe as he circles it.

“an eternal gospel”

This simple phrase actually embroils us in three separate controversies. The first one involves the lack of the definite article “the” before “eternal gospel.” Mounce notes that this is the only place in the NT other than Romans 1:1 where “gospel” is not preceded by “the.” Thus, he feels it implies wrath as being its major emphasis.

Then there is the exact meaning of “eternal” in this context since it is used in Revelation only in this verse. (However, it appears in John's other writings at John 3:15-16,36; 4:14,36; I John 1:2). Here again, opinions vary:

    Beasley-Murray: “The message is called an 'eternal gospel', for the eternal blessings of the good news still remain for those who will respond.”

    Jerusalem Bible translates it as “the Good News of eternity,” although that phrase in itself is a bit ambiguous.

    Beale: “Here the 'gospel' is called 'eternal' because it is immutable and permanently valid...The 'eternal gospel' could be in intentional contrast to the temporary gospel of Caesar” since 'gospel' was also used by the Romans in relation to the reigns of both Augustus and Vespasian. Ford agrees with this assessment.

    Mounce: “It is an eternal gospel in that it sets forth the eternal purpose of God for man. It relates to judgment and salvation in the coming eternal age.”

    Ellul: “The text tells us that it is an eternal good news: which is to say that it was before the creation and that it is brought to realization beyond...the good news that God always willed to give to men and which does not change.”

    “Swete suggests 'a gospel which has had an age-long history,' with which he compares Rom 16:25, or 'a gospel belonging to, stretching forward to, the eternal order.'” (Ford)

    Phillips: “It is everlasting because it has to do with eternal verities.”

All of the above prepares us for an even greater spread of opinions regarding the meaning of 'gospel':

    Beale: “The angel is a messenger not primarily of grace but of judgment...The wrathful nature of this angel and his 'gospel' is suggested by the similarity to the messenger of the three woes in 8:13.” The only problem with using 8:13 as a parallel is the fact that the messenger there is said to be an eagle rather than an angel, although some manuscripts do read “angel.”

    Bruce notes that “an eagle as heavenly messenger, although not found elsewhere in canonical scripture, appears in other apocalyptic writings (cf. 2 Esd. 11:1) and in Christian apocrypha.” And Metzger adds, “The substitution may have been accidental (a scribe misread 'aetou as 'aggelou), but more likely was deliberate, since the function ascribed to the eagle seems more appropriate to an angel (cf. 14.6).”

    Ford: “This phrase ['eternal gospel'] should not be translated as if the Gospel were meant. The gospel referred to here is the proclamation of the impending end of the world, bringing good tidings to the faithful and bad to the nations...Caird thinks that the proclamation means martyrdom. The 'great martyrdom', then, is the earthly reality which corresponds to the flight of the angel.”

    Morris: “At first sight there is not much of the 'good news' about the message this angel rings. But two things should be said. One is that judgment is a necessary implication of the gospel (cf. Rom. ii.16). The words in fact constitute a last appeal for repentance from those about to be judged (cf. Mk. I.15, Acts xiv.15, etc.). The other is that John was writing to Christians facing persecution. For them it was indeed good news that all men, their persecutors included, would be called upon to give account of themselves, and that the time of the power of evil was determined.”

    Bruce: “The gospel which is preached to them [i.e. those in rebellion against God] calls for submission to God as Creator and Judge rather than faith in Christ as Savior and Lord.”

    Walvoord: “Because of the word 'gospel,' some have felt that this was a message of salvation or the good news of the coming kingdom. The context, however, seems to indicate otherwise, for the message is one of judgment and condemnation...So the 'eternal' message seems to be a message of God's righteousness and judgment rather than a message of salvation.”

    Mounce: “It is not the gospel of God's redeeming grace in Christ Jesus...It is a final appeal to all men to recognize the one true God.”

    Ruiz: “'Eternal gospel' is the message or proclamation that follows in v. 7, an announcement that God's judgment is imminent.”

    Jerusalem Bible: “Before God's vengeance strikes, the angels appear to exhort the persecutors to repentance by proclaiming the hour of judgment; but the appeal goes unheeded, cf. 16:2,9,11,21.”

    deSilva feels that “repentance...is synonymous with the call to 'fear God and give God honor' (Rev 14:6-7; cf. 11:13) – thus an acknowledgment of God's legitimate claim on our lives and a repudiation of the illegitimate claims made by society's gods and rulers.”

“to those who live on earth”

Bruce: “The earth-dwellers are here designated by a different verb from that used in 3:10, etc.; for this use of Gk. kathemai (literally 'sit') cf. Lk. 21:35.

Beale: In 14:6, those addressed are described as 'sitting' on the earth rather than 'dwelling' as in 8:13. “The two phrases appear to be synonyms...The substitution of 'sitting' for 'dwelling' in 14:6 may emphasize even more the permanent and self-confident nature is the commitment to the worldly value system, as opposed to God's value system.”

I think that Beale is on the right track here, and his interpretation may be confirmed by the famous downward progression pictured in Psalm 1:1 as one to avoid:

        “Happy are those who do not

                walk in the counsel of the wicked,

                stand in the path of sinners, or

                sit in the seat of scoffers.”

The Anchor Bible strangely translates kathemai as follows: “preach to those who are enthroned on the earth.” This rendering could possibly refer to preaching to the rulers of the earth, which would fit with the mention of “kings” in Rev. 10:11 (see below).

“to every nation and tribe and language and people.”

The audience of the proclamation is now specifically defined to include every one on earth. The fact that exactly four terms are used arises from the well-known symbolic use of “four” in the context of the earth ( as in the four winds, four corners of the earth, four rivers flowing from Eden, four living creatures in heaven, etc.). And to take the symbolism yet further, it turns out that there are exactly seven (a number standing for completeness) such lists of four given in Revelation, never appearing in the same order.

                Tribe, language, people, nation (5:9)

                Nation, tribe, people, language (7:9)

                People, nation, language, king (10:11)

                People, tribe, language, nation (11:9)

                Tribe, people, language, nation (13:7)

                Nation, tribe, language, people (14:6)

                People, multitude, nation, language (17:15)

The first two occurrences above refer specifically to those saved while the remaining five also include those who need to repent.

Context

The above does not exhaust the opinions regarding Revelation 14:6. We must next determine how this particular verse and its proclamation fits into the overall scheme of future events. I have not space here to canvass all the various proposed eschatolological scenarios. However, here are just a few of the many points of view regarding that issue:

    Robert Clouse explains that Joachim of Fiore (AD 1132-1200) “divided the world into three epochs: the age of the Father until the time of Christ; that of the Son from the birth of Christ to 1260; and that of the Holy Ghost from 1260 onward. (The number 1260 is derived from Revelation 11:3 and 12:6). Joachim called this the 'everlasting gospel,' an expression taken from Revelation 14:6.” During this final time period, the earth would be covered with monasteries where one could contemplate God and His glory.

    From that extreme view of a past fulfillment, we can move to the opposite extreme in Jacques Ellul who asks, “Are we in the presence of a final judgment or of a judgment that is exercised every day...? I believe that we cannot eliminate one of the two and make a choice.”

    Typical of premillennial eschatology is the opinion of Payne, who feels this prophecy will be fulfilled during the time of the raptured church returning with Christ to Jerusalem. However, “the opportunity for salvation [is] still held out after Christ's return to the earth.”

    Phillips, another premillennialist, says, “This proclamation is God's last call to the Gentiles. It is given during the great tribulation, and many are saved by it...This everlasting gospel is only a very small portion of the gospel which is preached today. Its message is designed for the terrible hour of the beast's triumph, but it contains the essence of the gospel in any age, namely a living faith in a living God...Angels do not preach the gospel of the grace of God, but they do preach the gospel of the government of God.”

    The amillennialist Beasley-Murray writes, “All the nations are summoned to repentance and the worship of God...This oracle of the gospel to all the nations parallels Matthew's thought in the Great Commission (Matt. 24:14; 28:19-20) to record the final fulfillment of Mk. 13:10.”

Luter says that the proclamation seems “to establish that the conversion of the nations...in the midst of great suffering and martyrdom echoes the Synoptics as much as prior Jewish thought and expectation.”

Conclusion

If there is this much controversy regarding one single verse in the Revelation, you can just imagine the confusion regarding the “more difficult” portions of the book.

 

ORGANIZATION OF PROVERBS 9 AND 10

The first nine chapters of Proverbs are organized to tell a consistent story, but starting with Chapter 10 we begin running into what look like random collections of sayings only loosely arranged by themes, poetic types, or key words. But even in this chapter, there is a literary structure that ties the individual proverbs together. The two figures below are slight adaptations of Bruce Waltke's proposed arrangements changed to better bring out the symmetries present.

                               Proverbs 9 (collage, 1994)

 

                                                Figure 1: The Organization of Proverbs 9

    A. Lady Wisdom (vv. 1-6)

        1. She calls out from the high places in town (1-3)

            2. “You who are simple, turn in here. To those without sense she says...” (4)

                3. Bread and wine are promised (5)

                    4. “Live!” (6)

                        B. Consequences to the Wise and the Scoffers (vv. 7-12)

                            1. Scoffers (7-8a)

                                2. The wise man (8b-9)

                                    3. Fear of the Lord (10)

                                2'. The wise man (11-12a)

                            1'. Scoffers (12b)

    A'. Woman Folly (vv. 13-18)

        1. She calls out from the high places in town (13-15)

            2. “You who are simple, turn in here. To those without sense she says...” (16)

                3. Stolen water and bread are promised (17)

                    4. Die! (18)

    (a) Note the appropriate central verse in the chapter. This all-important teaching that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom is also found in Proverbs 1:7; 15:33; and 31:30 as well as Job 28:28 and Psalm 111:10.

    (b) Wisdom builds her own house (A1) while the foolish woman only sits in front of hers (A'1).

    (c) The phrase “does/do not know” appears at the opening and closing of Section A'.

    (d) The appearance of “scoffers” in verses 7 and 12 similarly unifies Section B.

                                 Proverbs 10 (collage, 1994)

 

The most unifying feature of this chapter is the predominant use of proverbs which contain contrasts between the behavior of and consequences for the righteous and the wicked. Beyond that point, there is perhaps some further underlying organization as shown below:

                                               Figure 2: Organization of Proverbs 10

        A. Earthly consequences of behavior (1-5)

                B. Appropriate speech (6-14)

        A'. Earthly consequences of behavior (15-16)

                        C. The path to life (17)

                B'. Appropriate speech (18-21)

        A''. Eternal consequences of behavior (22-30)

                B''. Appropriate speech (31-32)

  (a) The central verse here contains basically the same message as the central verse in Proverbs 9. The whole verse reads: “Whoever heeds instruction is on the path to life, but one who rejects a rebuke goes astray.”

    (b) Warnings to the lazy are found in A (vv. 4-5) and A'' (v. 26).

    (c) Images of wealth and lack of wealth are concentrated in sections A, A', and A''.

    (d) Waltke proposes the following structure for Proverbs 10:22-30a:

                1. Yahweh saying + “add” (ysp) (22)

                        2. Joy (sehoq, “laughter”) (23-24)

                                3. Righteous secure “forever” ('olam) (25b)

                1'. Yahweh saying + “add” (ysp) (27)

                        2'. Joy (simha, “joy”) (28-29)

                                3'. Righteous secure “forever” ('olam) (30a)

In order to achieve this neat parallel structure, he needs to delete 25a and 30b. But by including those lines, one obtains a more accurate if slightly more complicated organization for the whole:

        1. Yahweh saying + “add” (22)

                2'. Joy (28-29)

                                3. “The wicked are no more” (25a)

                                    4. Righteous secure forever (25b)

        1'. Yahweh saying + add” (27)

            2'. Joy (28-29)

                                    4'. Righteous secure forever (30a)

                                3'. “The wicked will not remain” (30b)

Waltke is actually representative of a number of commentators who recognize the widespread existence of two types of literary arrangements in the Bible: parallel cycles and mirror-image (chiastic) organizations and try to force-fit texts into one of those two molds. That is at least better than those who only recognize the existence of chiastic structures. But if one lets the texts speak for themselves, often combinations of these two types are seen to be present within the same section, as pictured above.