HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC (MATTHEW 9:2-8; MARK 2:1-11; LUKE 5:17-26)

 

                                                    2009 collage

This is one of several miracle stories in which it is the faith of friends and neighbors that is commended rather than that of the afflicted person. Other examples are found at Matthew 8:10 and Mark 7:32;8:22. But this story, attested in all the Synoptic account, goes beyond a “simple” healing narrative in that it deals with both sin and physical infirmities. Here is what the Old Testament has to say regarding the relationship between sin and illness:

    “If you will listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God...I will not bring upon you any of the diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians. For I am the LORD who heals you.” (Exodus 15:26)

    “If you do not diligently observe all the words of this law...then the LORD will overwhelm both you and your offspring with severe and lasting afflictions.” (Deuteronomy 28:58-59)

    “Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:4-5a)

    “There is no soundness in my flesh because of your indignation; there is no health in my bones because of my sin.” (Psalm 38:3)

    And, of course, there is the attitude of Job's friends toward his illness.

In contrast, New Testament teachings are more ambiguous regarding the relationship between the two. Sin and illness are sometimes discussed together but distinguished from one another. A prime example of this is seen in the episode in question. There are virtually no differences in wording between the three parallel accounts of the paralytic's healing by Jesus. Here is the central point as related by Matthew:

    “He said to the paralytic, 'Take heart, son, your sins are forgiven.' Then some of the scribes said to themselves, 'This man is blaspheming.' But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said, 'Why do you think evil in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Stand up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins' – he then said to the paralytic – 'Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.' And he stood up and went to his home.”

Writing from a form-critical point of view, Fitzmyer declares: “Into this miracle-story, a pronouncement story has been inserted [with the pronouncement itself preserved in Luke 5:23], which relates to it Jesus' power to forgive sins. In fact, it makes of the whole episode a story more concerned with this than with the cure itself. The joining of the two stories gives evidence of a new manifestation of Jesus' power; hitherto [in Luke's Gospel] he has been depicted curing (4:38-39,40-41; 5:12-15), exorcising (4:31-37), and working a miracle over nature (5:4-9a); now the power of the Lord that attends him is related not only to a cure but also to the forgiveness of sin.”

One does not need to agree with Fitzmyer's thesis that two diverse traditions have been artificially joined together in order to agree with his other contentions. It seems patently obvious that this episode centers just as much, if not more, on the issue of forgiveness as it does on the miraculous cure itself.

Reaction of the Critics

After Jesus' initial pronouncement to the paralytic, the scribes (and Pharisees according to Luke) openly label Jesus a blasphemer since “only God can forgive sins.” Whenever I have read this story, I will admit that I have been somewhat sympathetic to their reaction. But several commentators actually feel that these Jewish leaders may have something more that just righteous indignation as their motive in criticizing Jesus:

    “Matthew 1:21 assumes that God as Israel's savior...will save Israel from its sins through Jesus as instrument of salvation and thereby subtly construct an opposition to the temple cult as institution for the remission of sins (cf. Mt 9:1-8).” (Van der Watt and du Toit)

    “Jesus forgave sins (Mt 9:1-8; Mk 2:1-12; Lk 5:17-26; 7:36-50; cf. Jn 20:23), behavior that for a first-century Jew could be derived from an understanding of the responsibilities of the true high priest, as God's representative and real presence (Ex 28:28; Lev 10:17).” (Fletcher-Louis)

    “Although by no means certain, the high priest typology of Hebrews (see Heb 4-7) may derive in part from certain priestly prerogatives that Jesus had assumed. The most significant of these were his declarations of the forgiveness of sins (Mk 2:5-10; Lk 7:48.” (Evans and Novakovic)

    “Many of Jesus' sayings and actions no doubt were viewed as being critical of the temple. For instance, Jesus' extending forgiveness to the paralytic in Mark 2:5 (cf. Mt 9:2; Lk 5:20), especially if Jesus did such a thing on more than one occasion would have outraged the temple priests because Jesus would be offering forgiveness outside the temple and the sacrificial cult officiated by the authorities.” (Dennis)

Thus, the real reason for their anger at Jesus' words may not have been to defend God's honor but to defend their own personal positions in the official Jewish hierarchy.

Jesus' Counter-Argument

“Jesus' use of a counter-question in situations of debate recurs in other [Markan] narratives (3:4; 11:30; 12:37) and appears to be characteristic of his response to conflict...By use of a counter-question Jesus challenges their facile assumption that he has acted irresponsibly as a dispenser of cheap grace.” (Lane)

“The rhetorical question...implies that if the 'harder' of the two options can be demonstrated, the 'easier' may be assumed also to be possible. It might be suggested that to forgive sins is the harder, since only God can do it, but Jesus' question is not about which is easier to do, but which is easier to say, and a claim to forgive sins is undoubtedly easier to make, since it cannot be falsified by external events, whereas a claim to make a paralyzed man walk will be immediately proved true or false by a success or failure which everyone can see...This use of the comparative eukoperon, 'easier,' to express an a fortiori argument seems to be a distinctive usage of Jesus; it occurs in Greek only in the sayings of Jesus (cf. Matt 19:24 and parallels; Luke 16:17).” (France)

Aftermath

Of course, the result is that Jesus does heal the paralytic at the end. Not only that, but it is interesting that the crowd immediately recognizes the ultimate source of the healing, God Himself. And therefore they praise Him. Note that the crowd saw what the Jewish authorities were to blind to see or did not wish to see – Jesus was not at all blaspheming God, instead he was channeling God's power to both forgive and heal, and doing it without any of the temple trappings and personnel

II THESSALONIANS 3:6-15

Unlike many other letters of Paul which conclude with a miscellaneous list of practical admonitions, II Thessalonians devotes these ten verses to a single subject – the presence of the “idle” in their congregation. Actually, that Greek word and its derivatives have been translated in two basically different ways: either “idle, lazy” (RSV, NRSV, NEB, Living Bible, The Message, TEV) or “disorderly, disruptive” (KJV, Phillips, NASB, AB). NIV straddles the fence by calling those people “idle and disruptive.” In a similar manner, The Jerusalem Bible labels this section “Against Idleness and Disunity.”

The supposed origin of the root ataki- comes from a military setting in which it refers to those who are “out of step” with everyone else. But it is easy to see from the context of this II Thessalonians passage that the specific way in which these people were being disruptive was in their refusal to work like the others in the Christian community. Indeed, as Elias notes, within the NT the Greek root only appears in the two letters to the Thessalonians so that “we are largely restricted to the clues contained within these two epistles” in order to determine its proper meaning.

The flow of this passage takes a literary, rather than a strictly logical, form as shown below:

                                      Figure I: The Structure of II Thessalonians 3:6-15

    A. Keep away from them, brothers (v. 6a)

            B. The earlier received tradition (v. 6b)

                    C. Paul's example of unselfish behavior (vv. 7-9)

            B'. The earlier given command (v. 10)

                    C'. The idler's example of wrongdoing (v. 11)

            B''. Reiterated command to work quietly and do right (vv. 12-13)

    A'. Keep away from them, brothers (vv. 14-15)

Bolstering up this symmetrical literary organization is the presence of specific words to tie together parallel units. Thus, “brothers” and “believers” appear in A and A'; “brothers” also occurs in B and B'; “command” is in B' and B''; “idle(ness)” is found in C and C'; “for” begins both C and C'; and “imitate” acts as a set of bookends to enclose C.

With that background, we can now briefly consider what some Bible scholars have to say about the text:

II Thessalonians 3:6 – Sumney: “The lives of Paul and other faithful leaders exemplify the mold living believers are to imitate (3:6-7), but prior apostolic instruction is the basis for determining what constitutes ethical living.”

“Elsewhere Paul employs the formulas 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' (1 Cor. 5:4) and 'by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 1:10) precisely where he is issuing emphatic commands regarding the behavior of the community. At a theological level the addition of 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' to a command implies that the command is not simply Paul's but that it has the sanction of the Lord Jesus Christ himself...As the second part of the verse makes clear, Paul adds to his theological coercion the coercive power of the community to enforce the prescribed form of conduct.”

II Thessalonians 3:7-9 – “In an ethics of Christian discipleship, the master is Christ, yet secondarily, disciples also learn to recognize excellence of practice by observing and imitating those who are more mature in the faith.” (Tousley and Kallenberg) And Cosgrove says, “Moral teaching is not only by word but also by personal examples to be imitated.”

As an aside, Wanamaker notes that “the broken grammatical construction of v. 8 is inexplicable if the writer had direct access to 1 Thess. 2:9 [a similar statement] where Paul makes good grammatical sense.” This helps confirm my own deductions based on structural considerations that II Thessalonians was actually written before I Thessalonians (see my reasoning in “I and II Thessalonians: Introduction to the Literary Structure”).

II Thessalonians 3:10 – M.A. Powell states, “Positively, work is to be encouraged (2 Thess. 3:10-12) and, indeed, viewed as a vocation from God.”

II Thessalonians 3:11 – “Paul employs work imagery in commending the Thessalonians for their 'work of faith and labor of love' (I Thess 1:3)...but more striking is the forthright instruction to 'work hard with your hands' (I Thess 4:11).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Banks points out that “we should avoid idleness (2 Thess. 3:11-13), but we should not fall into the opposite error of too much busywork.” And that includes being a busybody.

As to the source of this idle attitude and behavior, Sumney and others conjecture: “The conduct of the 'disorderly' (the 'idle' of 3:6-15) flows from their overrealized eschatology. Asserting that their experience of a spiritual coming of Christ gives them superior spiritual blessings and abilities, they quit their jobs, impose themselves as ministers on the church, and demand salaries. This letter rejects their eschatology and understanding of spirituality by telling the church not to to support them. Proper conduct for members follows the apostolic example of giving of oneself for the good of the church, and it does not include demanding deference and pay.”

Unfortunately, I have run into extreme examples of this very behavior in two churches I have attended in the past. One acquaintance tried to drum up financial support for himself and his whole family to take an extended vacation in Europe with the idea that they would witness to people they met on the way. And another man had the plan to get the church members to support him while he quit his job, moved to another city, and witnessed to his neighbors in the evenings. And neither of them even had the excuse of believing in realized eschatology.

II Thessalonians 3:12-13 – “Like no other Pauline epistles, 1 and 2 Thessalonians establish and reinforce a work ethic...Idleness is singled out as the most shameful behavior in the Thessalonian community.” (DBI)

Wanamaker points out that the opening words of this verse have been taken by some scholars as indication that a new subject is being introduced. However, he feels, as indicated also in Figure I above, that “vv. 14f. are probably intended as a clarification of v. 6.”

II Thessalonians 3:14-15 – C. Marshall notes that “New Testament texts on punishment fall into two main categories: those that refer to punitive practices in wider Roman society...and those that describe disciplinary actions within the community of faith. In the latter case, physical or financial punishments are never imposed as a means of church discipline...In every case, it can be shown that the goal of such punishment was to clarify the moral demands of discipleship and to summon repentance from offenders and their reintegration into the community.”

Sumney agrees with this contention: “Christians who fail to live by the expected standards...are not relegated to the ranks of the unbelievers destined for destruction. Such errant believers remain part of the family of believers, and they must be set apart from the community but not treated as enemies. Rather, the church is to nurture their return to full fellowship.”

In order to emphasize this point, Paul purposely employs the description “believers” twice in this passage, both times referring specifically to the idlers.

The verb “associate with” appears only one other time in the NT, at I Corinthians 5:9-11 where Paul instructs believers to “dissociate themselves from anyone who claims to be Christian but is guilty of immorality.” (Wanamaker) That shows how seriously Paul also takes the issue of idleness at Thessalonica.

 

LUKE 5:1-11 (FISHERS OF MEN)

 

This well-known event takes place on the shore of the Lake of Gennesaret, better known as the Sea of Galilee. And Riesner gets even more specific regarding the location: “Halfway between Capernaum and Tabgha lies a small inlet whose acoustic properties may have served well as Jesus preached at water's edge (Lk. 5:1-3).”

In broad strokes, Jesus comes on the scene and encounters a small group of fishermen who have just finished a futile night on the sea without getting any fish. But by the time the story is done, they leave their boats and go with Him as fishers of men. In between those two events, Jesus makes two requests of Peter, which he obeys. The first request is the loan of Peter's boat so that Jesus can preach to the crowd, and the second one results in a net overflowing with fish. Acting as a bracketing device for this story is the phrase “boats on shore” at the beginning and end.

There are parallel, but more abbreviated, narratives to this episode found in Mark 1:16-20 and Matthew 4:18-22. But the real controversy among scholars is in regard to the somewhat similar story given at the end of John's Gospel (John 21:14). Thus, we have the following two points of view:

More liberal commentators such as Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer (interestingly both Catholic priests) almost take it for granted that only one such miraculous catch of fish originally happened due to the close similarities in detail between the two accounts. But that is certainly not the end of the debate. From the more conservative side, we get the opposite viewpoint.

    Borchert says, “What is most interesting in this discussion is the fact that of those who think that the two events reflect a single tradition, there is little consistency in their conclusions. For example, Brown favors a Lukan tradition in John, and Bultmann argues that the event in Luke is a displaced resurrection account...The reason for the problem is that while form and redactional methodologies can define possible patterns of form development similarities in base stories, and editorial enhancements, they are actually rather ineffective in defining the actual historical realities of these stories.”

    And L. Porter adds, “A very similar incident is described in Jn 21:5-11; but the differences in detail [which he enumerates] are sufficiently noticeable to make it clear that there were two separate incidents.” One could say that these two similar events at the start and end of Jesus' ministry on earth serve to roughly bracket His career.

With that background, here are a few specific observations collected from the scholarly literature:

    Luke 5:3 It may seem strange to the reader that Peter should obey a request to borrow his boat from a stranger such as Jesus, but that is only an artifact of the selection of episodes Luke chose to include in his particular Gospel. J.A. Martin notes several passages in the other gospels indicating that this was not the first or even the second time Jesus had made contact with these fishermen.

Once in the boat, Jesus sits down to teach. Fitzmyer notes, “The natural position of a companion in a small boat may be all that is implied. But then the position of a seated teacher may also be suggested (see 4:20).” I think that most of us are very glad today that it is the preacher who has to stand while the audience sits, instead of the reverse practice in NT times.

    Luke 5:4-5 Somewhat reluctantly, Peter obeys Jesus request to cast his net again. As Martin states, this “showed a significant amount of faith” on Peter's part. That was especially true since their fishing at night (by far the best time to do it) had been unsuccessful.

In verse 5, Peter calls Jesus, “Master.” Fitzmyer points out that in the Lucan writings that word is used of Jesus only by followers or disciples.” The question then becomes, “Were Peter and the others already disciples?”

Geldenhuys comments on the situation when this story began that “it becomes clear that, although they had followed Jesus at the first call, they did not yet follow Him in a complete and unconditional manner. They were still, at least for part of the time, engaged in their trade as fisherman until the final choice was made to leave all and follow Jesus (v. 11).”

    Luke 5:6-10a Then we come to the miracle itself and its immediate result on Peter. And, as Porter days, “Like James and John, Peter was astonished at what had happened but unlike them he was brought by the manifestation of divine power to an acute consciousness of his own unworthiness.”

However, as Marshall points out, He was not necessarily more sinful than other men, but he felt that fear which all sinful men ought to feel in the presence of the divine (cf. 13:21f).” Another biblical passage worth considering in this regard is Isaiah 6:5 – “Woe is me! For I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a a generation of unclean lips: for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”

Verse 9 says “Amazement gripped him.” Fitzmyer points to two other places in Luke's writing where that phrase appears: Luke 4:36 and Acts 3:10.

    Luke 5:10b At this point, Jesus reassures Peter with the words: “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be fishers of men.” Ellis says that “like the angel of Luke 1:12,30, Jesus is the mediator of the divine power and presence.” The first part of Jesus' words actually appear four additional times in Luke-Acts (Luke 8:50; 12:32; Acts 18:9; 27:24). Also see Jeremiah 16:16.

Thus, as Craddock puts it, “in Jesus' eyes his sin does not disqualify him; the same power that prompted Simon to fall at Jesus' knees now lifts him into God's service.” Ellis says the same thing: “The acted parable of the catch of fish reveals the remedy for Peter's lack of spiritual qualifications... What Jesus commands, he empowers to perform.”

Fitzmyer draws another lesson from this episode: “Through the miraculous draught of fishes the Savior thus taught them that He was able to provide for them and their dear ones. It was a valuable lesson to them that if they obeyed Him and entrusted themselves to Him, He would provide for them and their families even with regard to temporary needs.”

In contrast to Fitzmyer's assertion above, Marshall says, “Theories that the great catch of fish was meant to provide provision for the dependents of the disciples during their travels with Jesus or is an allegory of the catch of men which then would take place (Jn. 21:1-14) are alike speculative.”

In any case, “Fishing, along with shepherding, became lasting images of ministry in the church.” (Craddock)

And, as The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery points out, “The imagery [i.e. “fishers of men”] appears to have less of the connotation of possible judgment, which it has in the OT.” Passages to consider in this context include Ecclesiastes 9:12; Ezekiel 26:5,14; 29:3-7; Amos 4:2; and Habakkuk 1:15-17.

THE SERPENT IN THE WILDERNESS (NUMBERS 21:1-9)

 

                       Sympathetic Healing (2009, collage)

After the Israelites in the wilderness turn to God for help against their Canaanite foes, they are able to defeat them completely (vv. 1-3). But soon forgetting this obvious sign of God's protection over them, they again start grumbling about the lack of good food and water (vv. 4-6). To teach them a lesson, God sends poisonous serpents among the people which wreak havoc. But after Moses again acts as intercessor with God on their behalf (v. 7), He relents and provides an unusual remedy for the people who have been bitten – a snake image made of bronze which is placed on a pole for the afflicted to gaze on and be cured (vv. 8-9).

It is these last two verses which have most troubled Bible scholars and many other readers. Witness the following comments, beginning with those of some more liberal commentators:

    “This story, describing some kind of sympathetic magic, may give the etiology [i.e. origin] for the snake image in the Temple (cf. 2 Kings 18:4).” (D.P. Wright)

    “A plausible explanation of the text is offered by those...who argue that Num 21:4-9 is mainly an etiology designed to explain why, as in 2 Kgs 18:4 indicates, the bronze serpent, Nehishtan..., was venerated in temple worship during the monarchic period.” (Wakely)

    According to form critics, “legends deal with holy people..., places...or events. Their purpose is to edify the listener or reader. Legends are centered on things that are alleged to transpire within the experience of human beings...The bronze serpent of Numbers 21:4-9 is thus considered to be legend, as is the explanation of circumcision (Gen 17).” (R.A. Taylor)

    Wenham summarizes this position: “But despite its familiarity, some writers have questioned the historicity of this incident, suggesting that it is a fictitious explanation of the origin of the bronze serpent in the temple destroyed by Hezekiah (2 Ki. 18:4). More fundamental is the question why this means was appointed to cure snake-bites. Why did not God use a miracle without resort to a potentially misleading symbol.”

Dealing first with the historical issue, Wenham reports the finding of a temple occupied by the Midianites not long after the time of the wilderness wanderings in which a 5'' long copper snake was found. Therefore, he mentions the possibility that both the Midianite temple and copper serpent were ideas borrowed from the Jewish tabernacle. Therefore, “it seems likely that the story of the brazen serpent is based on a historical incident, and is not merely a retrojection of a later writer's imagination.”

Instead of speculating over the hypothetical source of the story as a fictional creation, conservative scholars prefer instead to treat it as a factual event which has spiritual lessons to teach us:

    Carson notes, “Verse 7 contains the first real confession in the book...In Wis. 16:6f [The Wisdom of Solomon was an apocryphal OT book written in the inter-testamental period] the bronze snake is called 'a token of deliverance'...for he that turned toward it was saved, not by what he saw but by thee, the Savior of all.”

    “Thus was Israel taught that only in God was their deliverance. The simple invitation to look and live (cf. Is. 45:22) was a test of faith. Poisonous snakes could be rendered harmless only by the mercy of God.” (Thompson)

    “Along with the snake's paradoxical combination of wisdom and evil, it represents not only death but also health and life. Perhaps its ability to administer death seemed to imply authority over life. The image of the serpent in the wilderness allowed those bitten to 'look and live' (Num 21:6-9), just as looking to the Christ gives life instead of sure death (Jn 3:14-15). John invokes the image of the serpent on the cross even though historically the Israelites had retained it as an idol called Nehushtan, and it became a cause for stumbling (2 Kings 18:4).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

    Other scholars mention the possibility that the snake's ability to shed his skin and grow it anew suggested it as an appropriate image of resurrection or renewed life.

    Stubbs: “The raising of the bronze serpent occurs at a turning point in Numbers – the seventh and final rebellion of Israel before they reach the plain of Moab...The high importance of the passage is matched only by the high level of bewilderment experienced by most modern interpreters in trying to make sense of it.”

He spends seven pages in his short Numbers commentary discussing various opinions concerning this difficult subject and comes to the following conclusion: “In contrast to these modern interpretations, serpent imagery elsewhere in the Bible leads one to see the serpent as a symbol associated with evil and sin...While the serpents could simply be a convenient method of punishment for YHWH, ready at hand in the wilderness, given the attention to the symbol in the passage, one might expect there to be a symbolic appropriateness to this punishment. At the most literal level, the serpents are agents of suffering and death...They are, and also come to represent, the physical difficulties of the journey to the promised land...In the confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh (Exod. 4:3; 7:9,10,15), the serpent likely symbolized Egypt and her gods. In our passage, then, perhaps snakes represented God's punishment of Israel by a symbol of the object of their desires – life back in Egypt under the rule of the snake, Pharaoh, and the gods of Egypt.”

    “The point of lifting up the serpent may be to represent symbolically that the object was under the curse of God (cf. Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).” (Bietenhard)

    And then there is Wenham's opinion to take into account: “I suggest that the clue to the symbolism should be sought in the general principles underlying sacrifices and purifactory rites in the Old Testament...In all these rituals there is an inversion: normally polluting substances or actions may in a ritual context have the opposite effect and serve to purify. Those inflamed and dying through the bite of living snakes were restored to life by a dead reddish-colored snake.”

    But the real clue to the interpretation of this confusing passage may lie in its use as background to John's later utilization in John 3:14-15 to make a theological analogy. These verses reads as follows: “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”

    Kostenberger comments that “the primary analogy established in the present passage [John 3:14-15] is not that of the raised bronze serpent and the lifted up Son of Man; rather Jesus [or John, since the lack of punctuation in the Greek makes the point ambiguous]likens the restoration of the people's physical lives as a result of looking at the bronze serpent to the people's reception of eternal life as a result of 'looking' in faith at the Son of Man. Yet, as in the case of wilderness Israel, it is ultimately not a person's faith, but rather the God in whom the faith is placed, that is the source of salvation (cf. Wis. 16:6-7).”

I would agree with Kostenberger wholeheartedly except for one point. I think that the direct comparison between the serpent and the lifted-up Jesus on the cross is quite germane to the whole meaning of the OT passage. Jesus on the cross took on all our sins and the associated death penalty so that we could also equate him very well symbolically with death of the evil snake. And just as the snake was lifted up, so too were Jesus and all who gaze on him lifted up to glory.

"STAGE MOTHERS" IN THE BIBLE

For those of you who may not be familiar with the term 'stage mother,' it refers to a woman who relentlessly pushes her child's career in some sort of performing field to the exclusion of all other concerns and despite making herself generally unpopular to those she deals with, including the child himself or herself.

There are numerous real life examples to which one could point in order to illustrate this phenomenon. And it should be mentioned that “stage fathers and spouses” could just as well be included in this category.

As to the motives of the stage mothers, they may vary. Some may sincerely care for their child so much that they will sacrifice their own wants and needs in order to see that their child gets all that they deserve. But there is also the possibility that the stage mother is subconsciously trying to live out vicariously in her child's life the sort of career she herself wanted to have. Finally, it must be admitted that there are sad cases in which the child is merely viewed as a “money-making machine” who can be milked for all he or she is worth.

This same theme appears several times in Bible also, as seen in the examples below:

Sarah (Genesis 21:8-10)

In this story, Sarah demands that Abraham cast out her slave Hagar and her son Ishmael after she sees him playing with Isaac. Much depends in understanding this passage on the exact meaning of “playing with.” It has been taken at face value or felt by others to refer to Ishmael making fun of Isaac or even taking sexual advantage of him. In any case, it enrages Sarah to the point where she says that “the son of this slave woman shall not inherit along with my son Isaac.”

We can say that she was justified in her action of protecting her son, slightly overreacting, or just looking for any excuse to remove Hagar and Ishmael from her life in order that her son would inherit alone.

Rebekah (Genesis 25:27-28; ch. 27)

Rebekah and Isaac are the poster parents representing the dangers of having favorite children in the family. But Rebekah takes it to the extreme in assuring that her son Jacob would obtain the favored blessing from Isaac rather than Esau, the eldest child. She carefully coaches Jacob in what to do in order to disguise himself as Esau for the blind Isaac and even cooks Isaac's favorite dish for him before Esau has time to come back with game to feed his father first.

Rebekah is willing to take all the blame for this deceit on herself in order that her precious boy will receive what she desires for him. And it results in her not even being able to see Jacob since he must go into exile.

Jochebed (Exodus 2:1-10; 6:20)

You may not be familiar with this name (as I wasn't), but this was Moses' birth-mother who not only saved his life when all the other Jewish boys were getting murdered, but also arranged it that a prestigious Egyptian woman, Pharaoh's daughter in this case, would find him. In addition, she saw to it that she was appointed as his nursemaid. So he had the best of two worlds growing up, access to the seat of power and a good Jewish education. And she had the advantage of being with her son during the process.

Naomi (Ruth 3)

Naomi is the epitome of the stage mother in the way she craftily maneuvers events so that Ruth ends up marrying the rich man Boaz. But in the process she actually puts Ruth in harm's way by convincing her to make overtures to him in the middle of the night. Fortunately, Boaz is a righteous man and does not take advantage of the situation, and of course God is directing the action behind the scenes the whole time.

Personally, I do not think much of Naomi with her moaning and groaning about her personal problems. And the fact that she seems to consider Ruth's child as her own (see Ruth 4:16-17) confirms the fact that Naomi appears to be living out through Ruth the life she feels was wrongfully taken from her by God.

Hannah (1 Samuel 1)

Hannah joins the group of barren women who only get pregnant through God's help. But in her case, she takes the selfless act of giving her boy back to God rather than keep him for herself. And she also goes one step further than Jochebed in seeing that Samuel is raised in an environment even closer to the real seat of power, God's temple.

Bathsheba (I Kings 1-2)

As David lies on his bed dying, Bathsheba is rightly concerned about the fate of her and her son Solomon. Despite David's promise that Solomon will inherit the throne, she has learned that another son, Adonijah, has proclaimed himself king instead. Right after she has told David of this development, Nathan barges in with the same news. David promptly has his officials anoint Solomon and have him parade through the city.

But the conspiracy doesn't end with David's death in that Adonijah then asks Bathsheba to relay his request to Solomon for the hand of Abishag, the woman who shared David's bed before he died. Bathsheba duly tells Solomon, who is rightly enraged at her request since that act would have symbolically meant that Adonijah was the rightful king after all. There are two ways of interpreting her motive in giving in to Adonijah's request: (1) she knew full well what Solomon's reaction would be and hoped it would result in Adonijah's death or banishment or (2) she was so naïve that she didn't realize what Adonijah's request meant .

Jezebel (I Kings 21)

This is a variation on the stage mother motif in that it is concerns a married couple in which the man, King Ahab, acts the part of the helpless boy who must be pushed into action by a woman. The clearest example is seen in the famous story in I Kings 21 in which Ahab is dejected because Naboth won't sell his vineyard to him. He acts sort of like Jonah pouting over his dead vine. Jezebel has to come along and put him in a better mood by reminding him that it is very easy to hire men to give false testimony which will put Naboth to death. And she does just that.

Mordecai (Book of Esther)

Here we go a little further afield with the stage mother theme in that it is a man, Mordecai, who first pushes his cousin Esther reluctantly into action when the Jewish people are threatened. When their requests are met favorably by the king, who is portrayed throughout as being even more clueless than King Ahab, both Ruth and Mordecai take charge and get the king to not only eliminate their enemy Haman but also to empower the Jews to fight back anywhere in the kingdom where they are threatened.

Their motives are quite clear – neutralize their personal enemy and anyone else who would take action against the Jewish people as a whole.

Conclusion

What can we say regarding this parade of those who engineered events to favor themselves and/or those to whom they were devoted or could manipulate? Of course it varies with the individual circumstances, but an appropriate closure is provided by G. Norman, who discusses the case of Rebekah: “Rebekah was a woman of strong will and ambition, devoted at first to her husband, but later transferring that devotion to her younger son, with disastrous results for the life of the family, though the sequel shows that in the overruling of God even this was converted to the furtherance of His purpose.”

And we could make the same statement regarding all of the narratives above. In each case, it was used in one way or another to bring about God's will.

 

WOMEN AT THE WINDOW IN THE BIBLE

First, let us consider the physical picture conjured up by windows in the ancient Near East. Kelso says, “Windows were rare on the ground floor, as the open door furnished plenty of light during the tear...First-floor windows would more likely face the interior courtyard than the street. Those facing the street would be latticed. Glass was not yet available for windows.”

In Jeremiah 22:14, Jehoiakim is criticized by the prophet for his elaborate palace. The king says, “I will build myself a spacious house with large upper rooms.” He plans to cut out windows for it, paneling them over with cedar, and painting them with vermilion.

Historically speaking, McCarter cites several pagan usages of the 'woman at the window' theme but concludes, “We cannot assume, however, that the motif of the woman at the window, which became a narrative convention in Hebrew literature, retained any cultic associations after being taken up by the biblical writers.”

In a recent article in 'Biblical Archaeology Review,' Lacy Papadakis discusses this image, which appears in about eighty ivory objects from the ancient Near East as well as in the Bible. Although many scholars feel that this image refers to a cult prostitute, she disagrees and says, “Those window scenes include stories of women of varying societal positions, but each woman experiences a shift in status or a transformation. The window functions in the story as a liminal place, that is, a point of transition, reflecting an interplay between life and death, danger and safety. These stories in the Hebrew Bible help elucidate the symbolism of the women in the window ivories but not through a focus on any one societal role. Instead, the meaning derives from the function of the women and the windows in these stories.”

She divides the stories into two types. The first she labels the “heroine in the window.” In these, “the woman intervenes as danger approaches, and the window bridges the threat of death and the pursuit of safety. The heroines represent opposite sides of society – a prostitute, Rahab, and a king's daughter. Michal. The immediate danger specifically targets the men. The women risk their safety and devise lies to protect the men. Papadakis' second category of story is called “seeing death.” These include passages such as Judges 5:24-30; II Kings 9:30-37; II Samuel 6:16; and Ecclesiastes 12:3.

And the general association of windows with death and desolation appears elsewhere in the OT:

    II Kings 1 – King Ahaziah falls through the lattice (i.e. window) in his upper chamber in Samaria and eventually dies from his injuries.

    Jeremiah 9:21 – “Death has come up into our windows, it has entered our palaces.”

    Joel 2:9 – Locust “climb up into houses, they enter through the windows like a thief.”

    Zephaniah 2:14 – In describing the desolation of Nineveh, the prophet conjures up the following images: “the owl shall hoot at the window, the raven croak on the threshold.”

But in fact there is a third, and more joyous, major theme in which a woman at a window figures. It could be labeled “looking for one's love.” Here is what two commentators say regarding that motif:

    McCarter: “The woman in the window is the bride or paramour (Prov 7:6 [LXX]; cf. II Kings 9:30) watching for her lover's arrival, but she is also the bride or mother watching anxiously for her beloved's return from battle or danger, as in Judg 5:28...Thus the motif belongs with the joyous side of the tradition of ancient Near Eastern love poetry, in which the bride-sister stands waiting in her chamber for her lover's entrance (Cant 2:9), but also with the anxious or grievous side of the same tradition (Cant 3:1-3), in which the bride or mother stands waiting, sometimes in vain, for a young man who has disappeared or perished. As for the present passage [II Samuel 6] it seems to me at least as likely that the dark side of this tradition suggested the use of the woman-in-the-window motif to the writer as that the light side did.”

    And The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery covers the theme in an even more thorough manner, so I will quote it in some detail: “As openings in houses from which people see out and view the world, windows connote knowledge and vision as well as an avenue of contact with the world beyond one's house...The moment of waiting is captured by a familiar motif of the woman at the window, looking out for the return of her man (Judg 5:28; 2 Kings 9:30; 2 Sam 6:12)...going out to meet the triumphant warriors as they return...In other passages, looking out of windows implies eagerness to receive an expected piece of news from the outside world...Windows that offer a way of escape from danger represent God's deliverance of his people...Such stories reveal how completely those who escape must depend on help from another...elsewhere movement out of a window is a picture of death.”

Since some of the stories with this theme exhibit more than one of these three motifs, I will discuss them in the order in which they appear in the Bible:

Joshua 2:15

Here is one of the clearest examples of a woman (Rahab in this case) saving someone from disaster by helping them out a window to safety outside, and it will have echoes later in I Samuel 19:12 and Acts 9:23. And although her valiant action will preserve the lives of the Jewish spies and her whole family, it also portends death for all others in the city of Jericho.

Judges 5:24-30

I have discussed the literary characteristics of Judges 4-5 in another post, and this passage concludes the story of a defeated general who has been killed by a single woman. At that point, the action abruptly shifts to the general's mother anxiously waiting at the window for her son's return, which will never occur. Bruce says, “The closing scene of the song is unforgettably vivid and moving...in spite of the ladies' reassuring confidence, her forebodings will not be stilled.”

Thus, this passage combines two of the common themes associated with women at a window – looking expectantly for her loved one to return and seeing only death instead.

I Samuel 19:12

At this point early in the marriage of Saul's daughter Michal to David, she helps him escape her father's wrath by lowering him out a window. “In Josh 2:15, where Rahab helps Joshua's spies make a similar escape, it is explained that the house was built into the city wall, so that someone leaving the house through the window would escape detection by anyone within the city walls. Perhaps, since David does not encounter Saul's guards outside, we are to assume that the same is true here. Cf. Also II Cor 11:32-33.” (McCarter)

II Samuel 6:16-23

“For the motif of 'the woman at the window,' see Judg. 5:28 and 2 K. 9:30 as well as ivory plaques from Samaria, Arslan Tash, Nimrud, and Khorsabad. The motif became a narrative convention in Hebrew literature for depicting a woman who is waiting for someone either with joyous expectation or anxious concern.” (Tsumura)

II Samuel 20:16 // I Chronicles 15:29

Michal sees David joyously celebrating the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem and despises him for his abandoned enthusiasm. This results in her never having a child “to the day of her death.” Thus, the story begins as one in which a woman looks forward to her love's return but instead ends as she is rejected by him for her attitude, effectively bringing the line of Saul to an end. So we see that Michal figures as the woman in the window in two separate, and quite different, episodes.

II Kings 9:30-37

In this story, Queen Jezebel paints her eyes and adorns her head and looks out the window as Jehu approaches. He instructs her eunuchs to throw her out the window to her death. Provan interprets her actions as such: “Jezebel is discovered at a window, fully adorned as a prostitute (cf. Jer 4:30; Ezek. 23:40).” Douglas has a slightly different take on Jezebel: “When Jehoram was killed by Jehu she attired herself regally (2 Ki. Ix 30), and awaited him. She mocked Jehu and went to her fate with courage and dignity.”

In either case, she clearly views her own death as she looks out her window.

Proverbs 7:6

Waltke explains that the Septuagint (LXX) version of this verse reads “For standing at the window of her house, through the opening she looked down” in place of “For standing at the window of my house, through the window I looked down,” thus making the unfaithful wife the one doing both the looking and calling to the gullible youth. The influential scholar Albright is one of the commentators who prefers the LXX reading and connects it with the “women-in-the-window” motif.

McKane notes that Bostrom also goes with LXX, but McKane sees problems with this view and alternatively suggests that the narrator is Lady Wisdom: “Is it, then, Wisdom portrayed as a queen who looks out of the window in Proverbs 7:6? If so, it would appear that a motif associated with Astarte (as queen of fertility) and her devotees has been transferred to Wisdom.” Of course, one does not need to posit a pagan connection for his question to be a pertinent one.

As a personal aside, when I was much younger I was attending a conference in New Orleans and staying in the French Quarter. As I was returning to my room one day walking through one of the less frequented streets, I heard a woman from an upper story window propositioning me with the help of a microphone and speaker. Apparently the motif continues today.

Ecclesiastes 12:3

This verse is sometimes included as an example of the woman-in-the-window theme. For example, Papadakis says, “Ecclesiastes 12:3 mentions nondescript women who “look through the windows and 'see dimly,' reflecting the transitory nature of life.” I have discussed Ecclesiastes 12:1-7 in some detail in a recent post, but here are some additional points related to the motif in question:

“Verses 2-5 include a series of metaphors that reveal that the signs forewarning old age are no longer mere warnings; they have become realities...Most commentators agree that 'those who look through windows' is a reference to the women of the household who, according to Middle Eastern custom were not allowed to mingle with the men in the business of the household and so they peered through the lattice-work of the house. That they 'grow dim' means either (a) that others outside the house have a more difficult time seeing them in the windows because they go to the windows no more, (b) that it has become dark, or (c) that they themselves have a harder time seeing, for their eyes have lost their brilliance. In each case, the women are becoming progressively isolated from the outside world, shut off from whatever joys and pleasures they once knew.” (B.C Davis)

Whether or not death has already occurred in the house, and the point is debated, it is certainly predicted to occur soon.

Song of Songs 2:9

The heroine spies her lover outside and exclaims, “Look, there he stands behind our wall, gazing in at the windows, looking through the lattice.”

Gledhill: “The NIV captures well the girl's thrill and excitement as she hears her lover approaching. Her sense of anticipation is almost tangible.” And Longman says, “He does not cross the threshold of her domicile...and stares through her window. He...beckons his beloved to join him. The fact that he stands quietly and looks intently after such agitated movement also evokes a mood of romantic tension.”

Despite the generally joyous nature of this verse, Gregory, in his discussion of various allegorical interpretations of Song, notes this reference “to looking through windows and lattices, often was placed in the context of the Destroyer passing through on the night of the tenth plague.” And Marvin Pope quotes even more fanciful allegorical applications of “window” in this verse by various early Christian writers.

Acts 9:23 // II Corinthians 9:23-25

Turning to the NT, one can note Papadakis' two themes involving windows recurring in the life of Paul, although not specifically associated with women. The first is the episode in which he needed to be lowered out a window in the wall of a city to escape those out to capture him. Hughes says that “it was an event which emphasized, at the beginning of his ministry, his own abject weakness and frailty...The man who experienced the ineffable 'ascent' even to the third heaven was the same man who had experienced the undistinguished 'descent' from a window in the Damascus wall.”

R.P. Martin lists several scholars who have noted the parallels with Rahab's saving the spies in Joshua 2:15-18 and then comments, “Unlike the proud vainglory of military prowess, his apostolic career opened on the note of humiliation and disgrace.” Furnish additionally cites David's escape out a window in I Samuel 19:12 as a similar situation.

Acts 20:7-12

In this episode, a boy named Eutychus is listening to a long talk by Paul while sitting in an upper story window when he falls out to his certain death. However, Paul brings him back to life. This is an even dimmer echo of the “woman in the window” motif, but I thought I would mention it since it does serve to confirm the common association of windows with impending doom. Also, as in Acts 9:23 it is vaguely humorous, this time because it does not exactly speak well for Paul's preaching style.

ECCLESIASTES 12:1-7

Fox rightly states, “Eccles 12:1-8 is the most difficult passage in a difficult book...The nature of 12:2-5 in particular has been debated at length.” As B.C. Davis says, “The uncertainties in these images...result in a general lack of agreement among scholars regarding how best to depict each individual image.”

And there are actually several interrelated issues to sort out here:
    (a) the general type of language being employed in this passage (literal, poetry, metaphor, allegory, or Fox's category of “phenomenon figuration”),
    (b) the physical picture being portrayed (a thunder-storm, the deterioration of a house, a funeral),       
    (c) and the reality behind the images (death, old age, Last Judgment). 

Thus, those who agree on one of these three categories may not necessarily agree on the other two. For example, these verses may be filled with figurative imagery describing old age and death, but they can also fit the events of the last days with the heavenly bodies darkened, all work ceasing, birds of prey descending, and everyone being afraid and shutting their doors. But the same could be said of the fear coming with a powerful storm. Since it is impossible to isolate each of these three aspects of the passage, it is probably best to just roughly group scholarly comments according to approximate agreement with one another.

Anatomical View
Ellul states, “Obviously, we have here a poem on old age and the end of life as it moves toward death.”
Those commentators who take this approach to the passage (and they are in the majority) generally feel that it represents the physiological changes accompanying old age and eventual death: failing eyesight (v. 2a), depression (v. 2b), arms, legs, teeth and eyes fail (v. 3), fear, insomnia, poor hearing (v. 4), difficulty walking in the road without fear of falling (v. 5a), the white blossom stands for white hair, grasshopper refers to loss of sexual desire and caper refers to appetite-stimulant (v. 5b and c), professional mourners gather outside the house looking for employment even before the person is dead (vv. 5e-6a), and various metaphors for death in vv. 6-7. 

There are even possible distinctions between different types of death pictured in these last verses: cord (or lamp stand) and bowl describe a lamp for a rich person, the pitcher denotes one who is fragile late in life (alternatively, it may refer to the Middle East funeral custom of breaking a piece of pottery and putting the shards in the grave to symbolize “dust to dust”), and the wheel and cistern denote a poor working person still active in life.

Longman feels the women looking out the window “look out of the window, perhaps at the approaching storm described in v. 2...On a symbolic level, Qohelet thus describes the deterioration of old age.”

Seow: “With poetic exaggeration, the author depicts the end of human life in terms of the end of the world...In short, nature languishes (Am 1.2; Joel 2.12; Hab 3.17), as humanity marches toward the grave, 'their eternal home,' and an imaginary funeral takes place.”

“Verses 2-5 include a series of metaphors that reveal that the signs forewarning old age are no longer mere warnings; they have become realities.” (B.C. Davis)

A Threatened House
Whybray holds to this view but says, “Those who look through the windows are probably the ladies of the house who peer through lattices to avoid being seen by men in the street. The verbs, however, do not entirely fit the imagery of the threatened house: it is not clear...what is meant by saying that the ladies of the house are dimmed or darkened [v. 3].”

The Day of Judgment
Seow calls this passage “an allusion to the day of judgment (Mal. 3:1-3). Even the strong and valiant are terrified of what is happening. The women who work the mills suddenly stop work (a motif also found in apocalyptic passages in the New Testament; Mt 24:40-41; Lk 17:34-35). Women look out the windows in despair (cf. Judg 5:28). The domestic routines are interrupted.”

Allegorical View
Although the Anatomical View may fall under this category according to some, I am instead referring to the many popular and fanciful interpretations which arose in both Jewish and Christian circles centuries ago. They are really not worth repeating, and I would have to agree with Jacques Ellul, who states, “I feel that this approach leads us down the wrong path.”

The Effect of Death on a Household
Surprisingly, there seems to be an increasing number of commentators who take the position that this whole passage has nothing to do with the signs of old age being figuratively portrayed. Instead, they feel that it is a literal description of what happened to those in a house who have just witnessed a death in their midst. My personal opinion is that this is a totally unjustified interpretation, but I will give my rebuttal after letting the proponents of this view first have their say:

    Leahy: “I believe in Ecclesiastes 12:2-5 the inspired writer uses the imagery of a thunderstorm with the object of setting forth the fear, melancholy and desolation which grip a household upon which death has cast its shadow.”

    Fox says, “The scene does not represent the experience of dying and death but rather other people's response to a death...On behalf of the interpretation of 12:2-5 as depicting a funeral, we may consider that although Qohelet does urge enjoyment of life during one's youth, he does not show an obsession with physical decrepitude that would make him likely to conclude his teaching with a long threnody on the ailments of aging. He does, on the other hand, reveal an obsession with death, and his gaze most naturally returns us to that subject as he brings his teachings to a close...Nevertheless, many gaps remain, and not all details accommodate themselves to the funeral-scene interpretation.”

    Taylor feels that v. 2 “is clearly figurative” but that the remainder of the passage is clearly literal and thus has an advantage over the anatomical rendering. “It is remarkable that the latter should so long have held its ground in spite of its grotesque repulsiveness and defiance of analogy, when the mention of the mourners who go about in the street suggests with utmost plainness that the preceding verses are of the nature of a literal dirge.”

For my part, I am amazed that Taylor can so stridently and confidently assert his position when it is an extremely weak one. Here are some possible rebuttals to this final position:

    It is obvious that death has not yet taken place before verse 5b, as several renderings of this passage reveal –
        “For a man is on the way to his long-lasting home. And the mourners gather in the street (waiting) – until the silver cord be cut, etc.” (Anchor Bible)
        “Yes, you're well on your way to eternal rest, while your friends make plans for your funeral.” (The Message)
        “We are going to our final resting place, and then there will be mourning in the streets. The silver chain will snap, etc.” (TEV)
        “Then people go to their eternal home and mourners go about the streets.” (NIV)

    I have no objection to saying, as do most commentators, that the last part of verse 5 appears to describe literally a group of mourners standing around waiting for an expected death so that they can begin their assigned duties, but that is totally different from stating that the previous verses describe the reactions of those in the house who have already experienced death in their midst.     

    And to state that because that one half-verse may be taken literally dictates that the rest of verses 2-7 must also be literal is pure nonsense. One only has to consider that (1) even Taylor states that the whole passage begins with a figurative statement and (2) he doesn't even bother explaining how the dragging grasshopper in v. 5 or the images of death in verse 6 can possibly be taken literally. I will give Fox, however, partial credit for pointing out that not all the verses can be easily made to fit the literal interpretation. 

    From a literary viewpoint, note the two places in the text where the author councils the audience when to remember your creator. The first one appears in v. 1 where we are told to do this “before the days of trouble come.” Those are then described as the aging years of life in 1b-5a. But we should also do this “before the silver cord is snapped, etc.” in 6-7. And these latter images all refer to our actual death. Sandwiched between these two extended figurative passages comes the “problem” passage of 5b which is given in literal language so as to clearly separate the respective descriptions of aging and death.

    Almost all commentators label Ecclesiastes 12:1-7 as a poem or song, either biblical category always characterized by its heavy use of figurative language. Simply labeling the images in this passage as grotesque will not so easily get rid of that hard fact. Most of those verses are even more grotesque if considered to be literal. What in the world is a grasshopper doing at a wake or funeral?

    Finally, an author does not need to have “an obsession” with the aging process in order to include a few verses describing it somewhere in his composition. That is especially true when even Fox admits that death itself is a subject of utmost importance to the Teacher, and that is certainly what is being described in verses 6-7 which end the extended song. 

    In addition, consider another poem in the book, Ecclesiastes 3:1-8. It deals equally with things associated with life and those with death, and how we are to occupy our time throughout the span of our existence. One could almost consider 12:1-7 as an appropriate addendum to that passage.

    There is another contextual consideration to take into account. Scott actually begins this passage at Ecclesiastes 11:7. With that approach, one can view 11:7-10 as parallel to 12:1-7. That earlier section begins and ends with the repeated reference to “vanity” (11:8, 0). Similarly, there is a closing reference to “vanity in 12:8. In both halves, we are admonished to enjoy all the years of your life and the light of the sun even if you live to old age and to put away anxiety and pain from your body while not forgetting God and his eventual judgment (11:7,8,9,10;12:1,2,5,7).

GENESIS 24 AND 29: DOUBLETS?

  

                                History Repeats Itself (2010 collage) 

                              Mail Order Bride (2009 collage)

It is intriguing to contemplate the times that similar Old Testament events seem to be repeated, often within the same families. Thus, we have the well recognized cases of (in no particular order):

        Both Abraham and his son Isaac trying to pass off their wives as their sisters in order not to put themselves in harm's way of a ruler's wrath;

        Jacob resorting to trickery over and over again;

        the many times the older child is overlooked in favor of a younger one when it comes time to inheriting from their father;

        mere humans hoping to rival God in power;

        the repeated disobedience of the Israelites in the wilderness;

        two instances of attempted homosexual gang rape;

        the three irregular couplings in the lineage of Jesus involving, respectively, Tamar (with her father-in-law, Judah), Rahab (a foreign prostitute), and Bathsheba (through an adulterous relationship);

        God bringing children to barren women;

        repeated unsuccessful attempts by Satan to cast blame on or mislead God's chosen; and

        foreign leaders relying on the prophetic skills of Jewish prophets.

There are several ways to view this phenomenon of repeating patterns within the Bible, which first lead the reader to a sense of deja vu:

1. Critical scholars generally take the position that in many of these cases, labeled “doublets,” the final compilers of the oral traditions into our present books of the Bible were sometimes faced with two rival versions of the same story, and so they mistakenly assumed them to represent separate events that both needed to be included. The first possible example in the OT is the assumption of two different traditions regarding the creation of mankind in Genesis 1-2. And a noted example from the NT would be the story/stories of Jesus' miraculous feeding of the multitude on the mountain and/or the plain.

2. On the other hand, if one reviews the list of examples above (and it is by no means exhaustive), it is alternatively possible to explain the repetitions by invoking both the consistency of sin patterns within the human psyche and the consistency of the way God deals with those patterns. The latter helps to confirm the truth that all history is under the firm control of God.

3. Additionally, a literary perspective on Scripture is useful in pointing out that some of these examples of repetition happen to appear in symmetrically located positions within the text which seem to point to demarcation points within each book and help to locate central passages of interest. My many posts on “Introduction to Literary Structure” provide ample examples of this phenomenon. But even within this approach, a person can use it to strengthen either position 1 or 2 above, depending on one's basic theological stance.

Below are a few comments from scholars who have specifically commented on the similarities between the incidents in Genesis 24 and 29, pictured in the two collages above, both involving a patriarch finding a bride in incidents taking place at a public well:

A.P. Ross: “The significance of this event is greatly clarified by observing the parallel in Genesis 24:11-33...Just as Abraham's servant had met Rebekah at the well (it could have been the same well), so now Jacob met Rachel there. In all probability Laban would have remembered that earlier incident, especially how the Lord had led the servant to that spot. The parallel is more than coincidence. Yet this narrative does not emphasize divine leadership – it simply implies that providence was at work in Jacob's life....The parallel with Genesis 29 and the emphasis of this chapter in its immediate context strongly suggest that God brought him to Rachel – and to Laban.”

Wenham: “Jacob's alacrity in watering his uncle's flocks is matched by Laban's in greeting him. Of course Laban had been through all this before. Some years earlier his sister had met Isaac's servant at the well, who had showered Laban's family with wealth in order to persuade them to part with Rebekah. Was his haste this time prompted by the possibility of similar enrichment? If it was, he was quickly disillusioned, for Jacob was a runaway, not a rich emissary with ten camels...God's overruling providential guidance is as manifest here as in the very similar story in Gen 24, where Abraham's servant met Rebekah at the well.” Despite this, Wenham points to several key differences in detail regarding these two stories.

Hamilton: “In several ways Jacob's first encounter with Rachel and Laban parallels the encounter of Abraham's servant with Rebekah (24:10-33) and Moses' encounter with the daughters of Jethro (Exod. 2:15-21). (1) The hero (or his representative) goes to a distant land. (2) He stops at a well. (3) A girl (or girls) comes to the same well to draw water. (4) The hero draws water for them, or she for him. (5) The girl (or girls) returns home and reports the meeting to a brother for father. (6) The man is brought to the girl's house. (7) Subsequently a marriage takes place between the man at the well (or the man whom he represents) and the girl (or one of the girls) at the well. The two Genesis stories contain the further parallels that the strange land is in fact the land of the father (or his ancestors), and that the girl who comes to draw water is a cousin or the daughter or the daughter of a cousin of the groom-to-be.”

Garrett: “Literary motifs or conventions occur throughout literary history and do not imply literary dependence of one text on another...while Genesis 24 and 29, and Exodus 2 all contain the meeting of the wife-to-be at a well, Kenneth T. Aitken has concluded, after a detailed study of the structure of Genesis 24, that 'aside from the marriage itself, the basic structure of the plot in Genesis 24 has no parallel in either'. Wellhausen himself admits that the 'differences are great' among these narratives.'”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “There is no need to attribute fiction to the recurrent presence of conventional motifs: the well was simply the place where social meetings occurred. The equivalent today would be a couple's meeting at college or church. The incipient symbolism of the romantic meeting at the well is easy to see: the arrival of the man from a distant land represents the 'otherness' of the relationship, the drawing of the water establishes a bond (the first rite of romance, in effect) and the gesture of hospitality in the parental home represents acceptance in a broader family context.”

Hawk: “Hebrew narrative is marked by its distinctive appreciation for symmetry, expressed most often through myriad forms of repetition...The Pentateuch...includes a number of repetitive story lines...A type-scene is an episode that follows a fixed sequence, as in the betrothal stories of Jacob, Isaac and Moses (Gen 24:1-66, 29:1-30; Ex 2:16-21), all of which are associated with wells...Study of the Pentateuch as literature...encompasses an array of methods, approaches and strategies. The questions that literary criticism raises have prodded biblical scholarship to grapple with the fundamental issue of how the Pentateuch is to be interpreted. Although there are those in both camps who insist that the methods of historical and literary analysis cannot be reconciled, interpretation now commonly utilizes both approaches.”

My own position is that history does indeed repeat itself, but by God's will rather than mere coincidence.

II THESSALONIANS 2:1-12

This is a chapter filled with interpretive difficulties, but most of the scholarly and non-scholarly discussions revolve around the exact identity of the “man of lawlessness” and when his fate will be decided in future years. I will not attempt to open that can of worms; however, I would like to share a few comments regarding the five different Greek words denoting “damnation” that appear in the first twelve verses.

But before beginning, the concept of damnation, or destruction, is often confused with utter annihilation. For the unorthodox view that damnation is equivalent to mere cessation of existence, you may wish to search this site for the four posts I have written under the key word 'Annihilationism.'

II Thessalonians 2:3 “apolei”

The first eight verses of chapter 2 describe the coming of “the man of lawlessness,” also called “the man of sin” in some manuscripts, and his doom at the hand of God.

Vine notes that the verb signifies “spiritual and eternal perdition, Matt. 7:13; John 17:12, 2 Thess. 2:3, where 'son of perdition' signifies the proper destiny of the person mentioned.”

Stott expresses the opinion voiced by many Greek scholars that 'the son of destruction' is “a Hebraism meaning that his destiny is ruin.” For example, Morris explains: “This type of genitive has a Hebraic twist. It denotes 'characterized by' the quality in the genitive (cf. Isa. 57:4). So here it means that the Man of Lawlessness will certainly be lost. As Moffatt puts it, he is 'the doomed One.'”

“The genitive...describes relationship and not origin, signifying what the person belongs to or what characterizes him. It describes the ultimate fate of the 'sons of doom.'” (Malherbe)

Wanamaker, on the other hand, appears to waffle between two alternative understanding: “The term 'son of destruction' probably denotes his role as an agent of destruction for Satan, as vv. 9f imply.” An alternative understanding is “that it refers to the fate or doom of this person.” He feels that it is parallel to the term 'the person of rebellion', or 'lawless one,' and that “in both cases the nouns in the genitive indicate a particular quality of the individual referred to.”

Constable says, “The destruction to which he is destined is the opposite of salvation; it is everlasting torment.”

II Thessalonians 2:8 “anelei” and “katargeo”

This verse also talks of 'the lawless one' as in v. 3. “The same person is...clearly in mind and the emphasis is upon his rebellious nature vis-a-vis God, which will lead to his destruction by God's agent, the Lord Jesus...The form of the verb anelei ('will slay') is in doubt, but this is a minor problem and does not affect the meaning of the passage in a serious way...” (Wanamaker)

Wanamaker also notes that textual variations in this verse include the substitution of analiskein, 'consume' in place of anelei, 'slay.' However, the latter is to be preferred since part of the verse appears to be based on the Septuagint version of Isaiah 11:4.

The second relevant word in this verse is katargeo. Packer says, “Paul...uses the word mainly to express the following: God's putting into action through the cross and the parousia destructive powers which threaten man's spiritual well-being. Among these powers are 'the man of sin'.”

And Vine defines katargeo as “to render inactive, to bring to naught, to do away...The Man of Sin is to be reduced to inactivity by the manifestation of the Lord's Parousia with His people,.”

And, as Malherbe points out, “The second part of the sentence, in synonymous parallelism to the first, emphasizes this destruction.” Thus, there is really no great distinction between the meaning of the two Greek words. Wanamaker agrees with this contention and feels that katargeo “is intended to emphasize the destruction of the rebel and in particular the breaking of his power by the Lord.” “Both verbs (slay and destroy) convey that the Lord's triumph is full and complete.” (Elias)

Finally, Best emphasizes the fact that “there is no long battle; victory comes at once.” Morris says the same thing in stating “no sooner has he [Paul] come to the appearance of the Lawless One than he proceeds to his destruction...The picture is further strengthened by the ease with which the Lord will destroy this terrible being. 'The breath of his mouth' will be sufficient (cf. Luther's hymn, 'a word shall quickly slay him').”

II Thessalonians 2:10 “apollumenois”

Verses 9-12 then switch our attention to the fate of all who are misled by this man of lawlessnes.

“The vb. apollymi is a compound of allymi...The terms here deal with destruction, annihilation, disaster, ruin and downfall...apollymi and the related nouns...are more strongly associated with physical destruction...Judas (Jn. 17:12) and the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:3) are specifically described as 'sons of perdition.' Perdition can be brought on a person...by one commissioned by God..., or by God himself as judge.” (Hahn)

Vine calls apollymi “a strengthened form of ollumi [which] signifies to destroy utterly...The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well-being.”

“They are perishing because they did not accept (past tense from the aspect of the days just before the final judgment) the love for the truth.” (Hendricksen)

Wanamaker explains that “apollumenoi (here used in the dative plural) occurs in three other places in Paul's letters (I Cor 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15, 4:3). On each occasion it denotes those who are outside the community of faith, in distinction to those who are being saved because they belong to it. Although this might be understood in terms of predestination, the next clause in v. 10 makes it clear that those who are perishing chose the path of destruction for themselves.”

II Thessalonians 2:12 “krino”

We now come to an entirely different Greek word group designating “to judge.” Vine says, “Krino primarily denotes to separate, select, choose; hence, to determine, and so to judge, pronounce judgment...to execute judgment upon.” However, as Malherbe explains, “Judgment here is condemnation, without any of the nuance with which it is treated in chap. 1.”

Morris restates this idea, but adds on to it: “The word 'judged' in this context implies condemnation

...But the use of this term rather than one which signifies condemnation and nothing more stresses the judicial purpose of God. His act is just.”

Hendricksen: “This refers to the final judgment. Then all the deluded ones shall be judged, i.e. condemned.”

Wanamaker combines all of these ideas in the following: “The goal of God's activity in v. 11 (hina krithosin is final) is to bring about the condemnation of those who have not believed in the truth of the gospel. The verb krinein in this verse means not only to judge, but to judge and pass an unfavorable verdict, to condemn someone (cf. Rom. 2:1; 14:3,13; I Cor. 4:5). It is used here of the final judgment.”

MICAH 6:6-8

 The prophet begins by asking the rhetorical question of his audience, “With what shall I come before the LORD and bow myself before God on high?” Then, as Schnittjer puts it, he “strings together over-the-top hyperbolic offerings to ridicule zealous but hypocritical worshipers and draw a contrast between empty worship and Yahweh's demands for justice and humble devotion. Micah thus concludes in verse 8 with what Mobley calls “a single sentence summing up a century of brilliant prophecy” – “What does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.”

It would be impossible to overestimate the importance of this passage in capsulizing what God requires of the believer in terms of attitude and activities. One measure of this importance can be seen in the fact that this passage is cited in almost twenty different articles by different authors appearing in Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics. These subject cover almost every subject from A to Z with citations from “African American Ethics” to “Virtue Ethics.” The comments below are all taken from those articles and are presented in somewhat random order just to demonstrate the influence of this short passage.

Birch: “A text that captures much of the biblical spirit of justice as a central covenant obligation in partnership with God is Mic. 6:1-8.”

Olson: “The prophets criticized Israel's life of worship, sacrifice, and ritual when it was not combined with concern for God's justice for widows, orphans, and the poor (Isa. 1:10-17; 58:6-12; Amos 5:21-24; Mic. 6:6-8). As a result, the prophets blamed Judah's exile to Babylon and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple on Israel's disobedience of God's law (Isa. 42:24-25).”

Dowdy: “Balancing mercy and punishment is a delicate act...Oriented toward the inured, mercy and judgment occupy complementary jurisdictions. Relief from cruelty entails active defeat of offending agents. In Mic. 6:8 human judges are expected to demonstrate impartial attention to the poor; mercy and justice are to be partners.”

Carroll R.: “As in other prophetic books, acceptable worship of God is inseparable from ethics...In a hypothetical exchange with the people, God exposes their obduracy. They believed that extravagant offerings could regain divine favor...The mention of the 'good' in 6:8 points to the fact that God seeks a people of character who would manifest those ethical commitments toward others.”

Birch: “Undoubtedly, there is a relationship to the use of justice to describe governance and legal concerns in the Pentateuch, but the understanding of justice has transcended the boundaries of what is required legally or magisterially by formal institutions and offices.” One of the passages he cites in this regard is Micah 6:6-8.

Cox and Kallenberg: “Character in the OT is frequently a quality of the community in which the individual participates. The people are in covenant relationship with God, and the particular character that God expects of Israel – one marked by traits such as justice, mercy, and humility (Mic. 6:8), and ideally instantiated by the king – is defined with reference to that communal relationship.”

Reuschling: “What one may be commanded to do in Scripture is not always self-evident without requisite attention to the contexts of command. What God requires is communicated in forms other than imperatives. For example, the requirement to 'do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God' is contained in prophetic material (Mic 6:8).” And this is communicated in the form of a rhetorical question, no less.

Cheung: “The demand for community fidelity is expressed in terms of justice (e.g. Hos. 5:1; Mic. 3:11), righteousness (e.g. Isa. 33:5; Mic. 6:8), faithfulness (e.g. 1 Sam. 26:23; Jer. 5:1) and mercy (e.g. Hos. 12:6). All these are characteristics of Yahweh, whom Israel worships.” It should be mentioned that Micah 6:8 really encompasses all four of those categories.

McCann: “What this story [i.e. the Gospel] ultimately suggests regarding the role of the good in scriptural ethics is that what people commonly regard as good is not to be taken at face value. God is the source of all goodness, as well as any genuine insight into its nature...This challenge communicates no information that was not already implicit in the biblical story as a whole. It merely underscores the point made in the book of Micah the prophet [Mic. 6:8]. That humanity's good requires people to act justly and love mercy may or may not be common sense. But the invitation to 'walk humbly with your God,' if accepted, sets people in a path where common sense itself, and all the world's moral philosophies responsive to it, may have to be surrendered if we are to reach our ultimate good.”

J.W. Lewis applies this key passage and others in the Bible to the “liberationist or emancipatory impulse” of African Americans and feels it “was a central thread in how the Bible was read and a central tenet of interpretation.”

Carroll R. speaks of the populace of Israel which “crowded in the sanctuaries to celebrate the national deity, whom they felt would ensure their safety. But the Lord God of hosts will have none of this worship that ignores oppression and takes his endorsement for granted.”

Sours: “The prophetic tradition...includes fasting among those religious rites vitiated by economic injustice or religious insincerity.”

McFee: “Benevolence is an intentional disposition to perform good deeds or charitable acts...Genesis 1:10-12 emphasizes Gods benevolence in the acts of creation. Other OT passages exhort benevolence and link it to both wisdom and societal justice (Deut. 15:11; Prov. 14:21; Isa. 1:17; Mic. 6:8).”

Mott: “Justice is such a central duty of the children of God that God's provision of reconciliation to God will not be provided unless justice characterizes their actions.” That is a particularly important point for all of us to remember, and it appears again in Jesus' teachings where he rejects some “followers” with the solemn words “I never knew you.”

O'Neil: “The admonition to 'do right' is part and parcel of biblical ethics (Mic. 6:8). The notion of 'natural rights,' however, emerges only in late twelfth-century canonical jurisprudence.”

Cook: “The consistent witness of Scripture is that God's aim for humanity is shalom – health, well-being, and peace – and that this is achieved only in the context of dispositions and practices of justice and mercy (e.g. Mic. 6:8).”

J.R. Wilson: “In the prophets, the practice of covenant-keeping is participation in God's redemptive work that forms a people who are capable of remaining steadfast because of their vision of the telos [purpose, goal] for which we have been made. The call of Mic. 6:8...powerfully encapsulates this teaching.”

One could of course make the point that the teachings of Micah 6:8 are no longer important in light of Jesus' further revelations. But several writers in the Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament would certainly take strong exception to that notion:

    Criticism of the Pharisees who neglected justice, mercy, and faith while tithing their mint, dill, and cumin (Matthew 23:23-24) “alludes to Mic. 6:8 with faithfulness equivalent to walking humbly with one's God,” according to Blomberg.

    Pao and Schnabel make a similar point regarding the parallel passage in Luke 11:42.

    Similarly, in Mark 7:1-13 Jesus confronts those who honor God with their lips while holding to human traditions such as Corban. Watts draws the parallel between this situation and that in Micah 6:6-8.

    Watts also feels that the reference to the “good” in Mark 10:18 comes from passages such as Micah 6:6-8. Mark 12:29-31 which deal with the great commandment. Watts says this reflects “a long tradition in Judaism that sought to encapsulate the Torah.” That tradition includes passages such as Micah 6:8.

“The scribe's surprising additional commentary [in Mark 12:20 refers] to the important scriptural theme that genuine and wholehearted love of the one true God (c.f. Deut. 4:35) and love of neighbor far surpasses any amount of sacrifice” as also expressed in Micah 6:6-8 and other OT passages.