WHY DID NAOMI AND HER HUSBAND MOVE TO MOAB? (RUTH 1:1)

The Book of Ruth begins with a Judean couple, Elimelech and Naomi, moving with their sons to Moab because of a famine in their country. Since the Moabites and Israelites were bitter enemies, the question arises as to the reason why. To answer this question, we must cope with five factors that are at play here: historical, geographical, geological, moral, and theological.

Historical Considerations

As to the historicity of this story, Oxley notes that “the author knew that at that time friendly relations existed between Israel and Moab (cf. I Sam. 22:3-4)...”

Additionally, Hubbard says, “While certainty eludes us, the Ruth story most likely falls between [the judges] Ehud and Jephthah since, except for Eglon, Israel dominated Moab during that time.”

And Gray adds, “There was probably an age-long relationship between the two regions, with rights of intermarriage, which made it natural for people of Bethlehem to find refuge there. David, himself of Bethlehem, sent his parents for safety to Moab (I Sam. 22:3).”

Thus, there is no historical improbability to an Israelite couple settling in Moab when the need arose.

Geographical Considerations

The phrase “'in the land' implies a widespread, not merely local famine,” according to Leith. In this, Grisanti agrees by explaining that when 'sadeh (“fields, open country”) is followed by the designation of a nation, it “carries with it territorial connotations (region/domain).”

This still leaves us in the dark why this Israelite couple would chose Moab as the place to settle, especially since it appears from the phrase “in the land” that nearby Moab would not have escaped this widespread famine either.

In the same vein, “Gerleman claims that this migration is merely a narrative motif designed to recall the famine-induced migrations of the patriarchs (Gen 12:10; 26:1). He reasons that the family could not have actually gone to Moab since the famine would have affected that area as well. In fact, however, Moab differs climatologically from Bethlehem despite their proximity (about 50 mi. apart). “According to Scott, in the dry year 1931-32 there was more rain in the southern highlands of Moab than at Bethlehem. Further, it is not uncommon today for rainclouds from the Mediterranean to cross Israel without dropping any moisture until they are east of the Jordan.” (Hubbard)

Morris points out that “Palestine has a rather uncertain rainfall, hence times of drought and, consequently, of famine are not uncommon...But droughts are strange affairs and sometimes conditions vary widely over comparatively small areas.”

Campbell feels that the 'plains of Moab' mentioned in passages such as Numbers 22:1 and 33:48 were probably where they settled. It was “a part of the rift valley across the Jordan from Jericho. Stretching south from this rather well-watered and rich plot is flattish tableland, its western flank rising abruptly from the Dead Sea to a point 3700 feet above...This tableland is fertile and comparatively well-watered. The abrupt rise from the Dead Sea forms a rain barrage, so that the western half of this region gets a fair rainfall (about sixteen inches per year on the average...). The wind, however, is relatively unimpeded, so that it is grass crops and pasturage which flourish...It is clear that conditions here can differ from those in the Judean hills around Bethlehem.”

Baldwin notes that the fertile plateau south of the river Arnon would even have been visible from the hills just south of Bethlehem. Similarly, Hubbard states, “The fertile Moabite plateaus may have been an important breadbasket for Palestine and thereby regularly attracted famine refugees....or or simply, Moab may have been the closest place to Bethlehem where food was available.”

Geological Considerations

A comment from archeologist Craig Tyson writing in the recent issue of Biblical Archaeology Today has perhaps hit upon an additional aspect of the situation: “In the first verses of the Book of Ruth, Elimelech and Naomi migrate to Moab because there is a famine in Judah...The Book of Ruth, of course, does not explain how it is that Moab escaped a famine that was being experienced just across the Dead Sea in Judah, leaving us to ask, 'Why would Moab be a better place to find food?' Our investigations at Balu'a may have revealed the answer. The land around the site is quite fertile, perhaps in part because of the volcanic soils of the area (thanks to nearby Jebel Shihan). Soils derived from basalt can be rich in minerals that make it quite fertile and productive or dry farming. Preliminary archaeobotanical analysis confirms the presence of barley, wheat, lentils, and peas in the site's Iron Age occupation levels. So, although the biblical author does not specifically identify the area around Balu'a, his general knowledge of Moab's relatively stable agricultural food supply seems to underlie the setting of the story.”

Moral Considerations

Some scholars choose to zero in on the factor of God's judgment to explain the events in the early part of the book. Thus, an article in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states, “Although some biblical periods of famine carry no moral or spiritual implications, it was regarded as one of a number of divinely ordained scourges that God uses to punish both his people and others for their sins...”

Ulrich says, “The book of Ruth does not explicitly interpret the famine as a Deuteronomic curse for covenantal infidelity (cf. Deut 28:15-48).” Nevertheless, that may well be one of the reasons for it.

Regarding the migrating couple's actions, he adds two examples of ironic behavior: “Elimelech and Naomi left Bethlehem, which means 'house of bread' in Hebrew, and moved to Moab, which had refused to offer bread to the Israelites during the wilderness years (Deut 23:4). What Elimelech's move to Moab signaled about his relationship with Yahweh is uncertain. The meaning of Elimelech's name ('My God is king') stands out in the period of the judges, when there was no king and just about everyone (perhaps even Elimelech) ignored the commands of the divine king (Judg 21:25).”

Sasson makes an interesting observation: “Moab, where the god Chemosh reigns, may not be experiencing famine when a Judean family seeks shelter there; but its fields will eventually kill a father and his sons and render their wives sterile.” Also, Block adds, “Perhaps because of a failure to recognize Yahweh's kingship, when famine strikes, Elimelech and his wife move out to the land where Chemosh reigns.”

Theological Considerations

These are by far the most important factors to concentrate on, as most commentators realize:

“Biblical famines have many natural causes...They were often believed to be God's judgment...though in this case the author was silent about its cause. The mention of famine, however, served a twofold thematic purpose. First, it recalled the biblical pattern that famines, despite tragic appearances, often advance God's plan for his people...Second, it hinted at some thematic link between this story and the patriarchs – a linkage all the more probable since the same phrase ['now there was a famine in the land'] occurs elsewhere only in Gen. 12:10 and 26:1 (cf. similar terms in Gen. 41:54,56; 42:5).” (Hubbard) He cites a number of additional Bible passages relating to moves due to famine, including Genesis 26:3; 47:4; and I Kings 17:20.

Leith says, “Although famine is often God's mode of punishment (Lev 26:19-20; Deut 28:21-24; 1 Kings 17:1; Jer 24:10; Ezek 6:12), here, reminiscent of Abraham (Gen 12:10, Isaac (Gen 26:1) and Jacob (Gen 45:6-28), it explains why an Israelite family would abandon its homeland.”

Her comment makes it clear that the famine in this case was not a form of punishment, but was instead the means God used in order to bring about His ultimate will, founding the ancestry of the future Savior of the world. This is something we would be wise to remember when we are hit with adverse conditions. It is not necessarily a sign of God's disapproval of us, but may actually be intended to lead us to some better fate He has in mind for us.

Morris feels that “the implication throughout is that God is watching over His people, and that He brings to pass what is good. The book is a book about God. He rules over all and brings blessing to those who trust Him.”

One of the reasons behind this story being included in the Bible, according to Oxley, was that we can see “that the LORD in His sovereignty was working out His cosmic purposes while intimately involved with persons who otherwise would have been ordinary.”

And Schnittjer reminds us, “The prophets occasionally speak of future hope for Moab (Isa 16:4; Jer 48:47). The Ruth story looks back and finds help for Israel from a socially challenged Moabitess.”

DANIEL 4:18

I attempted an exercise which I hadn't done in some time – choosing a Scripture passage at random and then seeing what I could learn about that verse from commentaries. The above is the Old Testament verse I happened upon.

The first thing I like to do is consider how that verse fits into its immediate biblical context in terms of literary organization. Thus, I developed the analysis below:

                                                     Figure 1: Literary Structure of Daniel 4

A. Praise to the Most High God (vv. 1-3)

        B. “I was living at ease in my palace” (v. 4)

                C. “I had a frightening dream which the wise men could not interpret (vv. 5-7)”

                        D. “Daniel, named Belteshazzar, had a spirit of the holy gods (vv. 8-9)”

                                E. Dream is recounted (vv. 10-17)

                C'. “Belteshazzar, interpret the dream which the wise men could not interpret” (v. 18a)

                        D'. “You are endowed with a spirit of the holy gods” (v. 18b)

                                E'. Dream is interpreted (vv. 19-27)

                                        F. Nebuchadnezzar's Time in Exile (vv. 28-33)

A'. Praise to the Most High (vv. 34-35)

        B'. “My kingdom was restored to me” (v. 36)

A''. Praise to the King of heaven (v. 37)

The center section in bold is written in the third person while the rest of the chapter is a first-hand account. And you can see from this organization that the statement in v. 18 that Daniel possessed the spirit of the holy gods is important enough to be repeated twice (see v. 9). Thus, we need to consider both sections C-D and C'-D' in explaining the meaning. Below are the two parallel passages as rendered by the KJV:

“But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, saying, O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen and the interpretation thereof.” (Daniel 4:8-9)

“This dream I king Nebuchadnezzar have seen. Now thou, O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation thereof, forasmuch as all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known unto me the interpretation: but thou are able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee.” (Daniel 4:18)

Bullock notes that “Chapters 1-6 are especially characterized by backward reflections. In 2:48-49 Nebuchadnezzar gives Daniel high honors and sets the three Hebrews over the affairs of the provinces of Babylon. The position of the three Hebrews is recalled by certain Chaldeans in 3:12. Daniel's interpretive gift, first seen in 2:25-45, is recalled by Nebuchadnezzar in 4:18, etc.” Thus, we have an explanation as to why the king sought out Daniel's opinion.

There are several issues brought out by these parallel verses, beginning with the identity of the king in this story.

Freedman explains: “Publication of the 'Prayer of Nabonides' fragment from Qumran Cave 4 [i.e. one of the Dead Sea scrolls] offers the prospect of an early solution, or at least clarification, of several problems connected with the composition of the book of Daniel, on the one hand, and the background and history of the people of Qumran, on the other...It would appear certain that the original story which underlies the present text of Dan. 4 concerned Nabonidus rather than Nebuchadnezzar. The relationship of the text of Daniel to the 4Q fragments is more complex, and we cannot speak of direct literary dependence. Comparison of the two accounts shows, however, that in the basic matter of the identity of the affected king, the Qumran material preserves the more original tradition.”

Hartman and DiLella are not quite as sure as Freedman. They do feel that “Nebuchadnezzar' in the story could possibly have been Nabonidus instead. However, they point to several important differences between Daniel 4 and the Qumran fragment which may cast doubt on this conclusion.

Then we get to Goldingay, who also discusses this issue, concluding: “Scholars have held a wide variety of views on the relationship between these various documents and traditions they represent. Whether or not we can reach any confident conclusions about the historical questions, study of comparative materials may help us to perceive characteristic and distinctive features of the text that concerns us...”

The other scholars cited below appear to take the identity of the king as Nebuchadnezzar as a given.

The next major controversy is introduced by mention of Daniel's two names. According to 1:7, after Daniel had been brought to Babylon under captivity, the palace guard replaced his Hebrew name with one which “probably derives from a Babylonian expression meaning 'guard his life.' The implicit connection to Bel and reference to the holy gods contrasts with the letter's opening praise of 'the Most High God.'” (A.-J. Levine)

And Millard translates it as 'inspired by the holy gods,' noting that “the plural 'gods' is probably correct.”

Longman reconciles this seeming incongruity by citing the king's mindset: “That Nebuchadnezzar still really hasn't 'gotten it' is indicated by the parenthetical comment at the end of verse 8. He refers to Daniel by his Babylonian name, which connects him to the king's native god. Moreover, he speaks of Daniel as the one in whom the 'spirit of the holy gods' dwells. Being a polytheist, Nebuchadnezzar has the intellectual framework to subsume Yahweh into his already existing theology.” But as you can see from the following comments by other scholars, these opinions are by no means universally held.

“Nebuchadnezzar recognizes Daniel as one in whom God's spirit dwells. In the OT the presence of God's spirit often implies the activity of God in his dynamic power...; the effect of this on human beings is to make them behave in remarkable ways and perform extraordinary deeds. A person who receives out-of-the-ordinary insights or revelations does so by the work of the divine spirit (Gen 41:38; Num 24:2, 2 Sam 23:2; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). Remarkable words are assumed to suggest the breath of God himself...The use of this word [i.e. 'spirit'] reinforces the suggestion of a real presence of God that contrasts with the spurious presence that the statue of chap. 3 claimed to bring.” (Goldingay)

Hartman and DiLella translate the key phrase as “a spirit of holy Deity”. They explain that a similar Hebrew expression appears in Genesis 41:38, “which E.A. Speiser renders well as 'endowed with a divine spirit.'...The author probably wished to show that this divine spirit came from Yahweh...”

And Young says, “This particular phrase may be paraphrased, 'that which pertains to true deity is to be found in Daniel.'”

This divide in opinion is reflected in the various modern Bible translations and paraphrases:

    The Message “the divine Holy Spirit”

    Jerusalem Bible “the spirit of God Most Holy” The footnote to this translation reads “from Theod., and not 'of the most holy gods', the reference here is not to pagan gods.” (Theodotion was a scholar who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek around A.D. 150.)

    The following translations stick with the Hebrew original, which reads 'the spirit of the holy gods': Living Bible, TEV, NIV, RSV, and NRSV. However, to these renderings are footnoted alternative understandings such as “a holy, divine spirit,” “the holy God,” and “Spirit of the Holy God.”

Jeffery rightly concludes, “What 'the spirit of the holy gods' means is quite obscure.”

Finally, in Beale and Gladd's excellent study Hidden But Now Revealed, they utilize Daniel 4:18 as one of the major linchpins in their arguments:

“The English word mystery in Daniel is a translation of an Aramaic noun (raz) that appears a total of nine times in the book (Dan 2:10,19,27-30,47; 4:9)...Each time the word is used, the Greek translations of Daniel consistently render it 'mystery.' Understanding the term mystery requires us to connect it with Daniel's conception of wisdom.”

Concerning the statement in Daniel 4:9 that 'no mystery baffles you [Daniel],' Beale and Gladd say, “It appears that Nebuchadnezzar had some insight into the symbolic meaning of his dream before Daniel discloses the dream's interpretation...On this basis, we will argue that mystery is not a radically new revelation, but a disclosure of something that was largely (but not entirely) hidden.” In support of their thesis, the Old Greek form of 4:18 is cited in which 'entire interpretation' is found in place of 'interpretation.'”

They then apply this understanding to various NT passages, as follows: “The role of the Spirit in the process of revelation may...reveal an intertextual or at least a thematic link between 1 Cor 2:10-13 ('For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God') and Dan 4:9, where Nebuchadnezzar describes Daniel as one who has 'a spirit of the holy gods' and 'no mystery baffles him (cf. Dan 2:11; 4:18; 5:11,14).”

The authors similarly see this two-part revelation process in Daniel 4 as the key to understanding the meaning of 'mystery' in NT passages such as Matthew 13:11; I Corinthians 2:6-16; Ephesians 3:3-5; Colossians 1:26-27; II Thessalonians 2:7; Revelation 1:20; 10:7 and 17:5,7.

ORDERING THE MINOR PROPHETS

 

                                  The Twelve (2004, mixed media on canvas)

The title of this post includes the term “Minor Prophets,” which needs some clarification before proceeding any further. For one thing, it is not meant to disparage the worth of those books but simply to distinguish them from the much longer four Major Prophets. Secondly, I should point out that although they are listed as 12 separate books in the Christian Canon, the Jews considered them as one united book going by the name “The Twelve.” The nearly infallible Wikipedia explains that “the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests that the modern order of the [portion of the Hebrew Bible called] Tanakh, which would potentially include the twelve, had been established by 150 BCE. It is believed that initially the first six were collected, and later the second six were added; the two groups seem to complement each other, with Hosea through Micah raising the question of iniquity, and Nahum through Malachi proposing resolutions."

“Many, though not all, modern scholars agree that the editing process which produced the Book of the Twelve reached its final form in Jerusalem during the Achaemenid period (538–332 BCE), although there is disagreement over whether this was early or late.”

Here is a key to the individual paintings above in case you should try to figure out the symbols present in each one.

Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah

Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk

Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

This order basically follows the same ordering found in both the Hebrew Bible and the Catholic and Protestant Old Testaments. However, there is a slightly different order given in the Eastern Orthodox Bible, based on the Greek Septuagint: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

But neither ordering is strictly according to the chronological order in which they were composed, as best we can guess. That last order, according to several sources, is listed below:

Approximate Dates (BC)

Neo-Assyrian Era

Jonah 810-783 or 771-754

Amos 760-681

Hosea 752-715

Micah 750-686

Neo-Babylonian Era

Nahum 663-612

Zephaniah 640-625

Habakkuk 605-586

Obadiah 586-576

Persian Era

Haggai 520

Zechariah 520-516

Malachi 477-457

Joel 444-345

But even these rough dates are subject to much discussion. For example, again quoting from Wikipedia, we read the following: “The arrangement found in current Bibles is roughly chronological. First come those prophets dated to the early Assyrian period: Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah; Joel is undated, but it was possibly placed before Amos because parts of a verse near the end of Joel (3.16 [4.16 in Hebrew]) and one near the beginning of Amos (1.2) are identical. Also we can find in both Amos (4.9 and 7.1–3) and Joel a description of a plague of locusts. These are followed by prophets that are set in the later Assyrian period: Nahum, Habakkuk, and these are followed by prophets that are set in the later Assyrian period: Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. Last come those set in the Persian period: Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, although some scholars date 'Second Zechariah' to the Hellenistic Era. However it is important to note that chronology was not the only consideration, as it seems that an emphatic focus on Jerusalem and Judah was also a main concern. For example, Obadiah is generally understood as reflecting the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, and would therefore fit later in a purely chronological sequence.” Additional rationales have been proposed for the present order of the books.

Lastly, even though the ubiquitous symbolic number “12” appears to be attractive for such a collection, arguing from literary considerations, one can easily argue that (a) the last three of these books can also be considered as a unified whole and (b) Zechariah, as mentioned above, is really composed of two separate books (see post titled “The Unity of Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi.”).

SOURCE CRITICISM OF NUMBERS 16-17

This extended passage provides a good test case for what is called Source-Critical Analysis, a standard tool of liberal commentators. Their basic starting assumption is that the Pentateuch was compiled by editors over a period of years beginning with four different sources, which can be easily identified by their characteristic vocabulary and theological concerns. Also, each of these sources can be confidently assigned at least relative dates for their original composition.

This methodology sounds good in theory, although there is absolutely no manuscript evidence to back it up, but runs into problems when carried out in practice. Let's start by looking at the verses within Numbers 16-17 assigned to the various sources, as described by three different scholars (not all of whom necessarily subscribe to the divisions they are describing). For your information, JE is supposed to be the earliest source, followed by a priestly source P, and finally by P(s) supplementing P.

Ashley:         JE = 16:12-15, 25, 26b-34

                     P = 16:3-7, 18-24, 26a [perhaps 27a], 35, 17:1-13

                     P(s) = 16:8-11, 16-17

Levine:        JE = 16:1-2 [rewritten by P), 12-15, 25-34 [with P insertions]

                    P = 16:3-11, 16-24, 35, 17:1-13

Wenham:    JE = 16:1b, 2a, 12-15, 25, 26b, 27b-32a, 33-34

                   P = 16:1a, 2b, 3-7, 18-24, 26a, 27a, 35, 17:1-13

                   P(s) = 16:1a, 7b-11, 16-17, 32b, 36-40

As you can see, three different parsings of these two chapters utilizing the same methodology have led to three completely different results, other than agreement on P as the single source behind Numbers 17. That alone should cast huge doubts on the value of this sort of approach to the biblical text.

For example, it flies in the face of Levine's comment: “The lines of textual demarcation between JE and P in Numbers 16-17 are quite distinct, despite their linkage.”

But there are even more problems with source analysis, well summarized by Wenham in his commentary on Numbers.

    1. “To justify their analysis, source critics are forced to postulate that the sources have been modified by an editor. For example, it is held that 16:24,27 have been altered from an original 'dwelling (i.e. tabernacle) of the LORD' into the present dwelling of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, because these names occur in a P-context. Similarly, verse 32b is said to be an editorial...addition because it is found in a JE context yet mentions Korah.”

    2. Another major flaw in their reasoning “is that the supposedly earlier sources assume what is mentioned only in the later accounts.” He cites several instances to demonstrate that point and concludes: “For these reasons it seems simplest to regard Numbers 16-17 as a unit. If it is based on more than one source, they are different from JE, P, or P(s).”
From my own personal background, I can recognize above two well known errors that even we scientists fall into on occasion. The first goes by the rather homely phrase “dry-labbing.” That describes someone who starts out thinking he knows what the answer to a scientific problem ought to be. So when the data do not confirm that assumption, he or she merely alters the data itself so that it fits the theory. The second principle is that of Occam's Razor, which in brief says that when more than one theory fits the observed data, you should go with the simplest explanation every time. Thus, more conservative commentators appear to have no problem at all with considering Numbers 16-17 as a unity:

“Several scholars have suggested on the basis of these differences in vocabulary [i.e. 'ground' in vv. 30-31 and 'earth' in 32-34] that two sources are conflated here. Surely literary variety explains the differences, and good Semitic repetition of thought...explains the similarities sufficiently well without positing a conglomeration of sources.” (Wenham)

Ashley talks about theories which “assume that modern scholars know more about how the story should be told than the author/editor who put the text together.” And elsewhere he writes, “This view of the origin of the text, although common, seems artificial and based on the cleverness of the interpreter rather than on the text itself. The literary complexities of this text, including a certain roughness in transitions between sections, may be explained by literary or stylistic reasons or so-called tensions such as repetitions, rather than seeking refuge in putative documents not one of which can be proved to have existed.”

Stubbs: “The three main scenes in these chapters form a coherent narrative about the rebellion against the priestly leadership of Israel. They provide insight into the nature of priestly leadership, showcasing both sins to be avoided and positive models. These chapters can guide Christians singled out for similar leadership within the people of God and can also inform the people of God as a priestly community how they should engage the surrounding world.”

If Numbers 16-17 is indeed a coherent unity rather than a haphazard combination of different sources, then that fact should be evidenced in the present form of these chapters. In that regard, Wenham states, “The stories not only have the same theme, they have similar structures. Most striking is the fact that each of these tests of Aaron's call takes two days.” Another indication of unity is the appearance of the key word “congregation” ('eda) exactly 14 times throughout.

In my earlier analysis of the symmetrical form of the Book of Numbers (see the post titled “The Book of Numbers: Introduction to the Literary Structure”), I identified 11:1-25:18 as the second major section in the book. In turn, it can be further broken down into another symmetrical organization as shown in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: The Structure of Section II (Numbers 11-25)

A. God's Wrath (ch.11)

B. Rebellions Against God's Leadership (chs.12-14)

C. Various Laws (ch.15)

D. Rebellion Against Levitical Authority (16:1-35)

E. God's Wrath (16:36-50)

D'. Restoration of Levitical Authority (17:1-13)

C'. Various Laws (chs.18-19)

B'. Result of Rebellion Against God's Leadership (20:1-21:3)

A'. God's Wrath (21:4-25:18)

At the center of this section is the story of the Korahite rebellion in Numbers 16-17, divided into three separate but related units according to the scheme of Ashley. Wenham notes the same obvious divisions and points out that all three units (II D-E-D') contain the same components, with a reversal of order in D'. The negative situation of ch. 16 culminating in the death of thousands is given a positive slant in the subsequent chapter with the budding of Aaron's rod. And although Aaron dies, Israel is given a new priest in Eleazer.

Wemham also points out that the text in D' above “is quite simple and is in effect a symbolic re-enactment of the Korah scene [i.e. Section D].”

Many further examples of the unity of Units D, E, and D' above can be cited which cut across putative source lines in Chapters 16-17. Let's begin by considering the first rebellion: Unit D (Numbers 16:1-35). It can be diagrammed as shown in Figure 2 below:

                                Figure 2: The Structure of Section IID (Numbers 16:1-35)

        1. Combined Rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram (vv. 1-2)

                2. Address to Korah (vv. 3-11)

                        3. Dathan and Abiram (vv. 12-14)

                2'. Address to Korah (vv. 15-19)

        1'. Combined Fate of Korah, Dathan and Abiram (vv. 20-35)

In regard to these rebels, Wenham notes, “But as they started out united in opposing Moses and Aaron [unit 1 above], they die together as the earth opens its mouth and swallows them all up (24-33) [unit 1'].” He and others also recognize the parallel nature of vv. 5-7 (unit 2) with vv. 16-17 (unit 2').

Within that structure, IID2 can also be seen to be symmetrically arranged:

                        Figure 3: The Structure of Section IID2 (Numbers 16:3-11)

    1. Moses and Aaron are confronted (v. 3a)

        2. They are accused of elevating themselves (vv. 3b-4)

            3. In the morning, God will show who is holy and can approach Him (v. 5)

                4. The test explained (vv. 6-7a)

            3'. Tomorrow God will show who is holy and can approach Him (v. 7b)

        2'. The Levites are accused of elevating themselves (vv. 7c-10)

    1'. Moses and Aaron were confronted (v. 11)

In support of this organization, both 2 and 2' contain the following: the phrase “You have gone too far,” accusations of people trying to elevate themselves above others, and two occurrences each of “allow(ed) to approach Him.”

                                Figure 4: The Structure of IID3 (Numbers 16:12-14)

    1. “We will not come” (v. 12)

            2. “You have brought us out of a land of milk and honey” (v. 13a)

                    3. “Must you lord it over us?” (v. 13b)

            2'. “You have not brought us to a land of milk and honey” (v. 14a)

                   3'. “Are you trying to deceive us?” (v. 14b)

    1'. “We will not come" (v. 14c)

                            Figure 5: The Structure of IID2' (Numbers 16:15-19)

                1. Moses speaks to God (v. 15)

                                2. Moses outlines test for Korahites (vv. 16-17)

                                2'. Korahites obey Moses (vv. 18-19a)

                1'. God appears to the congregation (v. 19b)

                                Figure 6: Structure of IID1' (Numbers 16:20-34)

1. Intercession on behalf of congregation (vv. 20-27)

        a. God announces that they will be consumed (vv. 20-21)

                b. Moses and Aaron intercede (v. 22)

        a'. God says they should separate themselves from the grumblers (vv. 22-23)

                b'. Moses and Aaron tell the people and they obey (vv. 25-27)

                            2. God carries out the judgment as Moses predicted (vv. 28-33)

1'. Congregation flees because they do not believe in the intercession (v. 34)

There is an interesting word play present in this unit, as shown below:

        The ground will open up and swallow them along with their belongings, etc. (v. 30)

                    The ground split open (v. 31)

        The earth opened up and swallowed them along with their belongings, etc. (vv. 32-33)

                    The earth will swallow us (v. 34)

                                Figure 7: Structure of IIE (Numbers 16:35-50)

Although many scholars include v. 35 with the previous unit, the symmetrical organization below seems to argue that it belongs here instead, especially because the emphasis on “fire” in this section.

        1. number of people killed by God's judgment fire (v. 35)

                2. censers turned into coverings for the altar (vv. 36-40)

                        3. God's judgment plague (vv. 41-44)

                2'. Aaron's censer used for atonement of people (vv. 45-48)

        1'. number of people killed by God's judgment plague (vv. 49-50)

Helping to unify this literary unit is the presence of three different Hebrew words based on the root verb “to cover” (tsippui in vv. 38-39; kasah in v. 42; kaphar in vv. 46-47).

Regarding the use of the censers of those who were killed, Carson says, “The censers are to be hammered into sheets presumable as an extra covering for the bronze altar. They had been used to overthrow Aaron's office and now are to strengthen it.”

                                        Figure 8: Structure of IID' (Numbers 17)

1. “Gather all the staffs” (vv. 1-3)

        2. “Place them before the covenant and the chosen staff will sprout” (vv. 4-5a)

                3. “This will stop the people from complaining” (v. 5b)

1'. All the staffs are gathered (v. 6)

        2'. They are placed before the covenant and Aaron's staff sprouts (cc. 7-8)

1''. The staffs are returned (v. 9)

        2''. Aaron's chosen staff is placed before the covenant (v. 10a)

                3'. “It will be a warning to the people to stop complaining” (vv. 10b-11)

Unfortunately, the chapter does not end here but continues with verse 12 which states that the people did not stop their grumbling, but went around feeling that God was going to kill them any minute. There are several ways in which we can interpret this sad conclusion:

    1. It proves that the lessons in the previous tests and reminders left in the tabernacle have had their due effect and will prevent any similar rebellions from occurring, until they crop up again concerning other issues.

    2. It acts as transitional verse between chapter 17 and the following chapter in which details of the Aaronic priesthood are better defined and explained to the people.

    3. Verse 12 is to be looked upon as a sort of bracketing verse concluding all of Numbers 16-17. At the start, there is a full-scale rebellion against the duly appointed religious leadership of the Israelites. But at the end of the three tests, only minor grumbling is present. As Whitelaw and Winterbotham put it: “These are the last wailings of the great storm which had raged against Moses and Aaron...which was now sobbing itself out in the petulant despair of defeated and disheartened men.., fearful to offend, yet not loving to obey.”

 

JOHN 5:19-47 UNITY

The unity of the material in this chapter is obvious since it consists of a miracle performed on the Sabbath and Jesus’ reply concerning the subsequent controversy. Borchert helpfully notes that 5:30 serves as a transition verse connecting Jesus’ third-person references to himself (in vv. 19-29) as a judge, with his first-person speech in vv. 31-47 in which he acts as his own defense counsel presenting witnesses on his own behalf. An alternative way of looking at this ordering to his speech is to say that Jesus first referred to himself in the opening cycle in an indirect manner as the “Son” (exactly 7 times), followed by clarifying it as Son of God (v. 25) and then Son of Man (v. 27). Then in the second, and parallel, cycle of his speech, he came right out and identified himself as the person to whom he had been referring.

A more detailed manner of picturing Jesus' speech in this chapter is shown below:

    A. The Son can do nothing on his own (19)

        B. Great works will astonish you (20-21)

            C. Honor the Son as the Father who sent him (22-23)

                D. Hear my word and believe him who sent me to have eternal life (24)

                    E. The Last Judgment (25-29)

    A'. I can do nothing on my own (30)

        B'. Testimony of John and the works (31-36)

            C'. The Father who sent me testifies (37-38)

                D'. You think you have eternal life but refuse to get life from me (39-44)

                    E'. Moses will accuse you on that day (45-47)

As is usual in John's rendering of Christ's teachings, there are a number of key words which appear more than once. These include “eternal life” in verses 24 and 39; “life/live” (10x); references to the Father sending Jesus to earth in vv. 23, 24, 36, and 37 (interesting because #4 in the Bible is symbolic of the earth); 12x occurrences of “Father,” “testify/testimony” appearing 10x, all in the second cycle above; three references to the coming “hour” (vv. 25, 28, 35 – the first two serving as brackets for Section E above); and two statements teaching that “life” comes only from the Son in vv. 21 and 40.

In addition, “honor” in the first cycle appears to be replaced by “glory” in the second one, 4x and 3x, respectively, for a total of the symbolic number for perfection or completion, seven. More duplication includeS “astonished” (2x), “works” (3x), “judge/judgment” (5x), and “believe” (8x).

JOHN THE BAPTIST AND HEROD ANTIPAS (MATTHEW 14:1-12; MARK 6:14-29)

 

 Scenes in a Life: Panel G (mixed media, 2006)

 Scenes in a Life: Panel H (mixed media, 2006)

Four members of the extended family of Herod the Great appear in the story of John the Baptist's death, told in detail by Matthew and Mark. The relationship between the members of this royal family is complicated by a series of intermarriages and a divorce. I will try to explain it as simply as possible.

Herod the Great had a widespread family by his several different wives. Due to intrigues in the family, Herod felt in necessary to kill off some of his family members. If he hadn't done that, the picture would have been even more complicated. But of his sons who remained in power over various parts of Herod's empire after Herod the Great's death, only four figure into the story of John the Baptist's demise: Herod Antipas (Herod the Tetrarch), Aristobulus, Herod Philip, and Philip the Tetrarch.

The ruler who imprisoned John the Baptist was Herod Antipas, who had been married to the daughter of the Nabataean King Aretas IV. But he divorced her in order to marry Herodias, the daughter of his half-brother Aristobulus and former wife of another uncle of hers, Herod Philip, until she divorced him.

Herodias' daughter by her first marriage was Salome, who impressed Herod Antipas so much with her dancing. Salome later married her own half-uncle Philip the Tetrarch.

Now that we have cleared up that puzzle, here are some comments from the scholarly literature regarding this story:

Mark gives a somewhat sympathetic version of Herod's attitude toward John in that the king liked to listen to John talk and had a superstitious objection to having him harmed. The blame for John's death comes solely from Herodias. Horsley sees an Old Testament parallel here: “Herod and Herodias' respective feelings about John are reminiscent of Ahab's and Jezebel's stances toward Elijah in 1 Kings 18-19.” This may be one of the reasons Mark mentions in 6:14-16 that it was thought Jesus was either John or Elijah raised from the dead. By contrast, Matthew takes a dimmer view of Herod and says that the only thing holding him back from executing John was fear of the Jewish crowd who had accepted him as a true prophet.

Spencer characterizes Herod and Herodias as follows: “Together, the Herodian couple illustrates the malignant, self-protective abuse of power in contrast to the self-sacrificing love of both Jesus and his forerunner John.”

Historical Background

Bond says that “the central claim that John criticized Antipas's marriage may well be historical. Josephus also mentions the Baptist's death, but in his account Antipas, worried by John's large following, had him imprisoned in the fortress of Macherus and executed...There are differences in emphases here [compared to the Gospel story], but in general terms the two accounts are complementary.”

And Cummins states, “It is generally agreed that Josephus's brief account of John's activities and fate under Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (Ant. 18:166-19), is authentic and reliable.”

Old Testament Background

“In the ensuing account of John's death at at Herod's birthday banquet, which in Mark is significantly shaped by kingship motifs drawn from the OT Elijah narrative (1 Kings 17-19;21; 2 Kings 1-2) and Esther, the Baptist and 'king' are contrasted with telling effect...” (Cummins)

John's objection to Herod's irregular marriage was based on the OT law found in Leviticus 18:16; 20:21.

Salome's Dance

Scholars are divided on several issues involved with this event:

Mann: “The undoubted implication of the text is that the dancing [by Salome, who would have been about 20 years old at the time] was sensual and lascivious, and there is an obvious question as to whether a member of Herod's family would have been allowed to perform in the presence of strangers. The commentators have been decidedly at variance with one another, and the combination of the well-known character of the Herodian family and suggestions about the morals of oriental courts have proved irresistible to speculators.”

Blomberg says that Salome was about 12 years old and thus not free to speak for herself regarding her request from Herod. Instead, she had to consult with her mother first. “The word 'danced' (from horcheomai) does not in itself imply any sensuality, not does any appear in this context. But the Herodians were infamous for immorality, so one cannot exclude the idea of erotic dancing here.”

“The dancer is referred to as a 'girl', korasion, the same diminutive which has been used for Jairus's daughter in [Matthew] 9:24-25, the term used would be appropriate to a younger teenager, and what we know of the family's history supports such an age.” (France)

Herod's Oath

Following the dance, the 'king' rashly promises Salome whatever she wishes, up to half his kingdom. In discussing the subject of solemn oaths, McCabe says, “Both Mark and Matthew illustrate the danger of oaths with Herod's frivolity leading to the execution of John the Baptist (Mt 14:1-12; Mk 6:14-29) and Peter's temperamental denial of Jesus expressed with his self-imprecation (Mt 26:69-75; Mk 14:66-72). These failures are contrasted by Jesus' refusal to swear an oath to the truth of his testimony...(Mt 26:64a)...”

Burying the Body

Only Matthew informs us that John's disciples came to claim his body. Overman notes, “The courage of John's disciples in claiming their teacher's body for burial contrasts with that of Jesus' followers.”

But Hendricksen says, “In view of the fact that these men had been permitted to visit John in his prison, it is not surprising that they were also allowed to provide an honorable burial for his decapitated body. The very fact that these disciples, now that their master had been murdered, reported this to Jesus [see Matthew 14:12] would seem to indicate that they were on friendly terms with the latter; not only that, but that they believed in him. Does not this also indicate that the answer Jesus had sent to John (Matt. 11:4f) must thus have satisfied John?”

Subsequent Events

First, considering what happened to Herod Antipas following this incident, Lane informs us, “The royal title had been denied to Antipas by Augustus. Goaded by the ambitious Herodias, it was Antipas' request for the title of 'king' which officially led to his dismissal and exile in A.D. 39. Mark's use of the royal title may reflect local custom or it may be a point of irony.” To give Herodias her due, I should add that she voluntarily chose to go into exile with her husband.

More insights into this whole episode can be seen by comparing it to subsequent events recorded in the NT. Thus, France states, “The careful reader of Matthew might reflect on the contrast between this degenerate scene of Antipas's lavish feast with its sordid and tragic outcome and the wholesome simplicity of the 'feast' which will follow in vv. 13-21.

Dennis says, “John the Baptist's arrest (Mk 1:14) and execution by Herod Antipas (Mk 6:16) foreshadow Jesus' own arrest and crucifixion by Pilate...Jesus affirms the tradition of the eschatological coming of Elijah (Mk 9:12) and identifies John the Baptist with Elijah (cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28) when he says, 'Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they wished, just as it is written of him' (Mk 9:13). The reference here is to John's rejection by Israel's leaders and his execution by Herod Antipas (cf. Mk 1:14; 6:25-28). Thus, the fate of John the Baptist, as Elijah, parallels Jesus' fate (cf. Mk 6:14-17; 11:29-32)...”

THE NIGHTMARE SONG (SONG OF SONGS 5:2-8)

 

The Nightmare Song (Song of Songs 5:2-8)

I have a rather wide and unique range of musical tastes, one of which is the operettas of Gilbert and Sullivan, who were known for, among other things, their clever patter songs. One of them is the Nightmare Song from Iolanthe in which the hero dreams he is crossing the channel with his 11-year old attorney and all of his relations when the boat becomes a four-wheeled carriage and then disappears entirely so that he and the crew are on bicycles instead. The attorney then sells shares in a scheme he has to plant the feet of tradesmen in the ground so that their fingers will start growing the products they sell. At this point, the hero awakes and sings, “Oh the night has been long – ditto ditto my song. And thank goodness they're both of them over!”

Why did I bother mentioning all of that? In order to introduce another nightmare song, this one found in the Song of Songs 5:2-8. It is actually a companion piece to another, and more pleasant, dream found in that book (3:1-5), as you can see by the literary organization of the Song below.

A. Title (1:1)

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

I. The Lovers Dwell Apart (1:2-7)

II. A Make-Believe House for the Lovers (1:8-2:7)

III. He Invites Her to Come Away (2:8-17)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                IV. Dream: Seek and Find (3:1-5)

V. Solomon's Litter Described for the

Daughters of Jerusalem (3:6-11)

VI. The Lovers in a Garden of Delight (4:1-5:1a)

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

B. Benediction on the Lovers (5:1b)

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

IV'. Nightmare: Seek and Not Find (5:2-8)

V'. The Hero Described for the

                                                                     Daughters of Jerusalem (5:9-16)

VI'. The Lovers in a Garden of Delight (6:1-10)

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

III'. She Invites Him to Come Away (6:11-7:13)

II'. A Make-Believe House for the Lovers (8:1-4)

I'. The Lovers Dwell Apart (8:5-14)

This is not the only nightmare in the Old Testament. For example, there is the baker's dream which Joseph interprets as predicting his death, pharaoh's dream of the cannibalistic cows and stalks of grain, and several bizarre dreams in the book of Daniel. But it is the first one appearing in the form of a poetic song.

In view of Freud's thesis that dreams represent some form of wish fulfillment, one might ask why we have nightmares at all. Of course, Freud has anticipated that question and illustrated it by what he labeled the Examination Dream. Many of you may have experienced this sort of nightmare before. In its classic form, one is on the way to school to take an important test. But when you arrive, the classrooms appear to have been jumbled about so that you go down one hall after another looking for the one in which you are supposed to be. At last you find it and sit down, only to realize that in your haste you left your house without bothering to get dressed. You try to concentrate on the test anyhow, but find that it is written in a foreign language and appears to have nothing at all to do with the subject you had studied for, etc., etc.

So why would you dream such an unpleasant dream, Freud asks? The answer is that when you wake up at last and realize that it was all nonsense, you can laugh in relief and recognize that all of your concerns, however serious they may have been, will never be as bad as you have just imagined.

With that background we can look specifically at the nightmare in question, realizing that in the Song we may not necessarily be spiritually enlightened since the purpose of this particular book is more to examine human emotions than to specifically teach theology, despite what some scholars feel.

I would like to use this short passage to demonstrate the value of a good word study book in helping the reader to rightly interpret the Bible. Thus, all of the comments below come from articles in the five-volume The Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.

Song of Songs 5:2

Hamilton explains that except for Job 41:10; Malachi 2:12; and Song of Songs 5:2 ('I slept but my heart was awake'), all other uses of 'wr ('awake') in the OT are calls to rouse someone. One such example is found in Song of Songs 4:16.

Klingbeil says, “While the 'knock' in Judg 19:22 is a violent pounding that almost breaks down the door..., in S of Songs 5:2 it is the 'knock' of the lover at the door of his beloved.”

Hamilton: “The lover in the Song of Songs refers to his beloved as his sister (S of Songs 4:9,10,12,5:1,2). In the first five of these references the expression 'my sister' is followed apositionally by 'my bride.' In the last, 5:2, it is followed by 'my darling.'” Hamilton mentions that there is no suggestion of incest here since passages in the Apocrypha also use “sister” as a term of endearment. These references include Tobit 5:20; 7:16 and additions to Esther.

Next, the lover calls her “my dove.” Kuichi comments, “Except Hos 7:11 ('Ephraim is like a dove, easily deceived and senseless'), the dove is seen symbolizing loveliness, charm, and gracefulness. Particularly in the S of Songs the dove symbolizes the beloved (S of Songs 1:15; 4:1; 5:2,12; 6:9). Although in Hos 7:11 and 11:11 the dove represents Israel, that may not be a fixed symbol since in other occurrences, such as Jer 48:28, Moabite inhabitants are likened to 'a dove that makes its nest at the mouth of a cave.'”

Lastly, she is called “perfect.” “The adj. tam occurs rarely outside the book of Job, conveying different meanings: blameless, innocent, sincere, quiet, peaceful, pious, pure, healthy, etc...In S of Songs 5:2 and 6:9 it is used as a term of endearment, namely, flawless/perfect one.”

“The meaning of qewussot as hair (only in S of Songs 5:2,11) is 'probable,' according to R.O. Murphy. The beloved hears her lover say (in a dream). 'My head is drenched with dew, my hair with the dampness of the night (v. 2). The woman speaks of her lover in the most glorious manner, 'His head is purest gold; his hair (qewussot) is wavy and black as a raven (v. 11).'” (Alden)

Song of Songs 5:3

The beloved next complains that she has just taken off her garment and bathed her feet. “As in Nehemiah 4:23, the verb pst ['put off'] in Song 5:3 means to take off your clothes at night before going to bed.” (Seavers)

Alden discusses the Hebrew word kuttonet (from which we probably get the English word 'cotton') by way of the Arabic cognate. “The word describes Tamar's garment in 2 Sam 13:18,19 and the robe that the Shulammite was loath to don again (S of Songs 5:30). Other references are in Job 30:18 and Isa 22:21. This garment is apparently a more specific item of clothing than those described by the root lbs. It is often a fine garment, a dressing robe, or something worn for show.”

As to “bathed,” Martens says, “Washings were sometimes of a cosmetic nature (S of Songs 5:12) and were preparatory to love-making (S of Songs 4:2; 5:3; cf. Ruth 3:3).”

Song of Songs 5:4

“hor appears 8x. It can indicate a small hole, as in 2 Kgs 12:9, where Jehoiada the priest puts a hole in the lid of a box used for contributions toward the temple repairs; Ezek 8:7, where the prophet in vision sees a hole through the temple wall; S of Songs 5:4 where (in what is perhaps a metaphor for sexual activity) the lover places his hand through a small hole in the beloved's door; and Zech 14:12, where hor is used for the eye socket.” (Tuell)

“The Writings offer much the same use of hmh as the prophets. The term is used of emotions, so S of Songs (5:4) described the woman's emotion of sexual excitement for her lover as her bowels (NIV feelings) are stirred for him.” (Domeris)

Song of Songs 5:5

As she rises to open the door, she says her hands dripped with myrrh. “The use of mor ['myrrh'] for the pure pleasure of its perfuming qualities is seen in the S of Songs. It is used to attract the lover, and is a part of several love scenes, some perhaps erotic (Prov 7:7; S of Songs 1:13; 3:6; 4:6,14; 5:5,13).” (G.H. Hall)

Naude adds, “If the female enticements, the purpose of which were were to awaken the sexual appetite of man, were displayed by bad women, they were evil in themselves. If, on the other hand, the same attractions and charms were exhibited by one's own wife or bride, they were good and praiseworthy from a moral point of view. The evil daughters of Zion who behaved like harlots...were condemned by Isaiah (Isa 3:16-17). Yet the same wicked enticements became blessed charms when observed in the beloved bride during the wedding celebrations (S of Songs 1:10; 4:4; 7:1)...they served to enhance the legitimate love between bride and groom (S of Songs 4:13-5:1; 5:5-6).”

Hess states that there are four usages for the verb ntp ('drip'). One of these “is distinctive to poetic literature, where the imagery of lips or hands dripping with 'honey' (nopet) or 'myrrh' (mor) expresses the joys and the deceptiveness of love. S of Songs 5:5,13 gives such a positive expression.”

Song of Songs 5:6-7

At this point in the story, the girl opens the door but finds that her lover, for some unknown reason, has left. She roams the streets looking for him, but the night watchmen find her, take away her cloak, and beat her. These are apparently the very same “watchmen” (from the Hebrew root shamar, to observe) who in 3:3 gave her no help in finding her lover in another dream sequence.

“The root [psa'] refers to both open wounds and to bruises...The vb. appears 3x, twice of the results of a physical blow (1 Kgs 20:37; S of Songs 5:7)...” (Harrison and Patterson)

As to her clothing, Alden says, “The vb. rdd means to beat out, so perhaps this veil is a large one that covers more than the face, hence 'cloak' in some modern translations. The two places where it occurs are Isa 3:23, the prophet's list of women's clothing, and in S of Songs 5:7, the article of clothing that the guards so rudely took from the searching maiden.”

Song of Songs 5:8

The nightmare ends with the girl asking the “daughters of Jerusalem” to tell her lover that she is faint with love. Els remarks, “The fact that in the majority of instances 'hb in S of Songs has a female as subject, expressing female love for a male is highly exceptional for the ANE [Ancient Near East] world in which the woman was generally in the background. That this is a unique feature of the book S of Songs is better appreciated when it is realized that in the rest of the OT there is only one other case of a woman's love for a man expressed by 'hb, that of Michal for David (1 Sam 18:20,28).”

Conclusion

Longman states that “the book exudes a robust sexuality, including some graphic double entendre usually glossed over in translation (5:2-8).” I will leave it to your imagination to discover them.

REVELATION AND THE HISTORICAL JESUS

Frank Zindler wrote an article titled “Did Jesus Exist?” in the American Atheists website. Let me start by quoting in whole Zindler's comments relating to what Revelation does or doesn't say regarding the historical Jesus:

“A third category of writing [in the New Testament], apocalyptic, of which the Book of Revelation is an example... gives no support for the historicity of Jesus. In fact, it would appear to be an intellectual fossil of the thought-world from which Christianity sprang – a Jewish apocalypse that was reworked for Christian use [citing Ford]. The main character of the book (referred to 28 times) would seem to be 'the Lamb,' an astral being seen in visions (no claims to historicity here!), and the book overall is redolent of ancient astrology [citing Malina].”

“The name Jesus occurs only seven times in the entire book, Christ only four times, and Jesus Christ only twice! While Revelation may very well derive from a very early period (contrary to the views of most biblical scholars, who deal with the book only in its final form), the Jesus of which it whispers obviously is not a man. He is a supernatural being. He has not yet acquired the physiological and metabolic properties of which we read in the gospels. The Jesus of Revelation is a god who would later be made into a man – not a man who would later become a god, as liberal religious scholars would have it.”

    1. The first, and most important, argument underpinning all of Zindler's thesis is that the book began life as a Jewish writing, but was changed into a Christian one by judicious additions. The only citation he can provide for that idea is the Anchor Bible commentary by J. Massyngberde Ford. However, it is well known that Ford's strange ideas concerning the origin of Revelation are rather unique to say the least. She believes that John the Baptist wrote the bulk of it.

It is worthy of note that no major, or even minor, commentary on Revelation published since that time holds to that view. For example, although Beale cites her comments on a number of specific passages in Revelation, he doesn't even bring up her authorship view when discussing that particular issue. And concerning the date of its final composition, he says that only “a minority of commentators [Ford and van der Waal are cited] have dated it immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.”

Recent works by Beasley-Murray, R.E. Brown, and Leon Morris omit her thesis entirely in their discussions on authorship. And Robert Mounce writes, “Professor Ford acknowledges that she has advanced a 'bold hypothesis' and hopes, not necessarily that it will be accepted, but that it will stimulate further discussion. A major question that Ford does not answer is how an essentially Jewish apocalypse ever found its way into the Christian canon. How did it happen that during the same period of time a number of Christian apocalypses were excluded from the canon and a decidedly Jewish apocalypse was included? Until this question is answered, many will suspect that Revelation is more Christian than the author's hypothesis will allow.”

Another problem with Ford's piecemeal composition theory is that is highly unlikely that more than a single person was responsible for the production of this work due to its highly complex literary structure, which can simultaneously be viewed as a chiasm, a series of alternating scenes taking place in heaven and on earth, or as something which has been labeled as progressive recapitulation – a hallmark of the apocalyptic Old Testament literature (see my post titled “Book of Revelation: Introduction to the Literary Structure” for more details).

Also supporting a unified composition is the number of words or phrases occurring exactly 7 or 12 times, or multiples thereof. There is no denying the significance of the number seven (generally symbolizing completion or totality) in this book. Besides the obvious series of seven churches, bowls, trumpets, etc., certain words and phrases appear exactly seven times or in multiples of seven. Examples of seven-fold usage include: “who was, who is, and who is to come,” “hear what the Spirit says,” “spirits,” “prophecy,” “candlestick,” “cloud,” “trumpet(er),” “worthy,” “bottomless pit,” seven lists with four related elements such as “kindred, tongue, people, tribe, etc.,” “the prophets,” “kingdom,” “wonder/miracle,” “earthquake,” “reign,” slave,” “seal (noun and verb),” “(God's) wrath,” “Almighty God,” “Jesus Christ,” seven blessings, seven doxologies coupling “glory” and “honor” (if one includes the textual variant at 19:1), 3 ½ year (or day) periods, sarx applied to the human body, hymns directed to God, antiphonal hymnic units, seven references to Jesus coming “quickly.” McGinn identifies two series of seven unnumbered visions at 12:1-15:4 and 19:11-21:8 (7A) In addition, “servant,” “woe,” “for ever and ever,” “them that dwell on earth” and “patience” appear 14 times in the Revelation as well as references to the four living creatures. “Lord,” “power,” “king (or King of kings),” “book” and “day” occur 21 times each. “Lamb” is applied to Christ 28 times, and God's “throne” appears 42 times. “Angel” appears 77 times in Revelation.

    2. Zindler next contrasts the main character in the story, the Lamb, with Jesus. That totally ignores the quite obvious use of that metaphorical term to refer to the coming Messiah in the OT and to Jesus specifically in John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; and I Peter 1:19 as a sacrificial lamb killed on our behalf. And because John sees Him in a vision, Zindler feels he can safely ignore anything in Revelation as speaking at all regarding historical events. This is in spite of the fact that the Lamb's (i.e. Christ's) prior death on earth is strongly alluded to in 1:5 (“freed us by his blood”), 1:7 (“those who pierced him”), 1:18 (“I was dead and see, I am alive forever and ever”), 3:21 (“just as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father “), 5:5 (“The lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David has conquered”), (“Lamb who has been slain”), 5:9 (“you were slaughtered”), 5:12 (“worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered”), 11:8 (“ where their Lord was crucified”), and 12:11 (“they have conquered by the blood of the Lamb”).

We thus have here the historical story of the earthly Jesus whose ancestry was through Judah and David, who with his family had to escape to Egypt to elude death (see Rev. 12:1-12), was crucified, pierced in the side, and conquered death to be raised to reside with God in heaven.

    3. Then Zindler throws in the fact that Malina sees many references to astrology in Revelation. I am not quite sure what that is supposed to prove, certainly not that John the Baptist was behind the writing of the book since both the Jewish prophets and the NT teachings rail against any form of magic practices as examples of idolatry. But let's examine that statement more closely.

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states: “Revelation, shrouding political eventualities in metaphor and spiritual imagery, draws heavily on magic symbolism...John does not create these images but avails himself of the standard literary stock at hand.” But why, one might ask, does he use these particular symbols which come from pagan beliefs? C. E. Arnold does a good job of answering that question, as you can see below:

“As the early church appropriated much of the OT tradition regarding idolatry, it would have taken over the negative perspective on astrology. The Torah expressly prohibited Israel from worshiping the stars (Deut 4:19). One may also assume that the anti-magic polemic of Acts and the Apocalypse and the Apostolic fathers includes an anti-astrology stance. Nevertheless, astral imagery holds a prominent place in the book of Revelation.” Arnold cites passages such as Revelation 1:16,20; 8:10-12; 9:1;12:4,7; 22:16 before mentioning why it is included at all:

“The astral imagery here and elsewhere, would have communicated powerfully to people who came into the church steeped in a background of astrological practices. One message that comes out strongly is Jesus' supremacy and sovereignty over all the stars.” This is really the only rationale for astral imagery that is possible, and it makes no sense to have come from John the Baptist since he was supposedly writing to a wholly Jewish audience which did not come out of such a pagan background. So that fact actually argues strongly against the first of Zindler's points.

Another article in DBI says “virtually all the biblical star motifs converge in the book of Revelation.” And many of these include Christ's presence. “In symbolic uses they appear in apocalyptic visions of impending cosmic events that we can barely imagine, and they represent such transcendent beings as saints in eternal glory and the resplendent ascended Christ.”

    4. Next, Zindler makes light of the fact that there are only 13 specific mentions of Jesus or Christ in the whole book, a statistic that he hopes in itself will convince us that it is not enough times to even consider (note how he puts an explanation point at the end of his sentence to emphasize these paltry numbers). One wonders how many times would have actually been needed to convince him. The problem with his reasoning is that Jesus is referred to using different language throughout Revelation. He is the one who is and was and is to come (1:4), the son of the Father (3:21; 14:1), the one who was dead and now alive forever (1:18), their Lord (11:8), the son who is the ruler of all nations (12:5:19:15), the male child (12:13), the Lamb who is the son of the Father (14:1), and Lord of lords and King of kings (17:14; 19:16).

And, as mentioned above, it is not necessarily just the sheer number of times something is mentioned in Revelation that counts, but also whether it harks back to a symbolic number such as 7 or 12. Thus, both “Jesus Christ” and “God Almighty” appear seven times each, and “Lamb” appears 28 times.

    5. Zindler's last piece of “reasoning” is a bit hard to understand, or to take. He commits the fallacy of the excluded middle in order to try and convince us of his thesis. He reasons that Revelation demonstrates the liberal scholars are incorrect in stating that the early church started with a historical personage, Jesus, and turned him into a deity. Therefore, considering the supposed very early date of Revelation, the opposite must be true: the Church first came up with the idea of a heavenly god and then saw in the earthly Jesus the fulfillment of that vision. Number one: this reasoning, such as it is, depends entirely on Zindler's (and Ford's) discredited date for the writing of Revelation. Number two: it totally ignores the possibility of the complete NT picture being true, namely, that Jesus Christ began as the eternal Deity alongside God the Father, voluntarily humbled Himself as a human being, was crucified on the cross, rose from the dead to again take His place beside the Father, and will come again in Judgment (see Philippians 2).