CAN IDOLATORS BE RIGHTEOUS? (ISAIAH 57:12)

Can idolaters be righteous? (Isaiah 57:12)

Obviously the answer to this question is “No.” However, that is apparently just what God tells Isaiah to say to the straying people of Israel in Isaiah 57, at least according to the following literal translations of verse 12a.

    KJV: “I will declare thy righteousness and thy works.”

    RSV: “I will tell of your righteousness and your doings.”

    NRSV: “I will concede your righteousness and your works.”

    AB: I will declare your righteousness and your deeds.”

There is one textual problem to address before proceeding any further. Apparently those translators of the ancient Syriac version had a lot of trouble calling the people of Isaiah 57 righteous. Thus, they substituted “my righteousness” in place of “your righteousness” so that God would be the one referred to instead. No Hebrew text or other version goes to this extreme, and Oswalt concludes: “It is not God's righteousness that is under discussion here but the righteousness that he expects his servants to display (cf. 56:1).”

Who is his audience here? Verses 3-21 are actually addressed to the majority of Israelites at the time who happened to engage in some very non-righteous activities. Here is how some scholarly commentators characterize these works and activities:

    “The general character of this idolatry is clear: it was the old Canaanite fertility cult with all its several rites and rituals, together with child sacrifice to Molech (5,9)...Verse 10 shows how persistent all this idolatry was, in spite of its meager rewards.” (Payne)

    McKenzie feels it applies to various superstitious rites including necromancy.

    “God calls them 'sons of a sorceress” (v. 3) because of their involvement in soothsaying and black magic (cf. 3:2)...Isaiah's strongest words in verses 3-13 are leveled against the sin of idolatry. Israel had rebelled against God and sneered at Him (v. 4) while having a love affair with other gods...Neither God's judgment nor His saving power had been seen in years, and so Israel easily forgot Him. (Wolf)

In addition to all these described sins of those being denounced in the bulk of the chapter, we see in the first three verses of Isaiah 57 that they are specifically being contrasted with the truly righteous (same Hebrew root as in v. 12) Jews, who are rapidly disappearing. Oswalt explains that sad fact as follows: “Evil has become so rampant in society and its end is so near that God in his mercy is removing the righteous from it. Thus the disappearance of the righteous from the society should be a signal to everyone that the critical stage has arrived and that the moment for drastic corrective action is at hand.”

But adding to these sins, they can also be accused of hypocrisy and syncretism:

    Whybray says that “these people evidently claim to worship Yahweh as well as other gods; otherwise there would be no point in the prophet's attack..we must presume that the idolaters combined their idolatrous practices with assiduous performance of the outward forms of the worship of Yahweh, and so claimed to possess righteousness, and consequently the right to call on him for help.”

    “The use of righteousness here [57:12]...suggests again that it is not a denial of Yahweh that is being talked about. Rather it is a paganization of that faith that is subtle enough so that the worshipers are able to delude themselves into thinking that their rituals and incantations, their sexual acrobatics and their child sacrifices, are all pleasing to the Lord.”
All of the above adds up to the fact that calling these people “righteous” in Isaiah 57:12 makes absolutely no sense if taken at face value. But, of course, it was not meant by the author to be taken literally at all, as we can see by the translations below. Some of them manage to convey this intended idea by replacing the verb “declare” with a more descriptive term:

    JB: “But now I will expose this integrity of yours.”

    NIV: “I will expose your righteousness and your works.”

And to make it even more clear, the Jerusalem Bible adds a footnote to this verse reading “ironical.” Blankinsopp does the same thing in commenting on his literal Anchor Bible translation quoted above by stating that it is “probably sarcastic.”

The Living Bible accomplishes the same thing by making it clear that their righteousness is really so-called righteousness:

    “And then there is your 'righteousness' and your 'good works.'”

Finally, to make the original intent of the verse abundantly clear, there are those translations which include at least two tip-offs:

    TEV: You think that what you do is right, but I will expose your conduct.”

    NEB: “Now I will denounce your conduct that you think so righteous.”

    The Message: “I'll go over in detail by detail all your 'righteous' attempts at religion and expose the absurdity of it all.”

Through my experiences living in four completely different parts of the country, I have found that unless one is within commuting distance of major urban centers such as New York City or Los Angeles, one may run into people who have a great deal of trouble with indirect means of communication such as parody, irony, or sarcasm. This class of person tends to take written language very seriously at face value and fails to understand how in the world something could mean the exact opposite of what it says. Then there are others I have known who understand that fact perfectly well but feel it is a rather cruel way of communicating and beneath Christians to indulge in. And if one were to suggest that even the prophets and God himself utilize sarcasm, for example, they would be horrified.

But in fact, there is even a well known genre in the Bible called the “taunt song” in which even more extensive examples of sarcastic irony are found.

Longman discusses the particular sort of irony found in the Bible, called “stable irony” by Booth. He says there are four characteristics of this category. They are listed below along with their relevance to Isaiah 57:12:

    1. It is intended by the author. An assertion of something with the purpose of having it rejected.

The author's rejection in clearly indicated by the last half of the verse: “But they [their righteousness and works] will not help you.”

    2. The author (and narrator) do not openly admit it is ironic.

One must read the rest of the chapter in order to confirm that the speaker's words cannot be simply taken at face value.

    3. “There is a limit as to how deeply they displace the surface meaning of the text.”

In other words, Isaiah does not totally deny that his audience possesses righteousness. But in reality, it is self-righteousness, not true righteousness.

    4. They are limited in scope and do not affect all the text.

Thus, out of the 21 verses in Isaiah 57, only the first half of verse 12 is ironical.

In terms of parallel passages found elsewhere in the OT and NT, Kidner states, “The whole passage is a fit companion to Ho. 1-3 and Lk. 13:34f.” And then there is Isaiah 64:6, which says: “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy cloth.” Or we might consider Paul's statement in Romans 10:3 – “For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.”

I would like to close with a quote of Oswalt's as a current application of Isaiah's words:

    “Thus today, out-and-out denial of biblical faith is rarely a problem. The problem is the prostitution of it. We mingle it with its sworn enemies to such a degree that it is nothing more than a shell of itself, and then we wonder why it has no power to move us and no stability to hold us. We call it righteousness, but it is really abomination (cf. 66:3).”

These prophetic words were written 25 years ago and have even more applicability today than when they were first penned.

 

 

 

 

 

JESUS WITH OTHERS IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

It is said that a person is known by the company he keeps. If so, it is of interest to know whom Jesus is associated with, as revealed in the Gospel of Matthew. For simplicity sake, I will limit this brief study to just those passages in which the preposition meta (“with”) is present. And this includes 21 references.

    1:18 “When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph...she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.”

    1:23 “And they shall name him Emmanuel, which means, 'God is with us.'”

    2:11 “...going into the house they [the wise men] saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him.”

These first three references actually cover the Holy Trinity with their respective mentions of the Holy Spirit, Christ, and God – the last one since only God himself is worthy of worship.

    9:11 “...the Pharisees...said to his disciples, 'Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?'” This passage is interesting since it shows the common tendency of God-fearing people to consider themselves in an entirely different category from all the “sinners” around them. And generally that definition is applied to those who are guilty of those sins which hold no particular attraction for us personally. But, as C.S. Lewis reminds us, there are all sorts of sin, some which make us closer to the beasts (sins of passion and lust) and others which draw us closer to the demons (“spiritual” sins of self-righteousness and judgmental attitude).

    9:15 “And Jesus said to them, 'Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?” Here he is really announcing that his time on earth will be very limited.

    16:27 “For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.” In this announcement of the Second Coming, Jesus pictures himself as the Judge.

    17:3 “And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah talking with him.” In this theophany, the glorified Christ is shown to be the fulfillment of both the Law and the Prophets.

    17:17 “And Jesus answered, 'O faithless and perverse generation, how long am I to be with you?” As Hendricksen says, “The fact that he directed his complaint to the 'generation' shows that he cannot have been thinking only of the nine disciples who had failed in this emergency.” However, these disciples were certainly the prime targets of his critical comments.

    24:30 “...they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” This is seemingly the only “with” reference in Matthew's Gospel in which it is something rather than someone with whom Jesus is associated.

However, as Betz points out, “God is the Mighty One (Lk. 1:48); and, according to Mk. 14:62, Jesus himself used the reverential circumlocution of 'the power' for the name of God. In a similar manner, Aalen says that the Septuagint translates the Hebrew kabod ('glory, honor') with the Greek word doxa “and gives it essentially the same meaning. When it is used of God, it does not mean God in his essential nature, but the luminous manifestation of his person, his glorious revelation of himself.”

    24:31 “and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds...” This dubious passage can perhaps be eliminated from this study for two reasons: (1) a trumpet is definitely an inanimate object and (2) it is not really clear if the one with the trumpet is Christ, God the Father, or an angel (see I Corinthians 15:52 and I Thessalonians 4:16 for the last possibility).

    26:11 “For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.” This sounds like a somewhat unfeeling comment, but as Nixon says, “The reaction of the disciples, 'Why this waste?', is understandable enough. Yet devotion to the person of Jesus has often in the long run produced the greatest benefit for the poor.”

    26:18 “My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.”

    26:20 “When it was evening, he sat at table with the twelve disciples.”

    26:29 “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”

These three references concern Jesus and the Twelve at the Last Supper.

    26:36 “Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane.”

    26:38 “...remain here and watch with me.”

    26:40 “So you could not watch with me one hour?”

    26:51 “And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear.”

    26:69 “And a maid came up to him [Peter] and said, 'You also were with Jesus the Galilean.”

    26:71 “...another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders, 'This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.'”

The disciples repay Jesus' great desire to be with them in his last hours on earth with acts of betrayal, denial, inattention, violence, and abandonment.

    28:20 “...lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Despite their above treatment of Jesus, he reassures them at the end that he will always be with them. So the book closes as it began in Matthew 1:23 with the first mention of Jesus as “God with us.”

One final observation is in order. In looking at these scattered references to Jesus being with someone in the order in which they appear, a clear pattern emerges:

                                        Figure 1: Jesus and meta in Matthew's Gospel

A. Christ's deity revealed (1:18,23; 2:11)

        B. Jesus eats with sinners (9:11)

                C. Jesus hints at his coming absence from his followers (9:15)

                        D. The Second Coming (16:27)

A'. Christ's deity revealed (17:3)

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

E. “How long must I be with you?” (17:17)

                        D'. The Second Coming (24:30-31)

                C'. Jesus hints at his coming absence from his followers (26:11)

        B'. Jesus eats with his disciples who repeatedly fail (9x in 26:18-71)

E'. “I am with you always” (28:20)

There are exactly 7 cases of Jesus being “with” someone in the first half of this structure and 14 in the second half (if one includes the dubious reference in 24:31. This piece of data would be in keeping with Matthew's penchant for including symbolically significant number such as 7 and 12, and their multiples in his Gospel account. Even more significant, however, is the lessons we can learn from comparing the parallel passages in Figure 1 above:

A and A': Combining these two passages, we learn two important things regarding Christ's divinity: (1) He is an integral part of the Holy Godhead and (1) He is the fulfillment of both the OT law and all the prophets.

B and B': These two passages show Jesus' willingness, and even desire, to have table fellowship with sinners. And these included the “moral” and the “immoral” members of society, all of whom needed his help.

C and C': Both teach that Jesus was well aware of his imminent suffering and death and that he attempted to warn his followers ahead of time so that they would not be caught off-guard when the event occurred.

D and D': I will not attempt to delve into all the various theories regarding exactly which event or events are being referred to in these passages. However, it is fairly obvious that these are both eschatological happenings.

E and E': I find this the most amazing pair of passages in that even after expressing his frustration and anger at those around him, especially his chosen Apostles, after Christ has risen, he promises that he will never leave them alone.

 

EBENEZER (I SAMUEL 7:12)

One classic hymn I always had my doubts about was “Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing.” It contains the obscure line: “Here I raise my Ebenezer, hither by Thy help I'm come.” I was never sure what my Ebenezer consisted of and whether I would be comfortable raising it, especially in church. But now I have looked into it and found the following, in case you happen to be curious. The word appears only three times in the Bible (all in I Samuel 4-7) and the Hebrew literally translates as “stone of the help.” It was erected by Samuel to commemorate a victory over the Philistines. Because it is such an obscure reference, modern hymn versions have changed the words to “Here I raise my sign of victory” instead. Probably a well-needed change as far as I am concerned.

Here is the biblical background to this reference. The first mention of 'Ebenezer' appears in I Samuel 4:1 where it is the name of the town at which the Israelite troops encamped before engaging in battle with the nearby Philistine army. The Jews were badly defeated at that encounter, and the ark of the covenant was even captured by the enemy. The Philistines next transport the ark to Ashdod from 'Ebenezer' (the second appearance of the word, I Samuel 5:1).

The Philistines returned the ark to Israel after it had wreaked havoc on their populace, and twenty years later the Israelites prepared to defend themselves against another Philistine attack. This time the battle took place at Mizpah, and the Jews are victorious because they relied on God to save them. In commemoration of this event, they set up a remembrance stone near Mizpah, and Samuel named it “Ebenezer.”

Regarding this general custom, The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery remarks that “stone is strong and seems, at least from the vantage point of a human life span, unaffected by time. This makes it suitable to bear God's words (Ex 24:12), to make boundary markers (Josh 15:6) or to form commemorations of covenants or events (Gen 31:45-54; Ex 24:4; I Sam 6:18; 7:12)...” And Meier adds, “The vb.['set up'] figures prominently in describing the spatial requisites of the cult. One sets up idols...in the same way that one puts into place legitimate cultic monuments (Gen 28:18,22; I Sam 7:12).” There appear to be two general ways of explaining the name given to the stone.

Underlying Hebrew Meaning of Ebenezer

The first approach concentrates solely on the meaning of the word “Ebenezer.” Thus, Baldwin says, “Samuel's stone recalled not the names of the the dead but the living Lord God, the Helper of his people. Ebenezer means 'a stone of help' or 'stone of the Helper', a name frequently applied to the Lord (e.g. the refrain 'He is their help and their shield' in Ps. 115:9-11).”

Murphy: “Samuel does one thing that, as he saw it, was as good as raising a standing army to match the Philistines: Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen and called its name Ebenezer...Augustine interprets Samuel's comment in relation to etymology: he thinks Ebenezer meant 'stone of the helper.' For Augustine, the stone, set up on the new border between the Philistine and the Israelite settlement, represents the choice of direction the Israelite had to make: a 'material kingdom' or authentic happiness 'in the kingdom of heaven.'”

Reference to a Place-Name

“Sometimes stones were named for events that took place at the site or for a nearby village, like Samuel's 'stone of help' (eben ha'azer, I Sam 7:12; cf. Gen 28:18; 35:14-15; Josh 18:17; I Sam 20:19).” (Hill)

The problem with that explanation is that the victorious battle took place near Mizpah, And as Porter points out, the Ebenezer “cannot be the Ebenezer of 4:1, which is much too far from Mizpah.” That opens the door to several alternative explanations:

Way: “The stone was probably given the same name as the site of Israel's earlier defeat [see I Samuel 4:1-22] in order to encourage the impression that that defeat had now been reversed. The exact site of the stone is unknown.”

Payne: “Although the sites cannot be precisely identified, it is possible that the earlier Philistine victory (4:1f) occurred near a different Ebenezer. If so, Samuel deliberately gave the name in view of its meaning, to the new battle-site.”

McCarter: “The relationship of this Ebenezer, located N of Mizpah, to the site of the great battle in c. 4 is problematic...But it is clear that a certain symmetry is intended between the two battles of Ebenezer...” As partial confirmation of the “certain symmetry,” consider the organization of the section (defended in my post “Samuel-Kings: Introduction to the Literary Structure”) in which both of these battles are described :

Figure 1: Organization of I Samuel 1-7

            1. Samuel’s family from Ramah worships God; Eli's prayer is answered (1:1-23)

                        2. Samuel is brought to the priest Eli (1:24-28)

3. Hannah and Eli (2:1-20)

4. Prophecy against Eli’s house (2:21-4:1a)

4'. Eli’s house is destroyed (4:1b-6:12)

3'. The people and the ark (6:13-20)

2'. Ark brought to the priest Abinadab (6:21-7:2)

1'. Worship of God; Samuel’s prayers are answered and he returns to Ramah (7:3-17)

The first mention of Ebenezer is found at the exact center of this symmetrical literary organization (v. 4:1), and the last appears almost at the end of the final section 1'. According to the rules of rhetoric, these two spots, along with the opening words, are generally where the most important information is placed.

Conclusion

But there is really no reason to make a choice between these two alternative explanations for Ebenezer, as pointed out by Tsumura:

“There is also a town or city by that name located near Aphek, where Israel was earlier defeated by the Philistines (4:1; 5:1), but there is no reason to identify these as one and the same. Perhaps Samuel named the stone after the place-name 'Ebenezer' with the earlier experience in chs. 4-5 in mind so that the people might always be reminded of God's special help ('ezer) in this time and at this place. The name 'the stone Ezer' is not unusual as a place-name, and it is certainly a reminder of God's powerful intervention in the history of Israel as well as her former failure at the other 'Ebenezer.'”

THANKSGIVING IN THE BIBLE

I may be a little late for Thanksgiving Day with a post on this subject, but any time of year is a good one for remembering what God has done in our lives and turn to him with thankful hearts. As is usual in doing any word study in the Bible, we need to deal with a situation in which both Hebrew and Greek terminology is present. And even within either of those two languages, there is likely to be more than one word related to the concept, with each synonym conjuring up a slightly different nuance to the subject.

With that in mind, here are some of the main biblical words conveying the idea of thanks or thankfulness, beginning with those in Hebrew:

halal = praise, exult

“The root meaning..is connected with making a noise.” (Wallace) The word is perhaps best known as part of hallelujah [“praise Yahweh]. Allen notes, “How to praise God adequately was a challenge that was met in a number of ways. First, a promise of endless adoration was added to present praise...(Ps 146:2)...Second, musical instruments and dancing could reinforce vocal praise (149:3; cf. 150:3-5). Third, a rhetorical call to praise could be issued to the rest of the world...(117:1).” This call was even extended to all the created entities of earth and heaven in Psalm 148.

yadah = confess, thank, praise, stretch out the hand, acknowledge

This word “was originally associated with the bodily actions and gestures which accompany praising,” according to Wallace. But Allen states, “The vb. primarily refers to an acknowledgment...the praise may be of a general type, but it tends to be specific, the giving of thanks for resolution of a recent crisis. This occurs mainly in the Psalms...” The word huyyedot, meaning songs of praise or a choir of singing, is derived from the verb yadah.

todah = confession, thanksgiving, choir, thank offering

“A temple ritual gave structure to such giving of thanks...It is mentioned in contexts of thanksgiving at Ps 107:22; 116:17...Israel misconstrued the other sacrifices as gifts to God that made him obliged to them, whereas the thank offering was always given out of a sense of divine grace.” (Allen) I wonder how many Christians today misconstrue the often-used phrase “tithes and offerings” in a similar manner, giving the former out of a sense of duty and the latter as a result of the praiseworthy goodness of our heart.

ramam = exalt, lift up, raise up

“People are to exalt (lift up) the name of God for all his wondrous deeds and worship him as king (Exod 15:2; 99:5,9; Isa 25:1).” (Smith and Hamilton) But that does not mean that God Himself needs lifting up, since He is already as high and exalted as possible (see Psalm 61:2; Isaiah 6:1; Job 22:12).

shabach = praise, glorify, commend, honor

“In hymns it introduces a section of praise at Ps 147:12, and a rhetorical call to the nations to praise God at 117:1. In a solo hymn it appears in an exhortation that praise of God be transmitted from each generation to the next, for his work in creation and in redemptive history (145:4). In a psalm of confidence God is praised for his (covenant) love, which is rated as a greater boon than life itself (63:3-4). In a communal lament a petition for deliverance looks forward to consequent praise of God, once it is answered (106:47 = I Chron 16:35).” (Allen)

When we move on to the world of the New Testament, we can often use the Septuagint of the OT to see which Greek words were considered by the translators at the time to be approximate counterparts of the Hebrew originals.

aineo = praise

This word is often used in the OT Septuagint to render the Hebrew halal, and occasionally it even substitutes for yadah and shabach. When it comes to NT usage, aineo is only found eight times. Schultz explains, “This word group is preferred...where it is a question of the formal praise of God in thanksgivings, prayers and hymns...This praise is given in the present, but reaches its full development in the new creation (Phil. 1:11; Rev. 19:5).”

charis = grace, favor, thanks, joy

One of the lesser known uses of this word occurs when Paul employs it at crucial points in his letters to praise God for his many gracious acts. See the exclamation: “but thanks be to God” in passages such as Romans 6:17; 7:25; I Corinthians 15:57; and II Corinthians 2:14; 8:16; 9:15. (Esser)

eucharistia = thank, be thankful, give freely

Here we have a compound word derived from eu (well, rightly, properly, very) and charis (see above, especially with the meaning of 'joy'). It is from this word that we get the term “Eucharist” for the communion service.

“In the New Testament, eucharistein (lit. 'to give thanks') is the favorite word, implying on the part of the person who praises the attitude of one more intimate with the person praised than in the more formal eulogein, 'to bless'.” (Wallace)

Esser says that its use in classical Greek referred to both a thankful attitude and its expression by showing gratitude. Eucharisteo appears throughout the Gospels and Epistles in a variety of settings. In all but three cases, it applies to thanks to God rather than to human beings.

Here are some of the main points made by Esser in his detailed study of this word group:

“These words are very common in the introductions to the Pauline letters. Whatever detailed admonition and criticism may follow, the apostle frequently writes in his introductory greeting of his thankfulness to God for those to whom he is writing.”

“When Paul summoned his readers to thanksgiving amidst his exhortations he normally used the noun. The term is always used absolutely; this marks out thanksgiving and the showing of gratitude as basic and lasting elements of the Christian life...No petition and intercession can be made without simultaneous thanksgiving.”

“Paul frequently mentions praise for general and specific gifts of grace, for increasing grace (2 Cor. 4:15), for a share 'in the inheritance of the saints in light' (Col. 1:12), for the reception of the word preached by man as the word of God (I Thess. 2:13), for the gift of tongues (I Cor. 14:18).”

“1 Thess. 3:9f. shows Paul planning to put thanksgiving into practice...The failure of any such activity shows the inadequate knowledge of God among the heathen (Rom. 1:21).”

exomologeomai = profess, confess, give glory, acknowledge in the honor of

This word can be used either to confess sins on in the honor of a person. Thus, the latter “is the significance in the Lord's address to the Father, 'I thank (Thee),' in Matt. 11:25 and Luke 10:21, the meaning being 'I make thankful confession' or 'I make acknowledgment with praise.'” (Vine)

anthomologeomai = confess correspondingly, acknowledge fully

This word appears in Luke 2:38 to define Anna's praise with thanksgiving at hearing the news of Jesus' birth. The root word homologeomai is found in Hebrews 13:15, which reads, “Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.” In this same verse, aineo appears in the phrase “sacrifice of praise.” Thus, we see two references back to the OT use of todah as both thanks and thank offering. Only in this case, as Schultz notes, “the Christian's sacrifice is contrasted with Jewish sacrifices (cf. 7:12f with Heb. 13:10ff).”

There are two take-away lessons I derive from this brief canvassing of the subject: (1) The hard-and-fast distinction in prayer between praise (for who God is is) and thanksgiving (for what He has done) should probably be erased since the two are closely entwined, and (2) Thanksgiving to God does not involve mere lip service, but actions as well. And even our prayers should be considered as a sacrifice to Him.

 

BOAZ AND JACHIN (I KINGS 7:21 // II CHRONICLES 3:15-17)

Most Bible readers will recognize Boaz as the name of Ruth's husband and an ancestor of David. But what about Jachin (also transliterated from the Hebrew as Jakin and Yachin)? Actually, in the parallel passages given above, both of these names refer not primarily to people, but to two 27-ft high, hollow bronze pillars that stood on either side of the entryway to Solomon's Temple.

There are two puzzling things about these pillars: what was their function and what did the names stand for? But there is one thing upon which most Bible scholars are in almost complete agreement: the answers to these two questions remain unsure:

    O'Kennedy: “Scholars have a wide variety of opinions concerning the names of the two pillars.

    McKelvey: “Their purpose remains indeterminate.”

    LaSor: “Numerous suggestions have been made concerning [their] names...all suggestions are largely speculative”

    Hubbard: “Sadly, the many options yield no certain conclusion at this time.”

    G.H. Jones: “Attempts to explain the meaning of these two names and to interpret the significance of the pillars are too numerous to be listed.”

    House: “It is not entirely clear what these pillars represent.”

    Martin: “The names Jakin and Boaz are much debated.”

But wherever the biblical text is a bit ambiguous, as in this case, you can be sure that commentators will attempt to fill the void even if some of the explanations may seem a bit far-fetched. Thus, we have the following opinions regarding the function and naming of these pillars:

Function

“They were cressets [metal cups or baskets, often mounted to or suspended from a pole, containing something flammable and a rope wick] where the fat of the sacrifices was burnt.” (G.H. Jones)

“Based on the closest parallels, such as the 'Ain Dara temple, it would appear that they supported the roof of the porch.” (Monson)

In contrast to Monson, Wiseman says that the pillars were “free-standing,” and McKelvey states “they were not part of the structure.”

LaSor cites the design of the Baal temple at Tyre as a model and notes, “It has been suggested that the pillars in front of Solomon's Temple may have contained a sacred fire reminding the Israelites of the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night of the wilderness period.” In agreement with these respective contentions, (a) Howard similarly suggests that Phoenician and Canaanite structures of the period were in mind when Hiram (from Tyre) constructed the temple for Solomon, and (b) Martin notes that “Albright and others suggest that these capitals contained fire which lit up the area and emitted smoke symbolic of Yahweh's presence.”

Names

They were named for the favorable comments of the craftsman who completed them – Yakin ('it is solid') and Boaz ('with strength').

In view of Israel's synchretism, one represented the power of Baal and the other the power of Yahweh.

They represented both the covenant between God and his people, and between him and the Davidic dynasty.

Cogan states, “the most reasonable suggestion is to take these names as the catchwords of sentences that had been inscribed on the columns, one on each” He notes that Mesopotamian doors and gates were even known by entire sentences.

Monson offers the translations “he sets up” for Jachin and “in strength” for Boaz.

Martens feels that Boaz means 'in him is strength' and Jakin means 'he establishes.' Their significance may be 'as proprietary emblems, claiming the temple for Yahweh.' (De Vries)”

“The names and meaning of the two pillars...may indicate a more positive connotation to the left (north) than to the south...Jakin may convey the meaning 'he establishes, he shall uphold' and the name Boaz 'in him is strength' or 'may strength be with him.' If this hypothesis is correct, it indicates that the pillar on the left side (Boaz) is not seen as weaker or less important.” (O'Kennedy) Thus, it would serve to correct the usual biblical impression that the left is the weaker side.

“R.B.Y. Scott argues from allusions in Psalms that the words were the start of two dynastic oracles such as 'He (Yahweh) will establish (thy throne for ever)' and 'In the strength (of Yahweh shall the king rejoice”.'” (Martin)

Starting with the similarity of David's ancestor “Boaz” to the name of one of the columns, Wiseman says, “The names of the columns may enshrine the memory of David's ancestry through his mother (Jachin occurs as a Simeonite name [Nu. xxvi. 12] and in a priestly family [I Ch. xxiv. 17]) and through the paternal line. However, a more likely theory is that the names may be the first words of oracles giving power to the Davidic dynasty: perhaps 'Yahweh will establish (yakin) thy throne for ever' and 'In the strength (be'oz) of Yahweh shall the king rejoice' or something similar.”

Regarding the ancestry interpretation, Hubbard is similarly skeptical it since no such name as Yakin is mentioned in the Bible, but Campbell notes that 'yakin' does appear in the name of one Davidic descendant, i.e. Jehoiachin. Therefore he and Freedman choose to keep it as an open option.

 

"TO YOUR TENTS, O ISRAEL!" (I KINGS 12:16 // II CHRONICLES 10:16)

The above cry is part of the following poetic reply of the Northern tribes to the foolhardy boast of Rehoboam that he would treat them even more harshly than his father Solomon had done when he was made king of the United Monarchy. The whole verse reads:

    “And when all Israel saw that the king did not hearken to them, the people answered the king, 

        'What portion have we in David?

        We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse.

        To your tents, O Israel!

        Look now to your own house, David.'

So Israel departed to their tents.” (RSV)

Note the sort of parallelism between lines 1 and 2 and between 3 and 4 of the poem that is common to Hebrew poetry. As Watts says, “Prose's monopoly on story telling did not...completely exclude poetry from the Historical Books. The stories occasionally depict characters voicing poetic couplets and singing songs, usually by quoting only excerpts...” We sometimes underestimate the effect of poetry on history, but this simple song actually marks a watershed event in the life of the Jewish people.

From our perspective, it is hard to understand how someone like Rehoboam could be so clueless as to antagonize the Northern tribes when it was not a foregone conclusion in their minds that Solomon's son would necessarily become their king automatically.

McKnight comments on this shortcoming: “The evidence suggests a king who was preoccupied with political and military consolidation and power...In Rehoboam's arrogant desire to dominate the north we find the human origins of the schism,...Rehoboam, with his ego boosted by his council members, decides in favor of an increase in the ...corvee [i.e. forced labor].”

McKnight adds that even after the resulting rebellion of Israel, “it appears that Rehoboam never quite surrendered his dream of unity (I Kings 14:30)...Rehoboam's hope to conquer the seceded tribes by force is met by the prophetic warning of Shemaiah to avoid this war because the split is part of Yahweh's plans (I Kings 12:21-24)...” Thus, as Brueggermann points out, “politics is not an autonomous zone of life where the working of power has a life of its own.”

So we see that, as McKnight says, the human cause of the split of the United Monarchy was due to a misstep on a human's part. However, as Hill points out, at the same time according to the prophet Ahijah, this split was punishment for the idolatry of Solomon (see I Kings 11:34-40).

Conversely, Greenwood feels the precipitating human action was Solomon's census in II Chronicles. “The intended benefit was that it would determine the available labor force for the construction of the temple. The unintended consequence, however, was the dissolution of the united kingdom of Israel.”At this point in the discussion, I am reminded of the title of Jacques Ellul's penetrating study of the books of Kings: “The Politics of God and the Politics of Man.”

Whatever the cause or causes, the result was the same: “The united monarchy ended where it began, with the Hebrew tribes in disarray and clamoring for new leadership.” (Hill) Or, in House's words, “One incredibly poor decision tears down in a few days what David and Solomon labored eighty years to build.” DeVries comments, “Possibly this passage's most important lesson is how much easier it is to break up what belongs together than it is to restore what is broken.” I will wisely refrain from trying to draw any parallels between ancient Israel and 21st century political events in the United States.

“Tents”

For the remainder of this short study, I would like to concentrate on a single word which appears twice in the verse, “tents.” There have been various understandings among scholars regarding the significance, if any, regarding this simple noun.

An Anachronism

“Some scholars understand 'tents' to be a symbolic anachronism referencing Israel's earliest history...” (BAR Summer 2023, p. 42) As one example, here is what Cogan says regarding tents: “...it had no current significance (such as tents erected for the tribal representatives during the Shechem assembly).”

(Poetic) Synonym for “Homes”

Cogan cites two Old Testament passages in which it is obvious that 'tents' is a “time-honored term” standing for 'dwellings.' These are I Kings 8:66 and Judges 20:8. The last example is especially pertinent since it appears in a poetic announcement by the people as in I Kings 12:16:

        “We will not any of us go to our tents,

        nor will any of us return to our houses.”

Thus, both NIV and the Anchor Bible translate the first occurrence of the word as 'tents' since it is part of a poem in which words often have figurative meanings. However, since the second appearance of the Hebrew word is found in a section of prose, it is translated in regard to its literal meaning (“homes” and “houses,” respectively).

Reference to II Samuel 20:1

“The Israelite reply, containing the decision to separate from the house of David, is a repetition of words spoken in David's lifetime by Seba [i.e. Sheba], although there are some variations in detail. The tribal representatives lodged in tents during the covenant making ceremony at Shechem, and with the pronouncement of this phrase the sacral community was disbanded and the covenant renounced ...Because the tents were permanent homes during the desert period, the meaning here is that the Israelites were told to return home and to sever all diplomatic relations with the house of David.” (G.H. Jones)

Dismissal from Military Service

“The formulaic phrase, '(he went) every man to his tent,' probably originated in a military context...” Biblical references cited in favor of this view are Judges 7:8; 20:8; I Samuel 4:10; and II Samuel 18:17; 20:1; and II Chronicles 25:22. In the specific case of I Kings 12:16, “They were apparently announcing their intention not to serve in his armies, which was tantamount to secession from the kingdom.” (Tomasino)

Literal Understanding

In contrast to all the above views, recent archeological studies in Israel indicate that during the United Monarchy period, most of the people in Israel actually did continue to live in tents. This explains why some critical Bible scholars have cast doubts on the stories of the wealth and power of the Davidic reign: there was little archeological trace of the majority of the population since they didn't live in the large cities. We sometimes also get a skewed view of what the kingdom of David and Solomon looked like since a large amount of the stories in the Bible concentrate on the urban centers and large building projects rather than talking about life in the countryside.

 

REVELATION 15:3-4

I was recently reading through the lyrics of some Tom Petty songs and struck again by the number of times he utilizes phrases from the Bible, although one could hardly say that he was a Christian by any means. In his case, it was probably due to the residue of cultural references that are our common heritage, believers and non-believers alike. That got me to thinking about the songs in the Book of Revelation and how much they owe to Old Testament thought and wording, as well as the amount of theology which can be packed into a song.

This particular song has the distinction of being the only one in this final book of the Bible to be composed in poetic parallelism, the form found in most Hebrew poetry, as Leon Morris points out. Therefore, it is not that unusual that “almost all the song is composed of Old Testament expressions.” But in addition, concepts from other New Testament writings are also present in these two verses. To demonstrate this sort of cross-referencing which may be found throughout the Bible, I have broken down the verses (RSV) into individual lines followed by their earlier scriptural parallels along with some pertinent comments from scholars on the meanings of these lines.

And they sing the song of Moses,

“Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the LORD...” (Exodus 15:1-21)

“The hymn of Exodus 15 which celebrated Israel's triumph over Pharaoh. Here the conquerors of the beast celebrate the justice of God in punishing the wicked persecutors.” (JB note)

Phillips provides an impressive number of general thematic and contextual parallels between Exodus 15 and Revelation 15:3-4, but few verbal similarities.

Alternatively, J.B. Smith and a number of other scholars believe that the song of Deuteronomy 32 is what is being referred to in Revelation. In that song we are treated to a review of all the blessings God has given to Israel.

Bruce says, “The song of the Lamb is probably 'Worthy is the Lamb' (5:12); the song of Moses refers not only to the hymn of praise for redemption in Exod 15:1-18 but also to the judgment-song of Dt. 32...”

“Some exegetes have understood...that the song of Moses is that given in Exodus xv, and the song of the Lamb here. But it is much more likely that there is but one song referred to with the double title.” (Morris)

By contrast, others such as Beasley-Murray feel that there is only one song, not two. “The name of Moses is conjoined with that of Christ because a similar, though greater, deliverance has been wrought from a similar, though greater, foe. The comparison of final redemption with the Exodus is common in the prophets (cf. Is. 51:9-11).”

And for a final point of view, Michaels suggests that the song may be the same as “the new song” mentioned in Revelation 14:3.

the servant of God,

Moses is called the servant of God in Joshua 14:7, 22:4; and Hebrews 3:5. But in that last reference the author contrasts him with Christ. “Moses was faithful in God's house as a servant; however, Christ was faithful over God's house as a son.”

Morris: “While this usage is found in the Old Testament it may not be fanciful to recall that 'the servant of the Lord' is a theme of prophecy; more particularly in Isaiah. Perhaps John means us to think that the prophets as well as the law are caught up in this song.”

and the song of the Lamb, saying

See the comments above.

“Great and wonderful are thy deeds, O Lord God the Almighty!

The Greek version of Deuteronomy 28:59-60 provides the background of this phrase, according to Beale and McDonough, and it “predicts that Israel's future judgment will be patterned after the Egyptian plagues.” They also see Psalm 111:2 behind the wording. Beale notes that the formula 'Lord God the Almighty' “is used repeatedly in the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi of God who sovereignly directs his people's history, and this is its meaning elsewhere in the Apocalypse.”

In Psalm 92:5, the parallel second line of the verse says that His thoughts are very deep.

In Psalm 98:1, the phrase is used in the context of God's utter victory.

In Psalm 104:24, the wonderful deeds are attributed to God's wisdom.

In Psalm 139:14, the description is applied to God's knowledge of our inner selves.

In Isaiah 6:3, “the Lord of hosts” is associated with His power and glory.

Just and true are thy ways, O King of the ages!

The first thing to note is that the external textual evidence is equally divided by manuscripts which read “King of the nations” and those which say “King of the ages.” Metzger says that the RSV translation committee chose the latter as being “more in accord with the context (ver. 4).”

Regarding the first half of the above phrase, commentators as diverse in background as F.F. Bruce and Walvoord note the similarity with Deuteronomy 32:3-4 even though there is not much exact verbal agreement. Those verses read: “For I will proclaim the name of the LORD. Ascribe greatness to our God! The Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is he.”

In addition, Ford sees OT verses such as Psalm 92:5; 111:2 and 139:14 behind the phrase “Just and true are thy ways.” Other biblical passages which have been suggested as parallels include Psalm 145:17; Jeremiah 10:10; John 3:21; and I John 1:6.

Who shall not fear and glorify thy name, O Lord?

“Together with the last clause of 15:3 ('king of the nations') [see above], the opening statement of this verse recalls Jer. 10:7: 'Who would not fear you, O king of the nations?'” (Beale and McDonough)

For thou alone art holy,

Hannah offers up a prayer containing similar words: “There is none holy like the LORD, there is none besides thee; there is no rock like our God.” (I Samuel 2:2)

Psalm 86:10 reads, “For thou art great and doest wondrous things, Thou alone are God.”

In Psalm 99 we have a repeated chorus reading “He is holy” (vv. 3,5), “For holy is the LORD, our God“ (v. 9) Tanner says, “ Verse 9 completes the stanza with the same theme as the others end. God's answering, guidance, forgiving, and avenging are to be praised! Again the enthronement psalms remind all that, when we praise God, we praise all of God's acts, the acts of grace and the acts of punishment. We praise God for holding us accountable. This makes praise a weighty matter, a serious business, an act to be understood and contemplated, instead of mindlessly given.”

All nations shall come and worship thee,

Here one could cite numerous OT prophecies which talk about the universal worship of God in the future, including Psalm 86:9-10; Isaiah 2:2-3; 49:22-23; 60:14; 66:23-24; Jeremiah 16:19; Micah 4:2; Zechariah 8:20-22; 14:16; and Malachi 1:11 as well as Revelation 5:9-10. Beale and McDonough state, “This prophetic theme is seen to achieve its fulfillment in the futuristic depiction of Rev. 15:4.” And Mounce feels this confidence “is adapted by John as a expression of the complete sovereignty of God over all the hostile opposition and his followers in the last days.”

for thy judgments have been revealed.”

“V. 4 concludes suitably with another OT reminiscence of the exodus, now from Psalm 98:2.” (Beale) That verse reads, “The Lord...has revealed his righteousness in the sight of the nations.” Another possible allusion antecedent verse is Isaiah 26:9 – “For when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.”

The thought reappears in Revelation 14:7, which contains the announcement “the hour of his judgment has come.”

 

EYES OF FIRE (REVELATION 1:14; 2:18; 19:12)

 

 "Behold, a Man" (2004, mixed media)

                                “Look to the Lamb

                                See the One who is

                                who is forever glorified

                                There is love and there is fire in His eyes

                                He is worthy, He is worthy”

This chorus to the excellent praise hymn “Look to the Lamb,” based mainly on images from the book of Revelation, has a line that I particularly like. It appears to allude to two diverse aspects of the glorified Christ: his love and his “fire.” The meaning of the first descriptor is obvious, but “fire” is not so easy to understand. The specific passage in question is found in Revelation 1:14 – “His head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire.” This partial description recurs in Revelation 2:18 in the words to the church in Thyatira. And at the end of the book, a rider on a white horse appears who is called Faithful and True, who judges and makes war. He wears many crowns and his eyes are like a flame of fire. (Revelation 19:12) It seems obvious that this also is a description of the glorified Christ, with the fiery eyes perhaps referring to the judgment He is about to carry out.

The powerful image of fire occurs in many places in Scripture, as The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery elaborates: Starting with God's appearance as a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch (Genesis 15:17) and in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2), we see that “this association of God with fire runs throughout the Bible...That God should appear as fire is appropriate for many reasons.” Among these are the source of all life in the fire of the sun, its purifying and destroying properties, the way it overcomes the darkness, and its mysterious and undefinable nature. “If God himself appears as fire, so do the things around him.” These include his chariot of fire, throne, and, of course, fire from God often signifies Divine judgment. The other Persons of the Trinity are also associated with fire: the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:3-4) and most pertinently for this short essay, the eyes of the glorified Christ.

Since so much of the Book of Revelation refers back to the Old Testament, I began there to see what it had to say regarding “fiery eyes” in order to see where this image originally came from. My first attempt proved to be a dead end. It is doubtful that Genesis 49:12 with its description of Judah as having eyes red (or “dark”) with (or “as”) wine is relevant here, although Jesus was called the Lion of Judah (Revelation 5:5), an idea taken from that same blessing given by Jacob (see Genesis 49:9-10). Additional translations (“eyes bloodshot, dull or cloudy with wine”) take Genesis 49:10 even further from the world of Revelation 1:14.

Ezekiel 1

A far more likely model for the descriptions in Revelation is found in the first chapter of Ezekiel in which the prophet is treated to a heavenly vision probably representing God's chariot-throne itself with God himself probably in its midst. If so, He is pictured as being in the middle of the four living creatures and resembling burning coals of fire, like torches. And the “eyes” come into the description as the wheels of the chariot which are full of eyes on their rims.

One common interpretation to the complex description in Ezekiel is that the wheels facing all directions represent God's omnipresence, the eyes his omniscience (“all-knowingness”), and the fire his omnipotence. If this is the precursor to the visions in Revelation, then it is reasonable to assume that the combination of “fiery eyes” may symbolically stand for the glorified Christ's all-encompassing knowledge and power.

Daniel 10

An even more likely referent is found in Daniel's vision recounted in Daniel 10:2-21. On that occasion, the prophet sees a “man” clothed in linen, with a face like lightning, and “eyes like flaming torches.” This could refer to an angelic being or even to the pre-incarnate Christ. Note that the key words “fire” and “eyes” are now combined into one concept, even though the overall description in Daniel is obviously based on the earlier Ezekiel model (see Hartman and DiLella). And Goldingay states that here the man in linen is described in terms “like those used of God himself in Ezek 1.”

But if Ezekiel was describing God or his movable throne, who is the heavenly personage in Daniel's vision? Scholars are not unanimous in their opinions on this subject, as you can see below:

A.-J. Levine identifies the “man” as Gabriel. Young calls him the pre-incarnate Christ and notes the similarity between Ezekiel 1 and Revelation 1:13-15.

Hartman and DiLella: “The angel is given no name, but is often identified with Gabriel...But the identification is far from certain.” They quote several scholars who feel that the personage in this vision appears to be superior to both Gabriel and Michael. They then note the “remarkable similarities with “the dazzling description of Jesus in Rev. 1:3-16 and 2:18.”

Goldingay: “It is not clear how many supernatural beings are involved in the scene...The man in linen (v. 5-6) may be Michael and the subsequent speaker Gabriel, though – if so – it is odd that the names are not actually applied to the figures...The man in linen is described in more awesome terms than have been used of Gabriel previously.”

Longman cites Miller as suggesting that “we are really dealing with two figures here, a theophany [appearance of God] followed by an angelophany.” Longman is dubious regarding the identification of the angel as Gabriel since “we know so little of the details of the angelic world that such a naming is no more than an educated guess.” And he also points to “the description of the glorified Christ that stands toward the beginning of [Revelation, which] reminds us of the figure dressed in linen in Daniel's final vision.”

Wenham feels that “Ezekiel 1 and Daniel 10:5, 19:6-7 describe angels as dressed in linen, while Rev. 19:8 portrays the saints in heaven as wearing similar clothes.” Regarding Daniel 10, he states that “the revelation is a theophany or pre-incarnate appearance of the eternal son.”

Revelation 1:14

The above prepares us to zero in on the three appearances of the phrase “eyes of fire” in the book of Revelation. Phillips says of the Christ vision in Revelation 1:14, “John sees His eyes now burning like fire as He sweeps the globe with His glance, seeing all.”

In commenting on Rev. 1:14, Beale and McDonough state, “The transferral of the attributes from the judicial figure of the Ancient of Days (cf. Dan. 7:9-12) to Christ...evokes his role as latter-day divine judge...the primary purpose of the heavenly man in Dan. 10 is to reveal the divine decree that Israel's persecutors would assuredly be judged (see 10:21-12:13). Daniel 10:6 even depicts the 'son of man' as having 'eyes...like flaming torches.' The application of the attributes from the Ancient of Days to Christ also points to the eternal life that he has together with his Father.”

Ford: “This probably refers to his omniscience, penetrating into all hidden and mysterious things (cf. Dan 10:6, II Enoch 1:5) and qualifying him to judge absolutely.”

“White hair by itself might leave us with the impression of calmness and dignity, but not of energy and spiritedness. This is rectified by the reference to the eyes which flashed like a flame of fire.” (Morris)

Hendricksen speaks of “those eyes flashing fire, eyes which read every heart and penetrate every hidden corner.”

Mounce says that this verse “expresses the penetrating insight of the one who is sovereign, not only over the seven churches, but over the course of history itself.”

Revelation 2:18

The next time Christ is described as having fiery eyes is in the letter to the church at Thyatira. But in this case, as Walvoord says, the eyes represent “the indignation and righteous judgment” of Christ.

We know this is true because “The eyes like a flame anticipate verse 23.” (Beasley-Murray) This is where Christ promises to strike down in judgment all those who follow the sins of “Jezebel.”

Mounce puts it like this: “The flaming eyes suggest the penetrating power of Christ's ability to see through the seductive arguments of Jezebel and those who were being led astray by her pernicious teaching.”

“The eyes indicate that He sees all, and the feet that He will certainly and swiftly pursue all that is evil, and possibly also that He will tread it down.” (Morris)

“The relation of the message of the letter to the title and the final promise is as follows: the one who speaks has eyes as a flame of fire; it is this very glance which discerns the Spirit (the fire is linked to the Spirit, flames of fire, etc.). He is the one who, at the end will rule with a rod of iron: which is to say that he will impose discipline in the face of spiritual excesses and exercise complete authority...” (Ellul)

Note that Ellul stops short of saying that Christ will exercise judgment although that is certainly the implication of Revelation 2:23. This omission is no doubt due to Ellul's belief in universal salvation.

Revelation 19:12

Now we come to the final reference to eyes of fire in the Bible, and here the context is certainly one of Christ as the final judge of all mankind.

Hendricksen: “This is our Lord at his second coming unto judgment; to judge and make war. He is about to judge righteously, for his penetrating eyes are a flame of fire.”

Ford: “This may signify that his judgment is incapable of deception or fraud, i.e. it penetrates all things, even the secrets of the heart, and consumes his enemies; cf. 1:14; Heb 4:13.”

Mounce: “The metaphor of 'his eyes as a flame of fire'...evokes Christ's role as divine judge, as is clear from vv 14-21 and from 2:18-23.”

Concluding Remarks

At this point I think we are safe in including the Ezekiel 1 vision in the precursors to John's remarks in Revelation. Even though the eyes and fire are separated in that earlier vision, the combination of the divine characteristics of omniscience and omnipotence (especially in the context of power to conquer) is the necessary qualification for truly righteous judgment.

Finally, I am struck by another possible OT parallel with the progression seen in Revelation. In the three references to One with fiery eyes we are told, respectively:

        1. Christ has knowledge of all that goes on, not only in the church, but the world since He is walking in its midst with His penetrating vision. (Rev. 1:14)

        2. He utilizes that knowledge to identify accurately those persons and forces who are opposing Him and His church and will not hesitate to execute judgment on them when the time comes. (Rev. 2:18)

        3. Finally, the time for that righteous judgment is pictured as coming from Christ with swift and sure force on the whole world. (Rev. 19:12)

Now let's turn to another powerful visionary image which appears in both the OT and in Revelation, that of four horses, chariots and/or horsemen:

        1. A man with four variously colored horses patrols the earth to see what is going on, and he reports back that all is at peace (Zechariah 1:7-11). God replies that He will show mercy on His people.

        2. Next is the vision of four chariots going to the four corners of the earth and reporting back to God (Zechariah 6). This time the riders are actually given some specific actions by God to carry out, works which point toward end-time events. As Hicks says, “Although details are not clear, this vision probably refers to the inauguration of the messianic age with its judgment upon all the earth.”

        3. Lastly, in Revelation 6 the four variously colored horses appear again, this time each one with a rider who takes the peace mentioned in Zechariah 1 away from the earth in one way or another as part of God's final judgment.

Notice that the progression is practically the same in each series: 1. God gathers accurate information from the earth; 2. He announces His intention to execute judgment; 3. Righteous judgment is carried out.

 

MATTHEW 16:18b

This well-known verse follows Peter's even more well-known Great Confession. It begins “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” That statement is controversial enough with competing scholars opting as the definition of “rock” anyone and everything from Peter to all of the apostles to the whole papal succession to Jesus himself to Peter's confession. But what has confused me just as much, if not more, is Jesus' statement which follows in the second part of the verse: “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (KJV)

When I was in elementary and middle school, one now-archaic skill I had mastered was the art of diagramming sentences, and I made myself rather obnoxious by constantly criticizing my teachers for getting it wrong on occasion. I realize that at this point I need to stop and explain what I am talking about, unless any of you happen to be octogenarians or older. Diagramming a sentence is a simple way to pictorially represent all the elements present (subject, verb, object, and modifiers) and the relationship between them.

It starts by drawing a horizontal line and first placing the subject of the sentence on the line followed by a vertical line (sorry, all I had was an exclamation point) to separate it from the verb. In this case, it would look something like this:

gates ! shall prevail

Thus, the gates (plural) will be or shall be doing something in the future. And what they are doing is “prevailing.” So far, this raises two questions. How can gates do anything but just open and close? What exactly does “prevailing” entail?

The next step, which I will not attempt to picture, is to hang any modifying words or phrases down from the elements on the top line using diagonal lines. There are two modifiers for “gates,” namely, “the” and “of hell.” The simple definite article “the” indicates two things: (1) these are particular gates, not just one or more of many similar gates, and (2) these gates belong to or are associated with hell (which is pictured as a walled city). Another question arises at this point: what is hell? Is it Hades, the realm of the dead (“Sheol” of the OT) or is it Hell, a place of punishment and the powers of evil?

Lastly, we have modifiers for the verb as well. The first is “not” indicating that whatever “prevailing” means, the gates will be unable or unwilling to do it. The second verbal modifier, “against it,” helps us understand that some sort of conflict or battle is taking place between two entities, and since a pronoun like “it” generally refers to the last noun mentioned (obviously excluding gates and hell), that means that “the church” is the object of the prepositional phrase “against it.”

Since the English word “prevail” is not very commonly used nowadays, it is perhaps helpful know that the corresponding Greek verb katischuo has been translated as “to be strong, able, powerful, dominant, superior to others, be the victor, or gain the upper hand.”

I will admit at the outset that every time I read this simple phrase, I am confused as to its exact meaning, especially regarding who is the aggressor in the conflict. But once I started looking at a number of Bible commentaries, I was comforted somewhat to realize that there is no real agreement between scholars either on how to answer the questions above. For a starter, look at the translations and paraphrases below:

    RSV: “and the powers of death shall not prevail over it.”

    NASB: “and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.”

    NRSV: “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”

    NIV: “and the gates of Hades* shall not overcome it.” * that is, the realm of the dead

    NEB: “and the powers of death shall never conquer it.*” *Or the gates of death shall never close upon it.

    TEV: “and not even death will be able to overcome it.”

    AB: “and the powers of death shall not overcome it.”

    JBPhillips: “and the powers of death will never prevail against it.”

    Living Bible: “and all the powers of hell shall not prevail against it.”

    The Message: “not even the gates of hell will be able to keep it out.”

An additional point of disagreement comes up in comparing NEB with The Message: Are the gates trying to keep the church closed up, or are they trying to prevent the church from coming in? That is a lot of questions for such a short clause, and I am afraid the best I can do at this point is to simply offer the opinions below to let you decide for yourself which one is most likely to be correct. As for me, I am perhaps even more confused that ever but tend to side with France and those who agree with his interpretation (see below).

    Albright and Mann: “The sense here is that the powers of evil cannot contain or hold in check the new community.”

    France: “In the Old Testament the gates of death describes the place to which dead people go (Job 38:17; Pss 9:13; 107:18), and in Isa 38:10 the phrase 'the gates of Sheol' is used in the same way (cf. Also Job 17:16, 'the bars of Sheol'). 'Hades' is the New Testament equivalent of Sheol...The 'gates' thus represent the imprisoning power of death: death will not be able to imprison and hold the church of the living God. The metaphor, when seen against its Old Testament background, does not therefore encourage the suggestion of some interpreters that 'Hades' represents not death but the demonic powers of the underworld, which are then pictured as making an eschatological assault on the church. Still less does it support the romantic imagery, sometimes derived from the traditional but incorrect translation 'gates of hell', of the church as a victorious army storming the citadel of the dead.”

    Blomberg disputes France's two main points by stating: “That the 'gates of Hades will not overcome it' proves cryptic because gates are naturally seen as defensive protection, while 'overcome' suggests an army on the offense. Is Jesus saying that Hades (Heb. Sheol – the grave – probably, as with hell, in the sense of Satan's domain) cannot conquer the church or that it cannot resist the church's advances? Is Satan on the defense or offense here” The latter seems more likely. In other Jewish literature 'gates of Hades' is frequently idiomatic for 'powers of death' (based on Isa 38:10).”

    Hendricksen states that “in the Gospels 'Hades' means 'hell.'...those who favor the meaning 'the realm of the dead' experience great difficulty in their attempt to show in what sense the gates of that realm are striving to overpower the church, and are failing in their assault...'Gates of hell,' by metonymy [a figure of speech in which the name of an attribute of the thing meant is substituted for the thing itself] represents Satan and his legions as it were storming out of hell's gates in order to attack and destroy the church.”

    Hill says that the gates of Hades “will not close to imprison (in death) those who belong to the messianic community...The view that 'gates of Hades' actually denotes Hades, the abode of evil spirits, and that the meaning of the phrase is that the organized power of evil will not prevail against the organized Christians society, seems forced and unnatural.” Instead, he offers the following explanation: “The gates of Hades is a fairly common periphrasis for the nether world, the realm of the dead” in classical Greek. “The image is best understood as offering that death, in spite of its hitherto unconquerable power, will not win control over the rock, or more probably the ekklesia erected on the rock: death will not vanquish the messiah who builds the church, nor the members of the messianic community.”

    “The gates of Hades, representing the power of evil forces, will attack the church but cannot overcome it.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

    Vine speaks of the gates of Hades “than which nothing was regarded as stronger. The importance and strength of gates made them viewed as synonymous with power.” He also defines “prevail” as “to be strong against.” Notice that definition can apply to strength in resisting an aggressor as well as in being an aggressor.

    Barbieri: “Jews would understand Hades' gates to refer to physical death. Jesus was thus letting the disciples know that His death would not prevent His work of building the church.”

    Ellison views RSV's rendering 'the powers of death' as a good one but clarifies: “It is not a question of Satanic powers, but of death, which Jesus was to conquer in His death.”

    “As the gates of a city are essential to its power, the meaning here is probably the power of death.” (Inns)

Nixon notes regarding 'the gates of Hades', “The phrase occurs in the writing of Hezekiah (Is. 38:10). The gates suggest the picture of a fortress or prison which lock in the dead and lock out their rescuers. This would imply that the church is on the offensive, and its Master will plunder the domain of Satan (cf. 12:29; I Pet. 3:18-20).”

    Boettner: “The statement that the gates of hell will not be able to prevail against the church has usually been understood to mean that the church will be able to defend itself against all its foes, and that even the worst that the enemies of the gospel can bring against it will not be able to destroy it. We believe, however, that the real meaning is quite different. Gates are not offensive, but defensive weapons. They are stationary. They are not used to make an attack...Hence the real meaning of this verse is that the church will take the offensive.”

In any case, I think we can all agree with Paul in I Corinthians 15:54b-57 as he combines ideas from Hosea 13:14 and Isaiah 25:8 to write:

    “Death is swallowed up in victory. O death where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (RSV)

 

SIMILAR PROPHECIES? (I THESSALONIANS 2:16b AND ROMANS 11:25b)

I Thessalonians 2:16b

This passage deals with those Jews who have been opposing Paul's ministry. A sampling below shows how translators render this half verse:

    NRSV: “Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God's wrath has overtaken them at last*.”          * Or completely or forever.

    JB: They never stop trying to finish off the sins they have begun, but retribution is overtaking them at last.”

    NIV: “In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.*”                                   *Or them fully.

The major question to answer in relation to this passage is the timing of God's wrath on these people. Constable mentions several possible times of fulfillment of this passage but does not commit himself to any one of them. They include the following:

    1. the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70

    2. God's turning away from the Jews and toward the Gentiles

    3. the wrath which falls on everyone who fails to believe in Jesus

    4. the future time of Tribulation

In addition, A. Smith alludes to other events when he says, “Perhaps the wrath of God is not an explicit occurrence (such as the expulsion of the Jews in 49 CE from Rome or the massacre of Jews in the Temple court in 49 CE [see Josephus, War, 2:12.1]), but simply God's justice (as in 1.10) in preventing opponents anywhere from destroying God's churches.”

Notice that some of these events were past history even as Paul was writing and and some are yet to come. The reason for this confusion in timing has been addressed by several commentators:

    “The fall of Jerusalem both expresses and symbolizes this judgment, which awaits all who thus displease God.” (Cousins)

    However, Bruce rejects the AD 70 interpretation since: “The Jews of the Dispersion were not for the most part involved in that disaster. Paul means that by their persistent opposition to the gospel they had already ensured for themselves that eschatological judgment which they might have averted by accepting it (cf. Acts 2:38ff.; 3:19ff). In Christian literature before AD 70 no clear distinction is drawn between the destruction of Jerusalem of the end-time 'birth-pangs' (Mk. 13:8), and the final judgments of the day of the Lord.”

    Malherbe: “The aorist tense of phthanein (“come”) has caused interpreters difficulties. It can be taken to refer to a past historical event, or if brought into relation with the future wrath of 1:10, the tense could be thought of as a prophetic future. It has also been considered equivalent to engiken ('has drawn near'), with an appeal to Matt 12:28.” In both I Thessalonians and Romans it affirms its arrival “while leaving it open whether people have yet received it or not.” (Stott) He thus feels that the wrath was hanging over their head with the historical events of AD 48-50 but had not yet overwhelmed them, as perhaps it did in AD 70.

    “The consequence is sure...Indeed, so sure is their punishment, that he uses the aorist tense which might be rendered 'came' upon them. The use of this tense does not refer to the imminence of the punishment. It refers rather to its certainty, for Paul is thinking of wrath in an eschatological setting.” (Morris)

    Constable himself concludes, “Perhaps Paul chose a general statement rather than a specific one because he had several things in mind. God's wrath had reached its full limit in regard to those individuals.”

    “In any case, the verb has come appears to point to an actual historical occurrence, whether already past, presently unfolding, or envisioned in the near future...Wrath is an event within history rather than exclusively an end-time phenomenon.” Wanamaker disagrees: “The apocalyptic character of the statement, however, warns against insisting that an actual event lies behind the verb.”

    Blomberg says that this verse was “probably a conscious echo of” Matthew 23:32, in which Jesus tells the scribes and Pharisees to “fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors.” Hill feels this alludes to the Jewish belief “that the final judgment will come only after men have reached the absolute peak of sinfulness.”

    Weima elaborates on this idea: “The verb anapleroo suggests the picture of a vessel or cup that is in a slow but constant process of being filled up, and once it is completely full, judgment will take place. The same verb is used in Gen. 15:16 LXX to describe the sins of the Amorites, which are said 'to not yet be filled up.' This theme...occurs also in Dan. 8:23; Wis. 19:4; 2 Macc. 6:14...The notion that humans have a fixed limit to their actions, both good and evil, is widely attested in later Jewish writings as well...”

Romans 11:25b

    NRSV: “A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.”

    JB: “One section of Israel has become blind, but this will last only until the whole pagan world has entered*, and then after this the rest of Israel will be saved as well.”

        *Paul is still speaking of peoples, not of individuals: the Jews en mass, and the pagan world as a whole.

    NIV: “Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way* all Israel will be saved.”

        * Or and so.

When was or will be these prophecies fulfilled? J.B. Payne points to the destruction of the Judaean state in A.D. 70 as the time of fulfillment of the I Thessalonians passage and states, “Agreement is general that the verbal tense at this point is not intended to be taken as past.” Thus, it does not have to have already taken place before the writing of this letter in ca. 50. When it comes to the Romans prophecy, Payne locates it some time before the Second Coming of Christ.

“God's plan is in two stages. The first stage is the rejection of most of the Jews in order that God may make up the full number, which only He knows, of Gentile Christians...'Saved' is to be taken in the same spiritual sense as in vv. 11,14. (The question of a political future for converted Israel does not arise here, but hangs upon the interpretation of other Scriptures.)” (L.C. Allen) Thus, he contradicts one of the key Dispensational contentions in the next section below.

Hodge suggests that “the full number of Gentiles” equals “the complement to make full the vacancy left by the rejection of the Jews” or “that which makes the Gentiles, as to number, full.” Payne says, “In line with this last proposal, the fulfillment herein suggested is that of Mk 13:10: the large, but still definite number of Gentiles that are to be converted...before the second advent of Christ.”

But not all scholars are convinced that pleroma ('fulness') in this passage refers to a certain number of people. Thus, Fitzmyer says, “Two interpretations of it are current: until the full number (or strength) of the Gentiles' has accepted the gospel, as foreseen by God's foreknowledge, or until the salvation of Gentiles occurs to its 'fullest extent.'”

And Brauch chimes in with much the same thought: “I am persuaded that the idea of a predetermined number...is not within Paul's purview here. When non-canonical Jewish apocalyptic literature speaks of a 'full number' of Israelites in relation to end events, the word used is not pleroma but arithmos...Paul's commitment to the full dissemination of the gospel to the Gentiles must provide the interpretive key to his use of pleroma in Romans.”

A Dispensational Parenthesis

As an aside, it is well to enter for a moment the quite different world of the Dispensationalist commentators and their “strictly literal interpretation” of the Word:

    Walvoord: “The use of the word until signifies not only that the period of Gentile blessing will end, but it also indicates at a future period of Israel's ingrafting will follow.”

    Witmer comments on “all Israel will be saved” as follows: “saved, that is “delivered (in the OT 'saved' often means 'delivered') from the terrible Tribulation by the Messiah, the Deliverer. To confirm this Paul quoted from Isaiah 59:20-21 and 27:9. “The statement... does not mean that every Jew living at Christ's return will be regenerated. Many of them will not be saved, as seen by the fact that the judgment of Israel, to follow soon after the Lord's return, will include the removal of Jewish rebels (Ezek. 20:34-38). Following this judgment God will then remove godlessness and sins from the nation as He establishes His New Covenant with regenerate Israel (cf. Jer. 31:33-34).”

Thus, we are told that (1) in the future God will totally withhold his spiritual blessings from the non-Jews; (2) the term New Covenant or Testament does not really refer to the era under which we now live. Instead it refers to a new covenant God will make with the Jews in the future; (3) all references to Israel in the NT refer to the Jews only; and (4) Jesus' salvation is mainly a political salvation from earthly enemies.

Regarding these various dubious contentions, (1) is totally contradicted by Romans 11:12; (2) contradicts the consistent use of “New Testament” within the NT and within the last 2,000 years of church history; (3) is patently untrue as references to the “true Jew” and the “new Israel” aver; and (4) is a throw-back to all the mistaken ideas concerning the Messiah which were current in Christ's day.

Murray further elaborates on the problems with the Dispensational contention in (1) above by referring to “the unwarranted assumption that 'the fulness of the Gentiles' is the consummation of blessings for the Gentiles and room for no further expansion of gospel blessing. 'The fulness of the Gentiles' denotes unprecedented blessing for them but does not exclude even greater blessing to follow. It is to this subsequent blessing that the restoration of Israel contributes.”

And if I were to quote from the more popular expositors from this relatively new school of theology, you could see that the sheer excess of details they are able to pull out of even more diverse OT passages supposedly relating to this future time period are truly, and literally, unbelievable.

Relation Between the Two Passages

I will admit that I may be reaching a little bit here in order to make a point, but when I re-read the I Thessalonians verse recently, I was instantly reminded of Paul's comment toward the end of Romans.

And at first when I started looking for any sort of scholarly confirmation drawing a parallel between the two verses, I could find nothing. But then, in looking a little deeper into the surrounding contexts of these two verses, I found that perhaps my initial impression was not that far off base after all.

    One obvious, but perhaps trivial, correlation between these two teachings of Paul is that they were both addressed to “brothers,” those who had already accepted the Gospel message.

    Paul's message to the Thessalonians is to assure them that the Jews who oppose them will receive their due judgment. But to the Roman church, he informs them that they are not to use that fact to boast in themselves since there will also be a time in which many of the Jews will turn back to God. Both truths are necessary aspects of the whole story.

    The “Jews” Paul is speaking of were at that time “enemies of God” who tried to prevent the Gospel from being spread.

    Both passages deal with future events which are presaged by what is currently happening or has happened to his audience.

    God's plan for the future encompasses both judgment on and salvation for the Jews.

    There is a certain “fullness” (same Greek root in each passage) necessary for each of these steps in God's plan to be carried out.

    In both cases, the actions of the Jews have resulted in or will result in (Romans 11:12) blessings to the Gentiles.

Regarding I Thess. 2:16, Hendricksen rejects it as referring either to the fall of Jerusalem or to the tribulations of the Jews under Caligula and Claudius. Instead, he proclaims, “What Paul teaches is in full harmony with Rom. 9-11. However, in Romans there is additional revelation. He there shows that though this wrath to the uttermost has reached the Jewish masses, there is, nevertheless in every period of history, 'a remnant according to the election of grace.' These remnants of all the ages, taken together, constitute 'all Israel' which 'shall be saved' (Rom. 11:26a).”

Stott asks, “How is it possible...to reconcile the horizons of I Thessalonians (which predicts even declares, God's judgment) and of Romans 11 (which affirms the continuing validity of God's covenant and the assurance of Israel's salvation)? Are not the warning of judgment and the promise of salvation equally irrevocable and therefore contradictory? Perhaps the solution to this problem is to be found in the difference of Paul's terminology between God's wrath upon 'the Jews' individually (I Thes. 2:14) and his salvation of 'Israel' collectively.”

Wanamaker starts out by saying that “the differences between [I Thessalonians] 2:15f and Romans 9-11 can be overplayed, even if Paul is not saying precisely the same thing in the two places.” He then proceeds with several additional comments on I Thessalonians to explain his view:

    “The polemical accusation that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus...is nowhere else leveled by Paul, unless Rom. 11:11f. contains an allusion to it.”

    The statement “that the Jews' filling up of their sins was according to the purpose of God [is] an idea that has parallels in Romans 11 (cf. 11:7-10,28,32). The theme of 'filling up the measure of sins' is found in several places, including Gn. 15:16; Dn. 8:23; and 2 Macc. 6:14.”

    “Unlike Romans 9-11...I Thes. 2:16 does not say what will happen to disobedient Jews. As Davies...suggests, Paul had not formulated his final understanding about the position of Israel in the divine scheme when he wrote I Thessalonians.”