BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION: HOW IS A PERSON SAVED?

 One site on the internet lists this among the ten top flaws in the Bible, namely, the confusion concerning the requirements for eternal salvation. I will attempt to deal with each of its criticisms (in bold) in turn before making some general comments.

Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:20 say it is by faith while James 2:21-24 says it is by works.

This old criticism has been hashed out and resolved for centuries now. But in case anyone is still disturbed by the “contradiction,” here are a few things I have written in a previous post:

First, take into consideration the way each author defines the terms “faith” and “works.”

                JAMES                                                                      PAUL IN GALATIANS

FAITH

intellectual assent (2:19)                                                         In Christ, which justifies us (2:16),

enables us to live (2:20), and works

through love (5:6)

Example: Abraham (3:9)

WORKS

showing compassion to the poor (2:14-17)                            of the Old Testament law (2:16, 3:2,5)

                                                                                                that men rely on for salvation

Example: Abraham offering Isaac (2:21) (3:10, 5:4)

Example: Rahab protecting spies (2:28)

Paul considers the source (God and our relation to Him); James concentrates on the effect.

Paul looks at God's perspective; James takes man's perspective. James is not talking about justification

(our standing before God), but about validation (proof to men and ourselves).

Faith to James is a purely intellectual assent, while to Paul it is a working, living thing.

“works” of James = Paul's fruit of the Spirit; “works” of Paul = shallow observances done so as to

merit salvation.

Paul says that the natural consequence of true faith is works; James says that our faith is demonstrated 

by our works.

Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 say that you must call on the name of the Lord. But that is contradicted in Matthew 7:21.

Acts 2:21 is a quote from the OT, and when the people ask what is specifically meant by calling on the name of the Lord, Peter replies that they are to repent and be baptized, and those acts are naturally followed by devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship. (Acts 2:37-42)

And in Romans 10, that same OT verse is used in the context of believing in Christ's sacrifice on our behalf and confessing it out loud to others.

Turning to Jesus' words in Matthew 7, the context there is the contrast between genuine believers and false ones. The proof of the genuineness of their faith is found in their fruits, i.e. whether or not they do the will of God, not whether they seem to accomplish miraculous works (see verses 15-20). So the text never says at all that we aren't to call on the name of the Lord, it just qualifies how helpful that calling will be on the Judgment Day if not accompanied by truly following God's will in our lives.

Both Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 are quotations of Joel 2:32. But Romans 10:13 is really a summary of the passage beginning with v. 9, and those preceding verses make it clear that “calling on the name” includes a confession that Jesus is Lord and the belief that God raised him from the dead.

Concerning Acts 2:21, Marshall points to the framework formed with Acts 2:39 in which the same promise is made to “all whom the Lord our God will call.” Thus, we see the necessary interplay of man's free will and God's predestination/foreknowledge at work.

Regarding Matthew 7:21-23 and the similar passage in 25:11-12, the exact phrase “call on the name of the Lord” is not employed. This one distinction from the previous two passages may hint at one way to resolve the difference between the three: “calling on the name of the Lord” has the implication of relying on the power of the name to save rather than relying on our own works to bring us to salvation. In stark contrast, note that those crying “Lord, Lord” at the time of judgment are those who were still relying on their own works to get them into heaven (Matt. 7:22) while neglecting to do the will of God earlier (7:21,26). We see this also in the case of Matthew 25:11-12; those crying out to be admitted to the wedding banquet were those who were negligent in their assigned duties.

Here are some quotations from the scholarly literature dealing with Matthew 7:21-23:

    “Those who cry 'Lord, Lord', are the false prophets of verses 15f. This identification is suggested by the context as a whole and by the use of the work 'prophesy' in verse 22.” (D. Hill)

    “The people whom Jesus condemns are branded as false because in their case life and lip had not been in harmony. Their exclamation 'Lord, Lord' had been deceitful. By means of it they also now, on this day of the Great Assize, present themselves as Christ's loyal servants; yet in their previous life they by their actions had constantly been claiming lordship for themselves.” (W. Hendricksen)

    “'Doing the will of my Father in heaven' is not a merely ethical category: that will also includes to know and be known by Jesus the 'Lord.' A professed allegiance to Jesus falls short of that...” (France)

    “Verses 21-22 enumerate some of the ways in which individuals can masquerade as Christians. They may verbally affirm that Jesus is their Master, perhaps even with great joy and enthusiasm, but such claims must issue in lives of obedience [an important qualification of Rom. 10:10-13]...It is also interesting that prophecy, exorcisms, and miracle working all characterize 'charismatic' activity which has a tendency, by no means universal, to substitute enthusiasm and the spectacular for more unglamorous obedience in the midst of suffering. But these external demonstrations prove nothing. The question is whether one's heart has been cleansed inwardly (v. 15) or whether apparent acts of ministry still serve only self...” (Blomberg)

Matthew 25:34-46 tells us that salvation can be obtained only by helping the needy.

That is not really what this passage says. In the first place, the earlier part of this chapter places God's words in the context of the parable of the talents. We believers, as the servants in the parable, are those who have been given talents and instructions by God to utilize for the good of others. But if we refuse to help anyone but ourselves and totally ignore those in need, then that is a good indication that we never truly repented of our selfish attitudes when we turned to God in the first place. Again, as James explains, our works serve as external evidence of our faith and inward attitude.

Finally, Romans 8:29-30 and 9:15-16 say that salvation is by election and predestination.

This is another theological issue that has been hashed out many times over the centuries.

The various interpretations of Romans 8:30 include the following: (a) The word "also" denotes that predestination occurred at the same time as foreknowledge (Calvinist view); (b) Foreknowledge of all the decisions a person will do in his or her lifetime precedes predestination; (c) This is a general description of what God has done and will do for every person who believes. This is the ideal that one can refuse; and (d) The whole discussion mainly concerns the election or rejection of large groups as a whole, such as Gentiles or Jews.

This same principle of a chosen vessel for destruction still having responsibility over his own sinful actions is also seen in the case of Judas (John 13:18-19; Luke 22:21-22).

And to those requirements for salvation, I could also add that there are other passages specifically stating that salvation involves repentance, public proclamation of faith, and baptism.

Let me fall back on an analogy here to help answer the overall criticism. What if someone came to me asking how to get to a location in another town? My answer might be one of the following depending on the specific circumstances:

    You need to buy and consult a good road map or look for instructions on the internet.

    First make sure you have the correct address.

    Go north on Hwy X, then after 20 miles turn off on Avenue A, proceed 200 yards east until you a gas station on the right, turn left at that intersection onto Green Street. The address you want is three blocks on the right.

    Make sure you have good walking shoes.

    If you can wait a few hours, I can drive you there.

    Catch a bus.

    Hitchhike after determining the best location for catching a ride.

    Call Uber if you haven't maxxed out your credit card.

    Rent a car if you can afford it.

    Drive your own car, but only after first getting enough gas and/or charging the battery.

These are all completely different but valid responses to the same question. Also note that most of the responses actually involve multiple steps that must be followed in order. For example, merely telling someone to turn left onto Green Street presupposes the several directions that preceded it. And some other requirements require several prior acts on the person's part that are assumed and not specifically mentioned. Thus, telling someone to take a bus necessitates that (a) they have enough money for the ticket, (b) they know the location of the local bus station, (c) they have transportation to get them to the station, (d) they have determined how to get from where the bus drops them off to their actual destination, (e) they have consulted the bus schedule so that they know when they need to be at the station, and (f) they have also looked at the schedule to make sure that the return trip can be made at a convenient time.

Applying this to the subject at hand, the early Restoration Movement in American, as one example, took the individual passages in the NT involving one or more steps for a person to carry out for salvation and put them together in a semi-logical and chronological order: (1) recognize that one is a sinner and repent of one's actions, (2) turn to Jesus as one's personal Lord and Savior, (3) proclaim that decision before others, (4) submit to water baptism, and (5) follow God's will as revealed in the Bible and directed by the Holy Spirit within you.

Within this general five-step process, there are certainly variations among different Christian denominations. For example, some congregations place baptism first, with a confirmation years later. And there is a wide amount of disagreement concerning the exact mode of baptism, its necessity, who is qualified to do the baptizing, and what exact words must be spoken at it. Other Christian groups believe that speaking in tongues is the only sure sign that one has been saved. And yet others require that every single sin must be confessed to God or His appointed delegate before the point of death or one will still not go to heaven.

And all of the above takes only the human actions into account. In some Holiness denominations, it almost seems as if one's actions are all that count. By contrast, Calvinist groups sometimes stress God's overweening supervision of the process to the point where one's salvation is completely divorced from anything one might personally “choose” to do.The whole picture must include both components to be true to all the pertinent passages in the New Testament.

PAYING PASTORS: PRINCIPLES FROM THE PENTATEUCH

From its earliest days, the Christian church has taken Old Testament teachings concerning the priests and Levites and applied them toward the way her ministers should be compensated for their work. While there is nothing wrong with this practice in general, we must always keep in mind that one should not expect direct, one-to-one correlation between the two different situations and dispensations. However, the principle may be the same in both. For example, consider the question of the priesthood.

Numbers 18:1-20

In these verses are enumerated all the things that the Aaronic priests are to receive for their role in representing the people to God. These included all or a portion of each required animal sacrifice, all of the first-fruits of the crops and animals, and the cash redemption price for the first-born child in each family.

While the Roman Catholic Church takes the OT priesthood as a direct model for their own priesthood, that is not at all the practice in the Protestant churches. The reasoning is quite clear. In the New Testament, we learn that all Christians are “a nation of priests” (I Peter 2:9) There is no priesthood to stand between us and God. Instead, we each now have direct access to the very throne of God due to our status in Christ.

Thus, very few Protestant churches follow the practice of turning over all contributed money to the head pastor to do with as he or she pleases. However, it would certainly appear to be the case with some prosperity gospel megachurches where the “spiritual leader” lives a lavish lifestyle and even brags about it as a sign that God is pleased with him.

Numbers 18:21-32

In this passage we have the systematization of earlier instructions given in the Pentateuch relating to the Levites. However, as Wenham points out, “The assignment of the tithe to the tribe of Levi is something new.” He goes on to explain:

“The tithe is a payment in return for their service in the tent of meeting (21, 31), i.e. their work of dismantling, carrying and erecting the tabernacle. It is a recognition of the dangers inherent in their occupation: by dealing with such holy things they may be subject to divine judgment, and they protect the people from that risk (22-23).”

Such potential danger is demonstrated during the move of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem when the cart it was on began to topple over and Uzzah stepped in to steady the ark. He was struck dead on the spot. (II Samuel 6:3-8).

And this danger inherent in being in the service of the Lord holds today as well. James 3:1 cautions not many people to be teachers since God will judge those people with greater strictness. It is a shame that more church teachers and preachers, myself included, have not seriously taken this warning to heart.

Wenham continues: “Finally, the tithe compensates the Levites for their lack of inheritance in the land: whereas the other tribes had large tracts of land assigned to them to settle in, the Levites were given only forty-eight villages, scattered throughout the land (24; 34:16-35:8; Jos. 13-21). But the Levites are to treat the tithes they receive just like a farmer's income: they are to give a tenth of their tithes to the priests, in fact the best part of the tithe must be passed on (29)...As this passage makes plain, these payments were an acknowledgment of the enormous importance of the ministry of the tribe of Levi.”

I know that many full-time ministers make it a practice of taking a tenth of the salary they get from the tithes and offerings of the congregation and giving it back to the church. I was even at one congregation where we figured that into our calculation as to how much salary to offer a prospective pastor.

Deuteronomy 14:28-29; 16:14

McConville finds it interesting that whereas Numbers 18 presents the tithe as a right to be given to the Levites, in the Deuteronomy passages above it is classed together with offerings given for charitable causes. I know that there are some congregations who begrudge their pastor a living wage and treat his salary more in the category of charity rather than something he has earned.

One notable case in the past was that of the Scottish preacher George MacDonald who had a very large family. His skinflint congregational leaders periodically lowered his salary more and more, but he never complained about this unfair treatment. His good influence ended up reaching much further than his small church because his writings were read by C.S. Lewis and had a profound effect on his subsequent career in the areas of apologetics and fictional writings.

Deuteronomy 25:4

Among the miscellaneous instructions given in Deut. 25 is this one stating, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” This obscure regulation is actually cited twice by Paul to demonstrate that those who labor in the ministry deserve to be paid a living wage.

In I Corinthians 9, Paul couples this OT law (in 9:3-12) with the example of the priest's wages in Deuteronomy 18 (9:13-14) to make his point. Evans and Novakovic cite this as an example of a form of rabbinic commentary called the practice of “constructing a father [i.e. principal rule]” from two different scriptural passages.

And Ciampa and Rosner add that “it is not merely a matter of acceding to an affirmation of Paul's apostolic authority on this subject, but rather of learning to understand how scriptural authority should inform our ethical understanding with respect to such issues.” We should be able to reach Paul's same conclusion either through reasoning from the lesser (ox) to greater (a servant of God), or by considering the general context of love in Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 25:4 is also cited in I Timothy 5:18 where it is combined with Jesus' saying “The laborer is worthy of his hire” (Matthew 10:10 // Luke 10:7). This latter command is given to the apostles in the context of their going out two-by-two to preach the Gospel with only minimal provisions. They were to rely on the hospitality of others in each town.

Schnable explains that forgoing provisions made sense for short-term mission trips such as these. But that directive makes much less sense if applied to longer-term ministries.

Banks says concerning the I Timothy passage that Paul “does encourage those who consistently benefit spiritually from others' teaching ministry to share materially with them (Gal 6:6; cf. The analogy in Romans 15:27). This may well be the injunction in the Pastorals to give a 'double honor' (i.e., 'ample remuneration') to elders who do their work well, especially those who focus on teaching (I Tim 5:17). So while full-time employment by the local church of pastors, teachers, overseers, and so on, was not a feature of congregational life, some support for those who gave time and effort to serving others was appropriate. These people were not full-time professionals in the church but part-time servants of it who occasionally received, but did not necessarily depend on, reimbursement for their efforts.”

Ellis adds that “their ministry was a function of their spiritual gifts, and their support and leadership role was apparently unofficial and had no contractual character.”

Numbers 35:1-8

“Numbers 35 makes provisions for special cities in which the Levites will live, since the Levites have no tribal lands of their own (Num. 18:24).” (Olson)

This is another area where the rules governing how the Levites are to be treated may have had an influence on later church practices. I am talking specifically about the common practice among Protestant churches to provide a parsonage for their preachers. The IRS has even made special allowance for this practice so that this “perk” is not fully taxed as income.

Personal Experiences

I have served in a number of different churches over the years in various capacities as a volunteer. Here are a few random observations relating to the compensation of church workers.

My family attended a start-up congregation years ago which never had more than 20 adults in attendance on a given Sunday. We had no full-time pastor and so three of us men took turns preaching and officiating at weekly communion service. What little money we received went towards our rented meeting place and for bringing in an outside speaker once a month from a neighboring Christian college. We did not at all begrudge paying that speaker since he was in full-time Christian service and could use the extra income. That was even though we three “deacons” devoted more time to the congregation that he did, and without any monetary compensation. The difference was that we all had well-paying outside jobs and did not mind exercising the spiritual gifts we had been given for the good of the church.

However, in two different, and much larger, churches I attended in later years, I ran into a situation that I felt was not at all appropriate. In both cases, I was involved in adult teaching ministries and had the opportunity to be in close contact with the full-time paid Adult Ministries Pastor at the time. My observation concerning two of them was that neither ever bothered to attend an adult Sunday school class or did anything to aid the teachers in doing their job except to occasionally urge us unpaid volunteers to add more duties to our teaching load. And what few initiatives they took were only new programs which relied totally on other people to actually man them. There is another scriptural injunction that I felt should apply in those cases even though it seems a bit harsh: “Those who do not work should not eat.” (II Thessalonians 3:10)

One of those two churches had a Senior Pastor who at one point requested that his duties be limited to preaching one sermon on Sunday only, but at full pay. This was at a time period when they had already eliminated the positions of Pastoral Care Minister and Missions Minister as being unnecessary and not cost-effective. It is no surprise that one of the elders of that church referred to the members of the congregation as “giving units.” Serving the needs of others in the congregation and supporting outreach ministries were obviously very low on the priority of those church leaders.

IS QOHELETH AN UNRELIABLE NARRATOR IN ECCLESIASTES?

 The term “unreliable narrator” refers to the putative author of a literary work, usually told in the first person, whose words cannot be taken at face value. The narrator may not be fully trustworthy due to his or her purposeful misleading of the reader, not being acquainted with the full truth of events they are reporting, having limited self-awareness, wish fulfillment on their part, supernatural elements, or actual insanity.

Examples of books, short stories, or even essays that might be said to fall in this category include: Poe's “The Tell-Tale Heart,” Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Golding's Pincher Martin, Bierce's “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge,” James' “The Turn of the Screw,” Twain's Huckleberry Finn, and Ellis' American Psycho. One could even include the essay “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift since what he proposes in it (that starving Irish families should sell their young children to wealthy Englishmen to use as food) is not meant to be taken seriously.

But are there any unreliable narrators in the Bible?

One might think of the Book of Job since he and his four friends cannot be trusted to tell the whole truth most of the time due to their limited knowledge. However, none of them is the actual narrator in the story. The voice of the narrator is only heard briefly at the start and end of the book.

Then there are the writing prophets who are given words from God to say. And here we come a little closer to unreliable narrators in that often it appears that they did not understand the full import of the information they were given to relay to others. As we are told in I Peter 1:10-12, “The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation: they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things which have now been announced to you by those who preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.” (RSV) See also Hebrews 11:39-40 and Matthew 13:17 // Luke 10:24.

There are also the various visions that OT and NT prophets were given by God. One could say that the prophets were perhaps unreliable in accurately reporting the supernatural pictures they saw or, more likely, they had only a limited understanding of the meaning behind the visions. Just look at Daniel's response to a revelation of God in 7:28 and 8:27.

The Psalmists represent another category of unreliable narrators, but only in the sense that their words are highly emotional and personal. Although we cannot always take their words at face value, we can certainly agree that they are being “honest to God” in communicating their emotional state at the time of the writing. I am thinking of both dubious statements (“My God, why hast thou forsaken me!” – Psalm 22:1) and sentiments such as “Happy shall be he who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” – Psalm 137:9.

Finally, we come to Ecclesiastes, the most likely example an unreliable narrator in the Bible. Consider the interpretive options concerning this book:

    1. It was written by Solomon reflecting the great wisdom God bestowed on him.

    2. It was written by Solomon in his later, cynical years when he had begun to turn away from God and toward idols.

    3. It was written by an anonymous narrator (Qoheleth, i.e. the teacher) who assumed the persona of King Solomon for literary reasons. But if this is the case, we also need to know whether it reflects Solomon's thoughts in (a) his earlier or (b) later years.

    4. There are actually two voices speaking in the book: one is a cynical narrator who has given up on finding any truth, and the second is represented in passages at the end of each section (such as 2:24-25; 3:22; 5:18-20, etc.), where someone else adds his own sentiments in order to counteract the main narrator's unorthodox thinking.

    5. The narrator, whoever he may be, is just presenting what the dire situation would be if there were no God, but only what is “under the sun.”

You may note that except for possibilities #1 and 3a, in none of the other eventualities are we intended to implicitly believe in the truth of all that is said in Ecclesiastes.

HELL REVISITED

 

                            Homage to Bosch (collage, 2003)

There are several different general stances which have been taken by those who would consider themselves Christians regarding the subject of eternal damnation of those not saved. Here are a few comments on each. Only the first two options would be considered to represent orthodox Christian doctrine.

1. Hell exists, but wish it didn't.

I would guess that this is probably a common attitude of Christians today since it speaks of an overriding concern and pity for the fate of the lost, including some of our own family and friends. It is this feeling which has helped fuel the impulse to mission over the years. In addition, it speaks to some of God's basic characteristics: his love, forgiveness, and grace.

The prominent scholar Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary brings up one practical objection against this stance: “I am concerned...about theological slippage in our evangelical community. To tell our younger generation that we wish the Bible were not so clear about the reality of hell could encouraged them simply to take the step that we resist taking.”

2. Hell exists, and I am glad it does.

This is a much rarer response to the question unless one is talking of some die-hard fundamentalists who just relish the idea that they will be going to heaven while very few others will. But there are other, compassionate Christians who also take this view, but for more acceptable reasons. For example, Mouw has recently defended it in an article in Christianity Today magazine. Below are some quotes from that article:

3. Hell does not exist. All will be saved in the end.

This view is called universalism and is commonly stated as “All roads lead to heaven.” You will hear such sentiments mainly from non-Christians or nominal Christians.

Mouw says, “I am convinced that the idea of universalism fails to capture some important elements in the Bible's teachings about the requirements of divine justice. The Scriptures make it clear that God heeds the cries of the oppressed and that on the Day of Judgment all evildoers will be dealt with according to their deeds (Rev. 20:12). Universalism tries to get around the unspeakable harm that people do to each other, evading the need for repentance, while detracting from the Cross [If all are going to be saved anyway, why was it necessary for Christ to suffer and die.] and a real joy in God's justice.”

4. Those not saved will simply cease to exist.

Here is one way that some attempt to get around the idea of eternal suffering. This view is labeled annihilationism. I have extensively critiqued this unbiblical theology in four previous posts titled “Annihilationism:” with the respective sub-titles “Old Testament Scriptures,” “An Introduction,” “The Gospels,” and “Book of Revelation.”

One poster child illustrating the possibility of what View #1 can lead to is the once firmly evangelical scholar John Wenham. In his book The Enigma of Evil he stated that he didn't want to believe in the concept of hell for humane reasons. However, he also warned that we should be on the lookout for rejecting spiritual beliefs just because we personally don't like them. But, by the time his final book, Facing Hell, An Autobiography 1913–1996, was published just before his death, he was a confirmed annihilationist who wrote, "I believe that endless torment is a hideous and unscriptural doctrine which has been a terrible burden on the mind of the church for many centuries and a terrible blot on her presentation of the Gospel. I should indeed be happy, if before I die, I could help in sweeping it away."

5. Three Other Approaches

A. The famous apologist C.S. Lewis suggests in his fictional writings two ways in which one can mitigate the horror of imagining an eternity of unceasing pain that appears to be for some unbelievers a case of overkill. In The Great Divorce he imaginatively pictures an afterlife in which the dead have the free choice of visiting the outskirts of heaven and deciding to stay there or moving further and further away from the bus station to heaven in order to be by themselves and away from even the hint of God's presence.

This view fits in with Lewis' famous statement “The gates of hell are locked from the inside.” In other words, those who have rejected God's presence when they were alive are not likely to want to be around Him when they have died. So God grants them the dignity of their wishes.

B. But that does not help us understand the sad fate of whose who grew up in an environment in which the Gospel was never presented to them. Calvinists might simply state that God had predestined those people to damnation. Romans 1-2 seems to deal with this situation by stating that the Creation itself is testimony to God's power so that no one is without excuse for rejecting Him (1:18-23). On the other hand, Romans 2:12-16 can be interpreted to state that those who have never heard God's law may possibly obey His will anyway and have their sins accused on the Day of Judgment.

Lewis deals with this possibility, remote as it might be, in the final book in his Narnia Chronicles, The Last Battle. On Judgment Day, and all the inhabitants of Narnia parade one at a time into a tent where they are confronted by Aslan. Most of the Narnians are joyfully welcomed. However, one country is populated by a warring people who worship a bloodthirsty god. When those people (“who knew God but did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but became futile in their thinking...and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.” – Romans 1:21-23), enter the tent, all they see is the terrible deity they worshiped and are devoured by him. But there is one sole person from that tribe who for some reason had always pictured their national god as the loving and merciful deity which Aslan is in reality. That one person is saved.

I won't vouch for the theological correctness of these two view by Lewis, but they do perhaps give us insights to help rid the seeming arbitrary punishment of hell from our mind.

C. And Mouw even considers a recent contribution to the universalist view from David Bentley Hart, who says (in Mouw's words) that “each person will eventually want Jesus as Lord – that no one chooses hell when they see him.” Mouw's judgment on such a view is as follows:

“This is a much stronger argument than simply that the God we love wouldn't (despite what he said) condemn people. This is also what Hart argues. He says we have to ask whether a proper understanding of human nature allows us to believe that 'this defiant rejection of God for all eternity is really logically possible for any rational being.'”

Mouw identifies this idea as coming from Platonistic philosophy. “Plato taught that since evil is the absence of the Good, no one willingly chooses that which is evil. This perspective allows Hart to argue that what we might want to label in [Hitler's case] as 'intentional perversity' is in reality a state of ignorance '' due to the 'external contingencies' that Hart has listed, “such as disorders of the mind.”

Mouw's conclusion, however, is that each of us is choosing to follow a trajectory either toward God or away from Him, and God will not willfully change that personal trajectory.

“Embracing universalism means theological and spiritual loss. We miss out on the glory of redeemed people and the fullness of the divine glory. In a universalist future, God brushes off the degradation of his creatures. The wedding supper is not filled with guests dressed in the clothes of righteousness but with people trying to pass off their sins as inevitable, and therefore able to be dismissed. And God lets them. I find such a present (and such a hypothetical future) to be disheartening. I find it to be something far short of the joyful and triumphant repudiation of wrong the Bible promises.”

"ON THE THIRD DAY" (I CORINTHIANS 15:3-4)

As I am writing this, Easter is approaching. So it is appropriate to consider Paul's words in I Corinthians stating “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...”

Andrew Wilson notes that there is no problem finding Old Testament passages regarding the death of the Messiah, but not as many specific references to His resurrection on the third day. But that doesn't mean that there aren't any. Wilson states that this idea is in fact everywhere in the OT. “Seeing how and why this is can teach us how to read the Bible more attentively – which, more often than not means listening for refrains and echoes in a symphony rather than Googling phrases for an exact match.”

Well, I didn't use Google, but I did consult an analytical concordance. It indicated that there were almost exactly 100 passages in the Bible containing “the third day” or “three days,” evenly divided between the two phrases. 23 of these were New Testament references to Christ's resurrection. But what about the OT?

While not referring directly to the coming Messiah, there were still some “refrains and echoes,” to use Wilson's wording:

A. First, there are those occasions when a three-day wait is mentioned before some important event takes place. These include:

Genesis 1:12: Wilson states, “On day three, the land brings forth plants and fruit trees, and they carry seed 'according to their kinds', with the capacity to continue producing life in subsequent generations. From that point on, the rising to life of God's life-giving 'seed' on the third day becomes a pattern.”

Genesis 40:20: The wine-steward and baker wait in jail for their sentences to be pronounced, one being “resurrected” and the other executed and his body hung on a pole. The echoes here are obvious.

Genesis 42:18: Similarly, Joseph puts his brothers in prison for three days while they await their fate. Paul also waited in prison for three days while the Jewish leaders outside plotted to kill him. Fortunately, Festus protected him from being returned to Jerusalem (Acts 25:1)

In Exodus 19:11,16 Moses informs the people that God will come down on the third day. This is sort of a deliberate twist on Jesus coming up to the people on the third day.

OT characters sometimes conceal themselves from danger for three days while they wait for news. These include David in I Samuel 20:5,19-20 and the Jewish spies hiding from their pursuers (Joshua 2:16,22).

In II Kings 2:17, we read about the prophets who futilely searched for Elijah for three days, but he was in heaven with his Father. And, although by no means hiding from his parents, it took three days searching before they managed to find Jesus in the temple impressing the Jewish leaders there (Luke 2:46). And like Elijah, he was also in his “Father's house.”

Esther requests the Jews to fast for three days and nights prior to her taking her life in her hands and approaching the king with her request (Esther 4:16; 5:1). Other three-day periods of fast are recorded in the NT also (see Acts 9:9; 27:19; Matthew 15:32 // Mark 8:2).

The Jews halt for a three-day preparation period prior to crossing the Jordan into the Promised Land (Joshua 1:11; 3:2).

Ezra mentions three different three-day waits before important events taking place (see 8:15; 8:33; and 10:8-9).

Turning to the New Testament for more parallels, we find:

Three days represents the time period between Jesus calling his disciples and performing his first miracle (John 2:1).

Three days after being in a Roman jail, Paul preaches the gospel to Jews living in Rome (Acts 28:17). And this itself is an echo of Jesus preaching to the souls in hell and during his various resurrection appearances.

B. Then we have the many times in the OT that a journey of three-days is mentioned.

Most prominently, this happens as Abraham and his only son Isaac travel to the spot where he is destined to be sacrificed until God intervenes with a substitute animal. This incident has always been associated among Christian circles as a type of Christ dying on the cross in our place (Genesis 30:36).

Other three-day journeys appear during the wilderness wanderings of the Jews as they continued to escape from danger and toward the new life in the Promised Land, a foretaste of believers' future resurrection to a new life in heaven (Exodus 3:18; 5:3; 8:27; 15:22; Numbers 10:33; 33:8).

C. Three days can also represent a time of darkness. Thus, during the plagues of Egypt, the land was totally dark for three days (Exodus 10:21-23); Jonah was in utter darkness for three days while in the belly of the fish; Jesus was in the darkness of the tomb for the same time period; and Saul was struck blind for three days prior to his conversion and restoration by God (Acts 9:9).

D. After a three-day period, people are healed in I Samuel 30:12 and II Kings 20:5,8. These prefigure Jesus' resurrection as well as Saul's conversion.

“Three days” also figures in stories where bad news is shared. Jacob had escaped from Laban three days earlier before the latter was told of it (Genesis 31:22); David hears of Saul's death after a three-day period; and the guards inform the chief priests of Jesus' “escape” from the tomb three days after his death had occurred (Matthew 28:11).

Some of the above themes come together in the two closest OT passages looking forward to Jesus' resurrection:

The Book of Jonah

Most obviously, the prophet spent three days and three nights in the belly of the fish (Jonah 1:17), a passage quoted in Matthew 12:40 as predicting what happened to Jesus. The other passages in the NT talking about the resurrection simply say that it occurred “on the third day,” expressing the literal truth. But the phrase “three days and three nights” has caused commentators trouble since the Gospels appear to only account for a few hours on Friday, all of Saturday, and a very short time on Sunday morning. This “discrepancy” is generally explained as due to the common Jewish practice of considering even a small part of a day as the whole day instead.

“Three days” also appears in Jonah 3:3, where the text says that it took him a three-day journey to walk through all of Nineveh. It was a popular understanding in ancient times that the soul of a dead person had to undergo a three-day journey in order to reach the land of the dead.

Hosea 6:2

This poetic passage has also often been cited as a veiled prophecy of Jesus' time in the tomb. It reads, “After two days he will revive us;

on the third day he will raise us up that we may live before him.”

If we were to read this as prose, then it might be wrongly interpreted to say that either (1) the prophet can't seem to make up his mind how many days it takes or (2) it will be a two-step resurrection with “reviving” being the first step only.

In fact, as Hebrew poetry, this verse shares two characteristics of that genre. Both lines express basically the same thing, and it is a form of numerical poetry of the type “x, x+1.” Other examples of this latter poetry are found in Proverbs 30:15-31 and Amos 1:3-2:8. In all these cases, it is the last number which is the one in mind by the poet, with the first number merely preparing for it. We might think of rocket countdowns from 10 to “blast-off,” or the ditty “One for the money, two for the show, three to get ready, and four to “go.”

As Anderson and Freedman put it, “Explicit hope for resurrection of the body can hardly be denied in this passage, but commentators have been reluctant to admit it [tending instead to feel the passage refers to a communal or national renewal instead]. The sequence 'two days...on the third day' is an artistic turn, not a time schedule, though it may reflect the widespread belief that there was a three-day period after death before the final separation of the soul from the body.”

Dearman notes that the verb pair “revive and raise up” is also found in Isaiah 26:14 and 26:19, and Paul may have the Hosea passage in mind in I Corinthians 15:4, but “Tertullian appears to be the first Christian writer to cite Hos. 6:2 explicitly as scriptural proof of Christ's resurrection. However, Davies adds that “this understanding of it may well go back to the earliest Christian communities.”

Wilson concludes his short essay with the words, “So when Hosea talks about Israel being raised up on the third day, he is not plucking a random number out of nowhere. He is reflecting a well-established theme originating in the Bible's first chapter.”

I Kings 3:18

There is this one remaining mention of “three days” in the Bible, which has some of the same elements associated later with Jesus' death and resurrection. It is the story of Solomon's judgment regarding the two prostitutes who had babies at the same time. But after three days, the child of woman #1 died at night. So that woman secretly switched babies with her roommate's baby and falsely claimed that it was her own. Solomon's judgment was that the baby be cut in two so that both of the woman could share. Only woman #2 objected to this arrangement and agreed to let #1 keep the baby. At that point, Solomon knew who the true mother was.

Thus we have the death of an innocent person, the time frame of three days, a substitution of one life for another, the selfless giving of one person to ensure the life of another, and a “final judgment” by the king. The problem is that these elements are jumbled together to the point where it is hard to tell if there is any relationship whatsoever intended with later NT events. I will leave that to you as a homework assignment to see if I am on the right track here or not.

CAN WE REALLY BELIEVE THE EXODUS STORY?

I discovered another site on the internet which is antagonistic toward Christianity and the Bible. It is called “Medium” and is put out by Tim Zeak, who is described as: “formerly an evangelical who read the Bible from cover to cover a dozen times.” In one of his posts he gives the various reasons one can simply not take the story of the Jews' exodus from Egypt seriously. I have listed them in italics with my own comments following.

Many of these objections can be eliminated or at least mitigated greatly if the number of Israelite men (said to be about 600,000 in Exodus 12:37, and consistent with census figures in Numbers 1:46 as well as with the redemption money listed in Exodus 38:25-26). That would calculate to approximately 2,500,00 total Israelites taking part in the exodus. Thus, I will discuss that problem first before going to Zeak's objections. I turns out that there have been various ways of understanding Exodus 12:37 in addition to either accepting the number at face value or totally rejecting it as being entirely fictional.

    1. Cole: “We may assume, if we like, that the figures have been wrongly preserved in the manuscripts (perhaps in earlier days having been written in cipher, not in full)...It was great enough to terrify the Moabites (Nu 22:3), yet small enough to be based on the oases around Kadesh-barnea (Dt. 1:46). No theological point depends on the exact numbers, and so the question is unimportant. Whether there were six thousand or six hundred thousand, their deliverance was a miracle.” It is a well known fact that there is little to no redundancy to numbers compared to words, which makes it next to impossible to restore a number in the text which has been wrongly copied by a scribe.

    2. “Doughty observes a Bedouin tendency to hyperbolically magnify numbers by factors of ten.” (Propp) Other ancient Near Eastern cultures inflated their numbers even more so.

    3. Durham cites Beer, who feels the phrase 'about six hundred thousand' in Exodus 12:37 came from gematria, a practice in which each Hebrew letter stood for a corresponding number, all of which could be added up. Using this method the numerical value of the phrase “sons of Israel” in the verse equals 603,551, amazingly close to the 603,550 of Numbers 1:46.

    4. Thompson on Numbers 1:1-46: “Assuming that the terms in Nu. 1-4; 26 and 31 are military in nature and that the lists were ancient and authentic, it is possible that a later compiler of ancient source material misunderstood the true meaning of the terms, and assuming them to be numbers [instead of military leaders or units], simply added them up and arrived at the total of 603,550 in 1:46.”

    5. “Or alternatively the term 'allup, 'captain', may have been confused with 'elep, 'thousand', so that, e.g., in 1:39 the 62,700 men of Dan may have read originally '60 captains, 2,700 men', or even '60 captains, 27 me'ot'. The problem is thus complex and a variety of mathematical solutions has been offered.” (Thompson)

Depending on which of these mathematical solutions is correct, we arrive at much more realistic numbers for the total population of the Israelites at the time – between 16,000 people (according to Ramm) and 27,000 by the reckoning of Mendenhall and Jarvis.

Gordon also mentions these two possibilities but notes that they would not explain the number deduced from Exodus 38:25-26 and Numbers 1:17-46. However, he does not count on the fact that these passages may have been composed by another author or later editor who misunderstood the meaning of 'eleph in Exodus 12:37 and adjusted their figures accordingly so as to be consistent.

    6. Freitheim explains another approach, which is to “understand the number in terms of the approximate population of Israel at the time of David and Solomon; the number would be a way of confessing that all Israel from this later time came out of Egypt.” Ramm echoes this possibility: “In Israel's concept of 'corporate personality' (a group viewed as one person) all Israel did participate in the exodus as Christians believe that all Christians participated in the cross.” See Romans 6 for this idea.

Also illustrating this principle, and even closer to the context, is the way the census of all the Israelites coming to Egypt is enumerated in Genesis 46:8-27 as 70. It actually counts children who had not yet been born to the 12 patriarchs at that time. They are included because the potential for their birth was already present.

Keep the above possibilities in mind, as I go through Zeke's objections.

A: The Bible, in its story about the Exodus, would have you believe that 2,500,000 runaway slaves outran the entire Egyptian military who were chasing them on horses and chariots. That would have created a line over 200 miles long (at eight abreast) not including their animals, that the Bible says were many.

In the first place, there was no question of the Israelites “outrunning” the Egyptians who were right at their heels. If you read the account, you will clearly see that the Jews had left some time earlier, having time to make two stops along the way. Only then, after an undisclosed period of time, did Pharaoh call out his army to chase them down. Not only that, but Exodus 14:1-9 God told the Jews to actually turn back toward Egypt so that the army could find them more easily, in order to eventually trap them in the Re(e)d Sea.

Kitchen states, “That a large group of subject people should go out from a major state is neither impossible nor unparalleled in antiquity. In the late 15^th century BC people of some 14 mountain regions and townships apparently decamped from their habitats within the Hittite kingdom and transferred themselves to the land of Isewa...”

B: The story of the Exodus only appears in the Hebrew Bible/the Christian Old Testament and nowhere else. Not in Egyptian history, nor in any other history. Despite decades of extensive archaeological endeavors, not one trace of it has ever been found...nothing from the 42 largest and most populated “cities” that the Bible claims were in the same area.

As many Bible scholars have pointed out, it is actually quite rare for the annals of a country to record their military losses. Of his early military campaigns, the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptal recorded in his fifth year that “Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe; Ashkelon has been overcome; Gezar has been captured; Yano’am was made nonexistent; Israel is laid waste, its seed is not.” The Merneptal Stele is the first (and only) mention of “Israel” in ancient Egyptian records.

And since Israel obviously continued to prosper and grow numerically for years to come, the bragging words concerning their disappearance prove to be just that – a case of fake news. The pharaoh was, however, not telling a total lie – the Israelites were not...in Egypt anymore.

It is also well recognized that the Egyptians attempted to expunge from their records and statuary the whole time period during which the Hyksos people were in charge of the country until the native Egyptians drove them out of power.

R.P. Gordon cites historical examples ranging from a battle fought by Rameses II's troops in ca. 1285 BC to a devastating earthquake in China in 1976 in which 5000,000 people were killed. In both cases, the nations involved perpetrated cover-up attempts to minimize the amount of damage.

It is telling how the word “Israel” is written. At the end of every other mention of a people group is a hieroglyph of three hills, standing for “country.” At the end of “Israel” is the drawing of a man and a woman, a glyph denoting that Israel is not yet an established place, not yet a country. It is still a people wandering in the Sinai wilderness.

Next, in regard to the “42 largest and most populated cities” in the region of wandering, almost none of the place-names can be identified with certainty, which is not surprising since none of them need be a “city” at all. Some of the names obviously refer to small towns, oases, temporary camping places or villages instead. The Hebrew word for “city” does not even appear in the Exodus account of the wanderings and rarely in the Numbers parallel.

C. The Bible tells us that all two million plus of them were informed that the very next day, they would be escaping from Egypt and had to immediately get prepared. (see Exodus 11:2–4 and Exodus 12:21–24). How could that many be told without the use of bullhorns?

In saying that, Zeak has obviously never worked in a large company or the military. Even before the days of the computer (I am dating myself here), our lab director would have his secretary tell the department managers some piece of news for them to spread to the troops; they would in turn inform the supervisors, who would then tell all the people reporting to them. It was not at all unusual for those at the bottom of the totem pole to know about the news well before the supervisor informed them of it a little later in the day. Even in prison, there are methods of incarcerated prisoners rapidly communicating with one another even while in their individual cells.

Also, the people would have been already prepared to leave at a moments notice when the word came since Moses had warned them well in advance that the exodus was to be expected soon. It at least gave them the time to gather their things together as well as contact their Egyptian neighbors for any parting “gifts” they wished to give them.

For another thing, there was a least a two-week delay between the warning given by Moses and the time of the actual departure (see 12:1-13). This would have allowed plenty of time for them to prepare for the trip.

D. Despite the Bible saying elsewhere that they only took food wrapped in their shoulder sleeves and some treasure they obtained from the Egyptians, we see soon after this one-day escape that they all had tents to live in, along with tools and weapons. They also had plenty of wood and unblemished, one-year old male lambs for the many required daily sacrifices that their God demanded. (see Exodus 29:25).

In the first place, Zeak has misspoke here. It doesn't say that besides the treasures they only took food wrapped in their sleeves. It says that the only food they took was that which was wrapped in their sleeves. The text says nothing regarding all the other things they took with them.

At this point, it is also obvious that Zeak has not at all understood the way the Exodus story is being told. The account goes back and forth between telling the story of the actual exodus and outlining the detailed procedures for later years when the Jews were to celebrate the event annually. Thus, the elaborate instructions regarding how they were to celebrate, how the tabernacle was to be outfitted, and the later daily sacrifices to be performed applied to the time once they were settled in the land, not to requirements during the exodus period itself.

E. Water distribution in the desert would require an amazing network of wells, cisterns, and piping, assuming you can find the water to begin with. Since their food was rained down for them as manna, we can skip that necessity. Sanitation would be huge, manufacturing of clothes for those born in the wilderness, hospitals, first aid stations, schools, day care, where to gather wood for the many daily sacrifices (in the desert), medicines, soap, blankets or sleeping bags for those cold nights, and countless other needs that cannot be ignored. Factories and mining facilities were needed as they all had spades, tools, and weapons.

Ramm points out that “The Sinaitic Peninsula could have supported about 16,000 people at that time for it was much greener, but it could not have supported 2,500,000.” So Zeak's objection is only true if one demands that there were millions of Israelites on the journey. And as to all the other elaborate paraphernalia he mentions, apparently the nomadic tribes of that area managed to subsist quite well for generations without having most of those items which he enumerates.

F. Obviously, these slaves were apparently wealthy, as they all had houses with doors and a sizable herd of sheep.

In the first place, even slaves had to have someplace to sleep at night even if it was just an improved lean-to or tent. And since the Jews had lived in Goshen for quite a while before a pharaoh put them to hard labor, there is no reason why they couldn't have continued to live in the houses they had already built for themselves. Similarly, they had been raising sheep there for generations, and there would have been no reason for the Egyptians to take those away from them since (1) we know that the Egyptians themselves refused to eat goats or sheep and (2) by allowing the Israelites to keep their livestock, that would have greatly alleviated the necessity of the Egyptians having to provide food for them.

G. Moses did not write any of the Torah: It is very easy to confirm and to understand why the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars today have determined that the “Books of Moses,” the first five books in the Old Testament, were not written until during or after the post-exilic period (later than 586 B.C.E.) and absolutely not by Moses, who would have died many centuries before.

Although we are told several times in the Pentateuch that Moses wrote something or other down, it never states that he wrote the Pentateuch itself. “The Books of Moses” is a title that can just as easily and naturally be understood as books concerning Moses as its main character or the times in which Moses lived. But even if a post-exilic date is determined (and that statement is by no means as established as many liberal scholars would have you believe), that does nothing to disprove the historical accuracy of the account. In basically preliterate cultures around the world, it has been demonstrated that even detailed oral traditions are able to be accurately preserved from generation to generation. Thus, a combination of preserved written and oral traditions dating back to Moses' day is by far the best explanation for the wealth of accurate cultural information regarding Egyptian customs found in the Pentateuch, information which would have been hard to capture if the whole story were merely fabricate at a much later date.

H. Many locations named in this story were not even in existence at that alleged time, clearly proving the story was developed at a much later time than it claims to be. This is called an anachronism, one of several factors that scholars use in dating old manuscripts.

The previous explanation above well explains this objection also. It is as if someone took original accounts of the early populating of North America by Europeans and said, for the benefit of a current audience, that the Dutch settled in New York City (rather than the pedantically correct “New Amsterdam”).

THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND (MATTHEW 12:9-14; MARK 3:4-6; LUKE 6:6-11)

 

                        While They watched (collage, 2009)

This is another example of a miracle which is attested in all the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus heals the withered hand of a man while in the synagogue on the Sabbath with disapproving Pharisees looking on. Since Matthew's version is the most complete narrative, we will go with it while recognizing two major departures from it in Mark and Luke:

At the start of the story, Luke gives the added detail that Jesus went into the synagogue in the first place in order to teach.

What Matthew reports in his verse 12 as a statement by Jesus to the Pharisees, Mark and Luke pose as a question: “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm?” And when the Pharisees refuse to answer, Mark adds that Jesus was grieved at their hard hearts.

Since what is involved in this story is a question regarding the Jewish law, the short discussion below will concentrate on the historical situation at the time. And as background, it is necessary to go back to the previously mentioned healing in Matthew 12:1-8. Robertson notes the arguments Jesus adduced there for his justification for working on the Sabbath:

    1. historical appeal to the example of David eating the consecrated bread (I Samuel 21:1-6)

    2. the Old Testament law of Numbers 28:9-10 regarding the priest's required duties they needed to carry out on the Sabbath.

    3. the voice of prophecy recorded in Hosea 6:6, stating “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice.”

    4. the overall purpose of God in the Sabbath

    5. his right to do what he wished since the Messiah was the lord of the Sabbath

    6. In our passage at hand, another argument is offered by Jesus, namely, the common practice of the Jews to rescue animals in distress on the Sabbath

    7. And then John 7:20-24 adds a final precedent, the Jewish practice of circumcising newborn boys on the Sabbath.

Matthew 12:9-10

Kistemaker speculates: “Perhaps the clergy had told the man to come to the worship service and petition Jesus to heal him. If Jesus fell into their trap, they could accuse him of desecrating the Sabbath and bring him to court. In their legalistic minds they reasoned that only a patient whose life was in danger should be healed on the Sabbath; a man with a withered hand could wait until the next day...The Pharisees considered his shriveled right hand a blemish that restricted the man from fully participating anywhere in society and the synagogue. Instead of expressing sympathy and love, they looked down on him.”

F.F. Bruce quotes St. Jerome, who preserved a story from “the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, and which many regard as the original of Matthew.” It read, “I was a stonemason, earning my living with my hands. I pray you, Jesus, restore my health to me, so that I may not be shamefully reduced to begging for my food.”

At this point in the Gospel story, the Pharisees ask Jesus their trick question: “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” And actually, it turns out that the various Jewish sects at the time had differing opinions on that subject. In the Ten Commandments, they were obviously told not to work on the Sabbath, but how exactly was “work” defined and were any exceptions allowed? Dunn explains that detailed rules regarding acceptable activities “had already been well developed by the time of Jesus,” leading to differing conclusions by the Dead Sea community, the Essenes, and the Pharisees.

Matthew 12:11-12a
Jesus replies by appealing to them on the basis of rules governing the saving of animals in distress on the Sabbath. Pertinent to the example Jesus gives, Hock gives some interesting historical background information: “At times parallels from the [ancient Greek] romances do more than corroborate [NT texts]; they also clarify. For example, the brief mention of a pit into which a sheep might fall (Mt 12:11) finds clarification in Longus's romance [i.e. Daphnis and Chloe], where the practice of digging pits is more fully described: they are the work of a whole village, are six feet across and four times as deep, are camouflaged with branches and are designed to trap marauding wolves.”

Regarding the legal issue, the Pharisees were actually among the most liberal interpreters of the law and apparently saw nothing wrong with saving an animal which had fallen into a pit and couldn't get out. (Nixon)

But not all Jews applied the Sabbath law in the same way. Thus, “B. Shab. 128B and Bab. Metzia 326 were rabbinical rulings that allowed the rescue of an animal who had fallen in a pit or was in danger elsewise...the general principle was that it was contrary to the Law to allow an animal to continue to suffer without help.” (D. Hill)

However, as Dunn says, quoting the Dead Sea scroll labeled CD-AXI, 'No one should help an animal give birth on the Sabbath. And if [it falls] into a cistern or a pit, he should not take it out on the Sabbath...and any living man who falls into a place of water or into a [reservoir?], no one should take him out with a ladder or a rope or a utensil.” Dunn concludes, “So the episodes fit well into the context of Jesus' mission and give us a vivid impression of the sort of halakic [legal Talmudic] disputes that must have been a feature of the factionalism of Second Temple Judaism.”

And in reference to reason #7 above, another ruling in the Halakah was that circumcision was not only permissible, but demanded, on the eighth day after birth if it fell on a Sabbath, though there was no such exception given anywhere in the OT. (Maccoby)

Jesus employs the common argument from the lesser to the greater at this point to reason that a man is worth more than an animal, and therefore helping him on the Sabbath is certainly permitted.

C.A. Evans cites another ancient Jewish legal ruling that is even more to the point: “To be sure, the rabbis taught that the saving of life overrides the sabbath' (Mekilta on Exod. 31:31), after all, 'the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath' (Mark 2:27). (It is possible, of course, that the tradition in Mekilta is dependent upon Jesus.)...Obviously the difference between Jesus and his opponents lay in the interpretation and application of the sabbath laws; they did not dispute their validity.”

I can remember way back when I was in high school Sunday school class and one of our elders was a guest speaker. He gave us a pamphlet outlining the major problem with rock and roll music. It was based on a pagan jungle rhythm, and therefore listening to it was akin to worshiping a pagan deity. I argued with him on the point, but neither of us disputed the validity of the law prohibiting the worship of other gods.

Matthew 12:12b

Next both Mark and Luke's parallel accounts report that Jesus asked a second question (part of which is given as a concluding statement instead in Matthew): “Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good, or to do harm, to save a life, or to kill?” I will admit that I could never quite get the gist of what Jesus was driving at with this question.

The answer comes from an added comment given us by Luke, namely that Jesus could read the Pharisees' thoughts and knew that they were attempting to trap him. Thus, as Swift says, “they were using the sabbath with murderous intentions, plotting to kill Jesus. Which was more appropriate to the day, His healing or their plotting?”

And Short sees another aspect to Jesus' words that I would certainly never have read into them on my own: “He [Jesus] claimed that to refuse to heal the man would technically be a 'work' just as much as to cure him, and an evil one at that.”

Matthew 12:13-14

The incident concludes with Jesus healing the man, which does not in any way dissipate the Pharisees' hatred of Him.

Of course we are not immune to such nitpicking arguing even today. And at least some of it stems from the rabbinical practice of “building a hedge around the law,” to ensure that no one breaks the law itself. Dunn summarizes the problem with this practice: “The danger, then, is that an overprotective attitude toward an important law or legal ruling can actually constitute an abuse of the law itself. Secondary laws should not be allowed to obscure or hinder the fundamental obligations of relationship to God and to others [i.e. to love].”

ISAIAH 52

 The most valuable portion of Isaiah from a Christian perspective are those chapters containing what are called the “Servant Songs” (three of which are given in bold in Figure 1). There is some controversy as to the boundaries of these poetic sections, but here is my own symmetrical analysis of those found in chapters 49-57.

Figure 1: Structure of Isaiah 49-57

    1. Hope (49:1-50:3)

    The Lord's Servant (49:1-6)

        a. Word of Hope (49:7-12)

            b. Sing for Joy (49:13)

        a'. Word of Hope (49:14-50:3)

                2. Pay Attention (50:4-52:12)

                    The Lord's Servant (50:4-11)

                        a. Listen! (51:1-8)

                            b. Awake! (51:9-52:6)

                                (1). Awake, awake (51:9-16)

                                    (2). Rouse yourself, rouse yourself (51:17-23)

                                (1'). Awake, awake (52:1-6)

                        a'. Listen! (52:7-12)

    1'. Hope (52:13-57:21)

    The Lord's Servant (52:13-53:12)

        a. Hope for the Abandoned (ch. 54)

            b. Invitation to come to the LORD (chs. 55-56)

        a'. Hope for the Abandoned (ch. 57)

In this post, I would like to concentrate on Isaiah 52 only. Blenkinsopp rightly says of this chapter and the following one, “The passage has been and continues to be the object of an enormous volume of commentary and is beset by problems of interpretation, several still unsolved.” And Watts says, “The textual and exegetical problems are too numerous to canvas, let alone discuss; even the sometimes stuttering syntax seems to be a deliberate attempt to communicate confused astonishment.” We will touch on just a few of these issues in this brief review. The comments below will make better sense if you read the verses from the Bible along with them since I haven't always taken the time to quote or summarize them.

Isaiah 52:1-6

This first section of Isaiah 52 is written in prose, unlike the rest of the chapter.

Verses 1-2: God through the prophet speaks directly to the largely abandoned city of Jerusalem in anthropomorphic terms as if she were a captive woman ready to be liberated. This obviously speaks of the time when the people of Israel were still in exile.

Back in Isaiah 51:9, the Israelites had urged God to wake up and take action. Here we have “a retort which is the best answer. Cf. A comparable rejoinder by our Lord in Mk. 9:22,23.” (Kidner) Thus, as Oswalt points out, “The problem is not with him; he is ready to deliver them at the earliest moment when they are willing to exercise faith in him. It is they who must awake and put on strength, not he...While she [i.e. Israel] has no strength to deliver herself, she does have strength to lay hold of God's promises and must exercise that strength if deliverance is to be realized. This is a principle of divine-human relations that is the same in all circumstances.”

“52:1-2 is not so much a call to holiness as a promise that in a future day Jerusalem will be wholly free from foreign and pagan overlords.” (D. Payne)

Regarding v. 2, “The MT [Hebrew text] supported by LXX [the Septuagint] has 'sit down, Jerusalem'. The RSV...and others have accepted a slight textual change that allows for the translation 'O captive Jerusalem'. This would agree with the final clause 'O captive daughter of Zion'. It it is best, however to keep to the MT.” (Hulst)

Verses 3-6: McKenzie: “Something has happened to the words of Yahweh in vss. 3-6. The line between Hebrew poetry and elevated Hebrew prose is sometimes thin, but here there can be no doubt that these lines are in prose; and they form an eccentric mass in a poetic composition. Yet the content is not out of harmony with the context...The thought echoes in xlv 13. Yahweh has not acted for gain in the judgment of Israel, and he does not act for gain in its restoration. He acts only for his name, or for his righteousness, or for his fidelity.”

Verse 5: Payne says that “'here' in v. 5 and 'there' in v. 11 refer to Babylon, which he does not even deign to name.” This verse is quoted in the Septuagint version by Paul in Romans 2:24 following a long litany of Israel's sins causing God's name to be blasphemed among the Gentiles. Seifrid notes that “whereas the MT here sets aside the question of Israel's guilt, Paul, together with the LXX, speaks of Jewish transgressions as the cause of blasphemy...”

Verse 6: Durham notes the way the phrase 'I am Yahweh' is used rhetorically in the Book of Exodus. But he says, “The high point of this rhetoric is reached in Isa 52:6, 'Indeed will my people know from experience my name in that day, indeed, for I am He, the One who speaks out. Here I am!'”

Isaiah 52:7-12

In these verses, “The basic metaphor is of the triumphant approach of a king to a subject kingdom. His coming is announced by lookouts on mountains along the route and eventually by sentinels on the walls of Jerusalem.” (Blenkinsopp) Payne echoes this thought: “The return of the exiles is depicted as a solemn and sacred procession; it is as if God Himself returns with them.”

Verse 7: This is perhaps the most discussed verse in the chapter.

Robertson: “Green notes the connection of Nah 1:15 with Isa. 52:7, where deliverance from the Babylonian captivity is more immediately connected with God's word of redemption for Israel. He calls attention to the distinctive methodology of the writers of Scripture, 'by which terms and expressions primarily descriptive of the fall of one hostile power are applied interchangeably to that of others.'” Green's conclusion is that Nahum was commandeering Isaiah's words to make his own similar point.

“Part of v. 7...is duplicated in Nah. 1:15, and some scholars make a good deal of the supposed dependence of one passage on the other...it is equally possible that the phrase was part of a stock of phrases that was current in Israel as a whole, or among the prophets in particular, and that specific literary dependence is not an issue.” (Oswalt)

But Schnittjer states, “The extent of the parallel requires a direct or an indirect relationship. The verbal parallel does not offer evidence of direction of dependence.”

Bridger's extensive comments on Nahum 1:15 can just as well apply to Isaiah 52 as well:

“The mountains may be those around Jerusalem, making the promise of peace very close. Or they may be a metaphor for a very public proclamation of this good news; it would not be done in a corner, or in secret. The mention of the feet of the messenger suggests someone who has traveled some distance, perhaps from the scene of battle and a famous victory. The heart of the message was peace, the word used being shalom, which means much more than 'a ceasing from hostilities' or 'the ending of a conflict'...Nahum's words concerning 'the feet of one who brings good news, who proclaims peace,' point forward to salvation and peace beyond the deliverance from the Assyrians or even the Babylonians, to salvation in Christ and peace with God, and all that follows in the life of the spirit.” This implication is brought out in Paul's citing of Isaiah/Nahum in Romans 10:14-15.

In speaking of 'beautiful feet,' The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery explains that “the biblical writers are content with beauty as a general artistic quality denoting the positive response of a person to nature, a person or an artifact. Isaiah does not have physical appearance in mind...”

Verse 8: McKenzie states, “By a paradox the watchmen of Jerusalem respond with a shout; it is a paradox because an abandoned city would have no watchmen. What they see is not the messenger but the return of Yahweh himself.”

Verse 9: Oswalt: “It is into this landscape that God comes with the promise that he has comforted them and redeemed them...These two verbs are at the very center of the message of this part of the book. They speak of restoration to fellowship, deliverance from bondage, encouragement in despair, strength in weakness, forgiveness in guilt, purpose in uselessness, and more.”

Verse 10: In this verse it is said that God has bared is holy arm, “in other words, he has thrown back the encumbering folds of his garment in order to be able to use his sword.” (Whybray)

Kidner remarks on the “psalm-like outburst in vv. 9,10 (cf. Ps. 98:3,40).”

Verse 11: This verse tells of the sacred Temple vessels being returned to Jerusalem, as described in Ezra 1:7-11. Kaiser, quoting Calvin, says that the “promise in Isaiah 52:11 that Israel would be restored from exile is not to be limited to either the NT or the OT; it includes the time 'down to Christ's last coming, when all things shall be fully accomplished.'”

Verse 12: Note the vast difference this time from when Israel left captivity in Egypt in great haste (see Exodus 12:11). As Ellul says, “It is not a question of fleeing soldiers, beaten in battle, but of men withdrawing after accomplishing what God asked them to accomplish. Contrary to what has usually happened throughout history these are not men rejected by the city, but men who know that their act of rejecting the city is in accordance with God's will. These are men who go out, guarded on every side, with God marching before and behind, and abandon the city to herself in the midst of God's wrath.”

Isaiah 52:13-15

Bruce notes that “it was sensitiveness to the Christian application of Is. 52:13-53:12 that was responsible for the non-inclusion of this passage in the regular synagogue readings from the Prophets, although the passages immediately preceding and following are included.” This pointed exclusion is still present today. And it was little doubt that this same reason was behind the Jewish Targum (i.e. early commentary) of this passage assigning the exaltation passages to the Messiah but those on sufferings to the nation instead.

Freedman calls Isaiah 52:13-53:12 “the most important of the servant songs...The summary offered in 52:13-15 suggests that the pattern of the servant's experience stretches between the extremes of humiliation and exaltation, from death to resurrection, from condemnation as a criminal to acknowledgment as the lord of men. The principal obligation of this servant here is to suffer; this is his work for his master; in this manner his mission to the nations is accomplished, and the purpose of God through the servant is fulfilled.”

“Let there be no mistake...God's Servant will triumph (Isa. 52:13), for even though many will be shocked at His crucifixion (Isa. 52:4), this is nothing compared to the way kings will be stunned when He returns a second time (Isa. 52:15).” (Kaiser)

Verse 14: Oswalt states that “instead of the Servant demonstrating that he was the gift of God through his obvious attractiveness, the very opposite was true. We are repelled by the face of self-giving and undefensiveness, and appalled by the visage of one who would prefer to lose than to win for the wrong reasons. Whatever attractiveness he might have for people will have to be from within...” The churches in America would be well advised to heed these words.

Harrison and Merrill bring up an interesting historical point regarding this verse: They explain that in the Dead Sea scroll version of Isaiah, “the word msht [disfigured] was replaced by the slightly different form mshty, presumably meaning 'I anointed.' The verse would then read 'As many as were astonished at you: so I anointed his appearance above any man, and his form beyond that of other human beings.' This emendation, which emphasized the anointed nature of the Lord's servant, makes it apparent that the Qumran sectaries regarding the Messiah and the suffering servant as identical.”

Verse 15: We run into another translation problem in this final verse of the chapter. Payne explains that “sprinkle is the usual sense of the Hebrew verb, it is true, but 'startle' (RSV) may be right and offers better sense in context.”

On the other hand, Hulst offers an opposite opinion: “The Hebr verbal form yazze(h) has been dubiously rendered 'he shall startle' (cf. The RSV). Many suggestions on the translation of the forms have been made. In this context, the word cannot mean 'to sprinkle'..Vriezen believes the form to be from hazza(h) 'to splash', which is interpreted in this context to mean 'to burst asunder'...This interpretation deserves consideration.”

Most modern translations opt for some variation on the word 'startle.