FUTURE CHANGES IN THE TOPOGRAPHY OF ISRAEL

Some prophecy “experts” make a big deal concerning the way the topography of the Holy Land will be changed in the last days. Here are some possibly pertinent passages in the Bible (all quotes are from the RSV) and how various scholars have commented on them.

Isaiah 2:2b // Micah 4:1 – “It will come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills, and all the nations shall flow to it.”

As Mobley says, “claims for Mt. Zion's height...were symbolic, not topographic.”

Blenkinsopp: “Similar passages in early Second Temple texts (e.g. Hag. 2:7-9; Zech 2:14-16; 8:20-23) help us to locate this kind of exalted 'Zionist' mythopoesis, which seems to have crystallized in the prophetic propaganda and cult of Judeo-Babylonian repatriates in the first half-century of Persian rule...”

“What is important is to evaluate the context to see how the phrase is being used. One that basis it cannot be said that this passage can only refer to the millennial age. In a more proximate sense it can relate to the Church age when the nations stream to Zion to learn the ways of her God through his incarnation in Christ. To be sure, we await Christ's second coming for the complete fulfillment of this promise, but the partial fulfillment began at Pentecost...What Isaiah was asserting was that one day it would become clear that the religion of Israel was the religion; that her God was the God. To say that his mountain would become the highest of all was a way of making that assertion in a figure which would be intelligible to people of that time.” (Oswalt)

Allen: “Whether we are to think of literal, miraculous elevation of the low mountain of Jerusalem, which stands a mere 2400 feet above sea level, or see here simply the language of poetic imagery and symbolic hyperbole, cannot be determined. Men are to look up to Jerusalem as superior to all other mountains, the sole place on earth where God reveals himself, the center of the world.”

Commenting on Micah 4:1, Andersen and Freedman state, “The first item in the Book of Visions is an apocalypse, a vision of the end and consummation of history...in this unit we float away into the dreamworld of apocalyptic vision and to the remotest boundary of conceivable time.”

“If this was a symbolic vision, Micah may have seen Mt. Moriah lifted up above all other mountains on earth, but the import of this symbol was surely the exaltation of the kingdom of God to a supreme position above all the kingdoms of the earth.” (Archer)

“It is sometimes suggested that Matthew 5:14 ('a city set on a mountain cannot be hid') has in view eschatological Zion or the new Jerusalem. It was expected that Zion would be raised to a great height and shed its light throughout the whole world (Is. 2:2-4; 60:1-22; Sib. Or. 5:420-23). But the reference is uncertain. The verse is perfectly understandable without it referring to any particular city...” (Allison)

Isaiah 40:3-5 – “A voice cries: 'In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain.'”

Whybray states that the normal route from Babylon to Judah lay round rather than across the desert. But now the heavenly beings are to build a road across the desert for a miraculous journey...That he expected this command to be literally carried out is quite certain...”

“The Hebrew text says that it is God who comes out of the wilderness for his people. Several understandings of this figure of speech are possible. The one that seems least likely is that this is a reference to the Lord bringing the exiles back across the wilderness from Babylon. As even those who prefer this understanding admit, the way back from Babylon did not come through the desert but went around it...The one thing the people can do is to prepare the way for the coming King. Ellinger may be right in seeing this as a reflection of the kind of road building engaged in prior to the triumphal tour of a conquering king. But in any case it speaks of an act of faith on the part of the people.” (Oswalt)

Wolf notes: “This highway imagery appeared in 35:8, and it occurs again in 57:14 and in 62:10-11. In the New Testament the highway is prepared for the coming of Christ, and the voice that calls out belongs to John the Baptist (Luke 3:4-6)...A comparison of all these 'prepare the way' passages shows that the fulfillment involves three different events: (1) the return from Babylon, (2) the first coming of Christ, and (3) His climatic second coming.”

“In Isa 40:3 mesilla ['highway'] occurs in parallel with derek ['way'], in a passage in which the call is for God's people ('my people,' v. 1) to prepare a highway for the Lord as he comes to deliver his people. Here the highway is not for the people but for the Lord...the picture in Isa 40 is of an eschatological coming of the Lord himself, when his glory will be universally revealed.” (Harman)

Blenkinsopp calls this “an oracle commanding that the way be prepared for return from exile, and therefore for the return of the glory of the LORD.”

Price says, “The figure in v. 4 is drawn from the engineering operations of roadmakers for kings of the East...Dishonesty must give way to sincerity, and pride of status must be given up. All this is involved in preparing a highway for our God...”

“Isaiah 40:3 harks back to the imagery of 26:7 with its teaching about God making the ways or paths of the righteous smooth. But even the land and its topography are metaphorically changed as 40:4 describes the leveling of the mountains, the elevation of the valleys, and the smoothing out of rugged places.”

And J.B. Payne declares, “Its fulfillment does not concern Judah's return from Babylon.”

David Payne's comment on this verse is that “God's glory would be seen, in other words, in His control of history, bringing in His own people back from exile to Judah (vv. 9ff. confirm that this is the meaning); but they must willingly cooperate, setting out in faith for the homeland. This call into the desert was not of course meant literally...We see its fulfillment reported in Mt 3.1ff [or its parallel in Luke 3:3-4], in John the Baptist's preparation for the advent of the Messiah.”

Fitzmyer comments on Luke 3:3-4, “The main purpose of this first passage in the Gospel proper is to present John as one called by God to prepare for the inauguration of the period of salvation and to present him as an itinerant preacher who makes 'ready the way of the Lord.' The quotation of Isaiah 40 serves to enhance his appearance with the note of fulfillment...John is in the desert, preparing the way of the Lord, not merely by a study and strict observance of the Law – as was the understanding of this Isaian passage among the Essenes of Qumran – but by a preaching of reform, of a salvation to come, and a baptism of repentance.”

Ezekiel 40-48 – This is another extended passage, the prophet's vision of a new temple, which may have a bearing on future topographical changes in the Holy Land. Walvoord realizes that, contrary to his expectations that the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem on the temple mount during the millennial period, there is a potential problem. He says, “Some been troubled by the dimensions of Ezekiel's temple. Though it is true that the dimensions of the future temple would not fit the temple site as used historically in previous temples, a changed topography of Palestine in the millennium predicted in many passages would permit a rearrangement of the amount of space assigned to the temple. Actually, other views do not provide any legitimate explanation of the size of the temple either, except to deny literal fulfillment.” But he fails to pinpoint which of the “many passages” indicates a widening of the mountain top.

Hoekema points out two additional reasons for not taking the details of Ezekiel 40-48 literally as a description of the millennial period: (1) even the New Scofield Bible backs down from the historic dispensational dogma that a temple will be needed at that time to resume animal sacrifices and (2) the fact that many of the details of Ezekiel 40-48 are used in Revelation 22 to describe the New Jerusalem instead of the millennium.

Zechariah 14:4-5 – “On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives which lies before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall be split into two from east to west by a very wide valley; so that one half of the Mount shall withdraw northward, and the other half southward. And the valley of my mountain shall be stopped up, for the valley of the mountain shall touch the side of it; and you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah...”

To start with, we must note along with Ellis, “The Heb. of this is notoriously ambiguous.”

Unger: “If the coming of Messiah is literal so must this catastrophe be literal...Even believing scholars frequently balk at a literal interpretation of the earthquake and the other marvels of this passage and either mysticalize them altogether or apply them to past events with which they only inexactly agree. The only true interpretation is to relate the chapter wholly to the still future 'day of the Lord.'”

Walvoord similarly takes a literal approach to interpreting this verse: “According to millennial prophecies, many topographical changes will take place in the land of Palestine in connection with the establishment of the millennial reign of Christ. While some of these may be due to the lifting of the curse upon the earth, the alterations seem to be more extensive than this. In connection with the return of Christ to the earth, Zechariah 14 pictures the battle for the possession of Jerusalem which in its early stages seems to be in favor of the Gentiles. This is reversed, however, by the return of Christ described in the following words [Zechariah 14:3-4 is quoted]. In view of the fact that the Mount of Olives nowhere in Scripture is given a spiritualized interpretation, it seems clear that this refers to the physical Mount of Olives to the east of Jerusalem.”

J.B. Payne states that “the place of Christ's return, Olivet, as the climax to His initial appearing in the clouds...the Mount of Olives to be divided by an east-west valley, allowing escape from Jerusalem: 'and ye shall flee by the valley...unto Azel,' an unknown locality but presumably at the foot of the Mount of Olives. Fulfillment: the rescue of converted Jews from Jerusalem, just having fallen to 'all nations' (v. 2).”

We should note the similarity between the above literal interpretations and Jesus' words clearly referring to the events of AD 70: “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside depart the city, and let not those who are out in the country enter it.” (Luke 21:21)

Allison also weighs in on this subject: “There may...be an allusion to Zechariah's prophecy in Mark 11:23 according to which true belief can cast 'this mountain' into the sea. In its context, Mark 11:23 could allude to the Mount of Olives (cf. Mk 11:1) and so to Zechariah 14:4, which foresees the splitting of that mountain (alternatively, the verse...could also allude to the destruction of the Temple Mount upon which Jesus stands as he speaks).”

In commenting on the mention of the Mount of Olives in Matthew 21:1, Overman says, “A tradition within Second Temple Judaism held that a battle would take place there at the end of the age (Zech 14.4; Josephus, Ant. 20.167-172).”

And Beale and Carson add, “A more informal echo of Zech. 14:4, with its prophecy of a messianic appearance on the Mount of Olives, may be heard in Matt. 21:1...the reference to 'this mountain' in Matt. 21:21 refers to either the Mount of Olives or Mount Zion, depending on where Jesus and his disciples were as they journeyed 'from Bethany to Jerusalem.' If Jesus pointed to the Mount of Olives, then the disciples may have been meant to recall Zech 14:4, in which the Messiah's coming to that mountain triggers eschatological upheavals.”

Zechariah 14:10 – “The whole land shall be turned into a plain from Geba to Rammon south of Jerusalem. But Jerusalem shall remain aloft upon its site from the Gate of Benjamin to the place of the former gate, to the Corner, etc.”

Walvood also elaborates on this passage, putting it together with verses 7-8 as well as Ezekiel 47:1-12 in order to state: “Other phenomenal things will occur at the same time.” These include a flow of water from Jerusalem to the east and west, causing the deserts to bloom, in “preparation for other features of the millennial kingdom.” Some of these additional details obviously come from a strictly literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

Conclusion – As the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states, “One of the most vexing problems for a student of the Bible is how to understand the varied images associated with the Day of the Lord. This puzzlement is at least partly due to the great flexibility and variety of uses to which the biblical authors put these images.”

And before one rejects some of the non-literal interpretations offered above as being too liberal, keep in mind that (1) even premillennial literalists are beginning to back down from some of their earlier woodenly-literal interpretations; (2) most of the figurative understanding above come from conservative evangelical scholars, not the liberal school of Christianity; and (3) the descriptions of these biblical passages are fully in line with all but the most dyed-in-wool dispensational premillennialists in accurately reflecting the most honest way to understand genres such as poetry, visions, and apocalyptic writings found in the Bible. That is why in many of the quotes above you will note the use of words such as theophany, imagery, figure, poetic, mythopoetic, eschatological, hyperbole, and symbolic.

ARE THERE ANY BLACK INDIVIDUALS MENTONED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?

The Queen of Sheba (Matthew 12:42; Luke 11:31)

This OT personage appears in the NT when Jesus makes an allusion to her in his encounter with unbelieving scribes and Pharisees. His words are, “The queen of the South will be raised up at the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and I tell you that something more than Solomon is here.”

France says, “We have noted probable echoes of the story of the Queen of Sheba (I Kgs 10:1-13) in the coming of the magi to look for the new king of the Jews in Jerusalem ([Matt] 2:1-12)...But Matthew's interest is not only in the responsive pagans, but in the nature of the Israelite leaders to whom they responded...Solomon, the son of David, represents not only Israel's wisdom tradition (and it was 'to hear his wisdom' that the Queen of Sheba came, I Kgs 10:1,3,4) but also its monarchy.”

The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:27-39)

Controversy also surrounds this anonymous character. Bruce says, The ancient kingdom of Ethiopia corresponded to the modern Nubia, rather than to Abyssinia...The chamberlain was probably a God-fearing Gentile.” And according to Deuteronomy 23:1, the Ethiopian treasurer could not have become a full proselyte. If that is true, then he was no different in status than the many God-fearers in attendance in the synagogues, those which Paul later converted.

On the other hand, Stott says, “The Ethiopian official to whom Philip was sent was her [Candace's] treasurer or chancellor of the exchequer, presumably a black African. But he had gone to Jerusalem to worship...This may mean that he was actually Jewish, either by birth or by conversion, for the Jewish dispersion had penetrated at least into Egypt and probably beyond, and perhaps by now the promise to eunuchs of Isaiah 56:3-4 had superseded the ban of Deuteronomy 23:1. It seems unlikely that he was a Gentile, since Luke does not present him as the first Gentile convert; that distinction he reserves for Cornelius.”

Fitzmyer recognizes the ambiguity here. He asks, “How is one to understand this individual? Is he a Gentile? Or a diaspora Jew? Eusebius regarded the eunuch from Ethiopia as 'the first of the Gentiles' to be converted to Christianity.” Fitzmyer lists an impressive number of modern scholars who feel the same way. However, he ultimately feels that would cause a problem with Peter's words in 15:7 and the notice of Paul being chosen later as the one to evangelize the Gentiles (Acts 10).

Fitzmyer is obviously being a little inconsistent in his argument here since he is conveniently ignoring that fact that it was Peter, not Paul, who evangelized to Cornelius. But he concludes, “So in the Lucan story line the Ethiopian eunuch is to be understood as a Jew, or possibly a Jewish proselyte, who comes from a distant land, despite the difficulty that this understanding may create.”

And regarding Stott's comment regarding the eunuch worshiping in Jerusalem, Neil responds by saying, “The eunuch, who was apparently the court chamberlain, was returning from a pilgrimage to worship in Jerusalem. This implies that he was a 'God-fearing Gentile', i.e. an adherent of the Jewish faith but unwilling (or in this particular case, unable) to become a full proselyte.”

Spencer: “Ethnically, Philip evangelizes a black African, Jewish-sympathizing Gentile ('God-fearer'). Socially, Philip's witness spans two poles. On the one hand he advises an elite government official (dynastes), the queen's treasurer (Acts 8:27). On the other hand, however, he reaches out to a castrated male (eunouchos), who, despite his interest in Judaism, would have been regarded according to traditional law as impure and disgraceful, forever cut off from the covenant community (Lev 21:18-20; Deut 23:1).”

Hubbard: “Barred from active participation in the Jewish rites by his race and his emasculation (Dt. xxiii.1), he may have been a proselyte of the gate. His acquaintance with Judaism and the Old Testament...is not completely unexpected in light of Jewish settlements in Upper Egypt and the considerable impact made by Jewish life and thought on the Ethiopians...Ethiopian tradition claims him as his country's first evangelist.”

Finally, Hagner says, “In Acts we first encounter a Gentile Christian, excluding the exception of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:27-39...” I think that the balance of opinion is that this Ethiopian eunuch has the distinction of being the first Gentile convert to Christianity mentioned in the New Testament.

Simon of Cyrene (Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26), Symeon, surnamed Niger (Acts 13:1), Rufus (Mark 15:21), and the mother of Rufus (Romans 16:13)

Finally, we come across the above individuals, who may or may not be related to one another. Simon of Cyrene, a part of northern Africa, was the man compelled by the Romans to carry Jesus' cross when Jesus became too weak to do so. This Simon was the father of Rufus and Alexander, names apparently familiar to the early church. Then there is Symeon, surnamed Niger (“black”) who a few years later appears in the church at Antioch as a prophet associated with Lucius of Cyrene. And finally, the mother of a man named Rufus ministered to Paul. The relationship of these people is a very debatable topic, as you can see below:

Toussaint: “Simeon was also a Jew, but his Latin nickname Niger not only indicates he was of dark complexion but also that he moved in Roman circles. He could be the Simon of Cyrene who carried Christ's cross..., but this is highly debatable.”

Nixon: “He was surnamed Niger, which suggests that he was an African, but he has not been proved to be the same person as Simon of Cyrene (Lk. xxiii.26, etc).” (Nixon)

Neil says that “Symeon who was called Niger – i.e. 'the Black' – may have been an African. Some have identified him with Simon of Cyrene.”

Stott states that “there was Simeon (a Hebrew name) called Niger ('black') who was presumable a black African, and just as conceivably none other than the Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross for Jesus and who must have become a believer, since his sons Alexander and Rufus were known to the Christian community...”

Bruce: “The reason for the nickname, apart from its Latinity, is at any rate hardly to be doubted; he was presumably of dark complexion. In that case one begins to wonder if he was that 'Simon of Cyrene...the father of Alexander and Rufus' (Mark 15:21) who carried the cross of Jesus. Mark mentions Alexander and Rufus presumably because they were well known in the Roman church when he wrote his gospel. One may speculate further. Among the Roman Christians to whom Paul sends greetings in Rom. 16 is one 'Rufus the chosen in the Lord,' (v. 13). If this Rufus was the son of Simon of Cyrene, it is tempting to explain Paul's reference to the mother of Rufus 'his mother and mine' – by supposing that Paul lodged in their home while he was in Antioch, and that it was there that the mother of Rufus proved herself a mother to Paul as well. But our speculations take us only so far and no farther. If Symeon of this passage was Simon of Cyrene, it is curious that not he, but his fellow-prophet Lucius is here called a Cyrenean by Luke [while that designation is not used for Symeon].”

ARE THERE ANY BLACK INDIVIDUALS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?

First off, I should mention that there is a great deal of confusion regarding the various designations given to different geographical regions and their inhabitants during different time periods of biblical history. Thus, some of the statements made by the scholars cited below are to be taken as tentative and may be subject to change as we get more information in the future.

Moses' Wife (Numbers 12:1-10)

Concern over Moses' wife in the one of the main causes for Miriam and Aaron to rebel against Moses' authority.

Stubbs: “The traditional interpretation (found in the Septuagint) understands that they are upset because Moses married someone from Cush, a region in the Sudan or Nubia, perhaps even Ethiopia. If so, then the woman cannot be Zipporah [Moses' first wife], who is a Midianite. Since the people of that area have dark skin (Jer. 13:23), some suggest that Miriam and Aaron were upset because of her race. Even though modern racism simply did not exist at that time, the emphasis on her as a Cushite might suggest that her ethnicity (rather than race) is at issue.”

Thus, we have two possible interpretations for the identification of the Cushite. This refers to the Midianite Zipporah or to a second wife from Africa. There is no clear consensus among scholars, as you can see below:

Levine says, “Moses took a Cushite wife, we are told. Cush designates the Sudan (Nubia), the land south of Egypt, though Cush is sometimes identified as Ethiopia. The woman in question was most certainly not Zipporah, who is identified as a Midianite woman. According to Exod 18:23, Zipporah had been sent home earlier, but was later brought back to join Moses by Jethro, her father. Most likely, Moses had married the Cushite woman during Zipporah's absence. The basis of the criticism by Miriam and Aaron is not explained, and there has understandably been much speculation on this subject. The inhabitants of Cush are black, according to Jer 13:23, but race could not have been the point at issue.”

Since this anonymous wife was a Cushite (usually explained as an 'Ethiopian'), Kitchen says that “she probably left Egypt among the Israelites and their sympathizers. It is also, perhaps, possible to derive 'Cushite' from Kushi and Heb. Cushan, associated with Midian (Hab. iii.7); it so this woman might be of allied stock to Jethro and Zipporah.”

“Commentators have puzzled over the identity of this woman for centuries...In the OT kus can refer to (1) a Nubian or, less accurately (in modern terms), an Ethiopian (cf. Ezek. 29:10); (2) a Kassite (cf. Gen. 10:8), or (3) an inhabitant of Kusan (Cushan), which parallels Midian in Hab. 3:7. Although Zipporah, a Midianite, could not qualify as a Cushite under the first or second options, she might just qualify in the third. One does wonder, however, why Mirian would wait this long to complain...” (Ashley)

“Cush may be part of Midian (Hab 3.7), in southern Transjordan. Hence Moses' wife Zipporah, a Midianite, could be the subject of the complaint (Ex 2.15,21; for an implicit ban on marrying Midianite women, cf. Num 25.1-11). The complaint about Moses' wife comes very soon after Zipporah joins the Israelites in Ex. 18.5-6, if the intervening legislative chapters (most of Ex. 19-Num 10) are bracketed out.” (D.F. Wright)

My own feeling is that Zipporah is not being referred to here, but a second wife of dark skin. This is because of the punishment God metes out on Miriam. She becomes totally white with leprosy. It is as if God is telling her, “Since you are so proud of your lighter skin, I am going to turn it completely white to see if that makes you any happier.” Ashley also agrees with this as the reason for the specific punishment of leprosy. However, he points out that the Midianites also had dark skin and so it does not necessarily indicate that she was Negroid.

The Cushite Messenger (II Samuel 18:19-32)

A Cushite runs to tell David about the death of Absalom along with Ahimaaz. At first, it appeared to me that Joab hopes the Cushite will get there first in case David does not like the news, since David had previously executed the messenger who announced Saul's death. Perhaps Joab felt the Cushite was more expendable. Seemingly confirming that view was the fact that Joab called Ahimaaz “my son” in v. 22. However, as you will soon see, not everyone agrees with that scenario.

First, concerning the significance of the word Cushite, Tsumura says, “A Cushite is a man from Cush to the south of Egypt. The Hebrew kus refers to various locations, e.g., Nubia and northern Sudan, Ethiopia..., and somewhere in northern or possible southeast Mesopotamia (see Gen. 2:13). Here, the man was either a Nubian or an Ethiopian.”

Baldwin: “Joab...was fully aware that the king would be interested only in what had happened to Absalom, and that for him the news would be anything but good. For this reason Joab chose a foreigner to take the message. For him it would be merely a duty, and his words would not be emotionally charged.”

McCarter: “There is no reason to suppose the fact that this fellow is a Cushite to have special significance. The designation suggests that his ancestry was Ethiopian or Nubian, and a few commentators conclude that his black skin was a signal to David of the bad news he was carrying. But, clearly, both Joab and the Cushite thought the news was good and wanted the king to think so too.”

“Ahimaaz couldn't bring himself to tell David the bad news. In verse 28 he told David the truth, but he didn't tell him the whole truth. The Cushite tells the whole truth; hence, for this narration the major truth comes from a minor character.” (D.R. Davis)

Payne says that “Joab preferred to send a slave as a messenger, rather than Ahima-az, in case David reacted violently to the news of Absalom's death. Moreover, a dark-skinned Cushite (= Ethiopian) will have been a messenger of ill omen.”

But as for Joab calling Ahimaaz “my son,” McCarter feels that it is not an expression of affection at all. “The tone of beni, lit. 'my son,' on Joab's lips is condescending, patronizing, or at least ironic.”

The Queen of Sheba (I Kings 10:1-13)

This important personage came to Solomon's court for two apparent reasons: to negotiate a trade agreement and to see for herself Solomon's wisdom. Hubbard says, “This queen is enshrined in Ethiopian legends...as the Queen of Ethiopia who bore by Solomon the first king of Ethiopia. This legend reflects the close tie which existed in antiquity between S Arabia and E Africa, which Josephus also notes when he calls this ruler 'Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia'...”

Also, House says, “Various interpretations of this story arose over time in Jewish, Ethiopian, and Christian circles. One Jewish legend holds that Solomon fathered a son for the queen, which was her ultimate 'desire.' Ethiopic tradition parallels the Jewish tradition, for it claims the royal Abyssinian line was founded by the offspring of Solomon and the queen of Sheba. Neither of these traditions has any historical basis, nor can they be substantiated by the biblical text.”

But despite those unhistorical additions, Myers says, “The visit of the queen of Sheba can no longer be regarded as fictional.” LaSor agrees with this assessment.

And Evans says, “For Luke the women of Israel, foreign women can be pictured either as significant players or as part of the furnishings, and the Queen of Sheba, who enters the story in I Kings 10, certainly is the former. She is intelligent, wealthy, powerful, and she has an inquiring mind.”

The only major question remaining is the probable racial identity of this ruler. Fitzmyer says that “Sheba (Hebrew seba) was a kingdom of Semitic people in southwest Arabia.” But other sources locate Sheba in modern-day Yemen, where the vast majority of the populace is Arab or Afro-Arab. We may safely assume a great deal of intermarriage took place between Black Africans and Arabs over the years in this area.

The Cushite Benjamite (Psalm 7 superscription)

“The tradition behind the superscription to Psalm 9 held that the Cushite...was a Benjamite, and this is not impossible. Cushi, father of the prophet Zephaniah was a great-grandson of Hezekiah (Zeph 1:17).” (McCarter) [see below]

Jacobson notes, “The incident that the superscription describes is not attested in the Old Testament. It cannot be a reference to 2 Sam. 16:17ff. or to 2 Sam. 18:2ff. Most likely, the superscription refers to an incident about David that has been lost.”

The Jerusalem Bible points out that the Hebrew text reads 'Cush,' while the versions read, 'Cushite.' Also, “'the Benjamite' suggests one of David's enemies: Saul, Sheba or Shimei.”

Ebed-melech (Jeremiah 38:7ff; 39:15ff)

Another important character in the Old Testament is this Ethiopian eunuch who rescued the prophet Jeremiah from a certain death when he was confined at the bottom of a cistern. Commentators have nothing but good to say in regard to this man's character.

Cawley and Millard: “Ebed-melech, a royal Ethiopian slave-eunuch, had the faith and courage to intercede with Zedekiah to lift the prophet out of the cistern...Ebed-melech was promised safety when the Babylonians took Jerusalem.”

D.R. Jones: “He who hears the word of the LORD is deserted on all sides and left to die. But the LORD delivers his man by means of one who is both outside the community of the chosen people and an emasculated human being.”

Bright feels that he is literally a eunuch although the word may also mean a palace officer. The Septuagint omits the fact that he was a eunuch.

Thompson: “Ebed-Melech proved to be practical and resourceful. Ropes under the armpits to lift Jeremiah from the pit might cut into his flesh; hence he took with him from the wardrobe storeroom some worn-out and unwanted clothing to cushion the ropes.” We hear the rest of this man's story in 39:15-18, on which Thompson comments, “We do not know, in fact, that he did survive the destruction of the city but may infer this because of the promise made by Jeremiah while he was still confined to the court guard. The promise of deliverance was made in emphatic terms – I will surely keep you safe. Eded-melech trusted (batah) in Yahweh. He was evidently another person in contact with the king who sympathized with Jeremiah...'The men whom you fear' may be a reference to the high officials mentioned in 38:1 who sought Jeremiah's death. It was a brave palace servant who would accuse such men of crime (38:9).”

Zephaniah (Zephaniah 1:1)

And now we come to the most interesting example, that of the prophet Zephaniah, since he may actually represent the only Black author in the Bible. “His father's name, Cushi (1.1), could mean 'the Cushite,' and has prompted some speculation about African ancestry for the prophet (cf. 2.12; 3.10). Aside from his name (which means 'Yahweh has protected') and these intriguing genealogical issues, nothing is known about the prophet.” (Mobley)

McCarter says, “presumably Cushi's mother was an Ethiopian – thus he was kusi, a Negro, and at the same time a Judahite.” On the other hand, Baker feels that 'Cush' in Zephaniah 2:12 “is here used as one alternative name for Egypt as in Isa 20:4 and Ezek 30:1-9.”

Kitchen mentions similar confusion regarding the geographical region which is being designated. He explains that Cush originally referred to a specific area south of Egypt (ca. 2000 BC). But it quickly became a general term for Nubia/Ethiopia. By Isaiah's time Egypt and Ethiopia were closely linked since an “Ethiopian” Dynasty ruled over both. However, from ca. 660 BC, the two kingdoms were separated again.

“Zephaniah is designated as son of Cushi. A variety of conclusions may be reached on the basis of this distinctive name of the father of Zephaniah. But they all fall in the realm of speculation which has inadequate foundation in fact that can be substantiated. A. Bentzen stretches the evidence a bit in his suggestion that Zephaniah may have been a Negro slave in the service of the temple. ..It might be suggested that this fourth-generation genealogy is intended to relieve Zephaniah from the stigma and sanctions associated with a Cushite ancestry. For the Egyptians (at times equivalent in Scripture to the Cushite) was excluded from the assembly of Israel until the third generation (Deut. 23:7-8). The obvious problem with this suggestion is the positioning of Cushi in Zephaniah's genealogy. He does not stand in the third (or fourth) position, but in the first position in relation to the prophet.” (Robertson)

“His genealogy is much longer than the usual prophetic pedigree and traces four generations. Suggested reasons for this are (a) to overcome opposition to him because of his African father, 'Cushi' meaning 'Ethiopian', though this does not tally with Dt. 23:8; (b) that 'he probably belonged to a family of some importance' (Ellison)...”

“We're told that Zephaniah's father is a man called Cushi. This is an Egyptian name, and some have suggested that he may have been of Ethiopian Negro origin and a slave or civil servant in the royal household. We can't be sure...A boy growing up in the extended royal family was in a good position to know what was going on in those circles, and as we study the message of Zephaniah we will find that he is well informed about the religious, civil and political issues of the day.” (Bridger)

“Cushi is Zephaniah's father. Cush is usually identified in the OT as Ethiopia. Does that mean that Zephaniah's father was a Ethiopian? Probably not. The fact that the three ancestors before Cushi have good Hebrew names indicates that Zephaniah's family was Judean even though there may have been some intermarriage in or foreign influence on the family.” (R.L. Smith)

“The name 'Cushi'...means 'Ethiopian.' A reader might wonder if such a person were indeed an authentic spokesperson for Judah's God, and so, one might presume, a redactor added the Yahwistic pedigree that follows, tracing the prophet back three more generations of men whose names ended in 'iah' to someone named 'Hezekiah' (the eighth-century BC king of Judah?). Thus, the superscription seeks to stamp the imprimatur of Yahweh on the collection of sayings of the prophet.” (Redditt)

EVE'S BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENTS (GENESIS 4:1,25)

Commentators have spilled much ink in comparing Cain and Abel to see if they can figure out why God only accepted Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's. Answers to that question have included Cain taking less care in choosing the quality of the sacrifice, only animal sacrifices were acceptable to God, Satan had tempted Cain, it was a basic heart issue with Cain, he was trying to outdo his brother, or his sacrifice was not prepared in the proper manner.

Much less has been written regarding Eve's part in the births of her three sons. Whereas Eve seems to pass over Abel's birth rather quickly, the same is not true for her two other two sons, Cain and Seth. It is interesting to compare her words on both of these occasions to see if there is any message here.

    “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.'” (Genesis 4:1)

    “And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, 'God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, for Cain slew him.'” (Genesis 4:25)

Carr notes that these two verses are parallel to one another. However, they can also be contrasted.

Let us start with v. 1, of which von Rad says, “Every word of this little sentence is difficult.” Collins agrees with this assessment and elaborates: “Eve's declaration has received a number of different interpretations...Each word here involves us in semantic and syntactical questions, as well as larger literary and theological ones.”

For one thing, we have the verb qana (“acquire”) to explain. Hamilton, as well as others, point out that this sounds quite a bit like Cain (qayin in Hebrew). “Several scholars have suggested, correctly we believe, that this is another instance of popular etymology, based on assonance...But the meaning of qana is debated. In most of its eighty-two occurrences in the Old Testament, it seems clearly to mean 'acquire, possess,' but in several passages the meaning 'form, produce, create,' is possible...though for various reasons some scholars have denied this meaning even to these references. Thus it seems best to retain the more standard translation of qana, and render 'I have acquired.' Surely qana is used here more for its sound than its precise significance...Cassuto reads, 'I have created a man equally with the Lord.' He perceives here some arrogance in Eve's statement. Yahweh created the first man. She created the second man, and thus her reproductive act is no less significant than Yahweh's productive act.” Hamilton believes this interpretation “is specious.”

For some unknown reason, Ross agrees with Cassuto but does not take Eve's statement in a negative way at all: “Eve's statement is full of hope and faith. She says, in effect, 'God made man, and now with the help of the Lord, I have made a second man.'”

Similarly, McKnight recognizes these two different interpretations, but agrees in the end with Hamilton: “The term acquired has given rise to two major interpretations, one indicating a boast on the part of Eve and the other a statement of gratitude to God for a son...In the first case, Eve boasts that she, too, has 'created' (quanifi), as did the Lord (Gibson). One could argue that the variation of expression between Genesis 4:1 ('I have acquired') and 4:25 ('God has provided me with') indicates a different sense in 4:1 (triumph versus gratitude). In this view, Eve's arrogance emerges from her anger at the Lord for exiling her from Eden. According to the second interpretation, Eve expresses gratitude that she has gained a 'little man' with the Lord's help.” He feels the gratitude interpretation is the most likely with 4:1.

Wenham also recognizes the difficulty of pinning down the exact significance of Eve's comment in verse 1. He says, “Cassuto and Westermann interpret Eve's remark as a shout of triumph at putting herself on a par with Yahweh as creator: 'I have created a man equally with the LORD...there is an ambiguity about her expression which may suggest that she covertly compared her achievement with Yahweh's greater works and hoped that he would be with her son.”

Cornelius and Van Leeuwen are also on this side of the dispute. They state, “The root qnh in the sense 'create' is much disputed, but is to be maintained on grounds of the comparative linguistic and religious evidence and of its use and parallels (Gen 14:19,22; Deut 32:6; Ps 139:13; Prov 8:22).”

My own opinion on this particular issue is that Eve appears to be bragging in v. 1 but grateful by the time Seth's birth in v. 25 comes about. To me, her statement in v. 1 is somewhat equivalent to the title of the famous autobiography (and movie) of WW II pilot Robert Lee Scott Jr. – “God Is My Co-Pilot.” The author may have been trying to show his appreciation for God's care over him, but it still clearly relegates Him very much to a secondary position.

The next issue concerns the role of the little Hebrew particle 'et in Genesis 4:1. Harman explains, “The presence of 'et- in Gen 4:1 is a crux. It can be taken as marking the object, so that Eve expresses a confidence that the child she has borne is indeed the Lord, so fulfilling the promise of Gen 3:15. However, most translations and exegetes assume that the word is a preposition connected with the Akk[adian] preposition itti...meaning 'from.' Hence, many English translations accept this derivation and paraphrase 'from' to mean 'with the help of.'”

Heiser explains the issue in a slightly different way for those of us who are not intimately acquainted with Hebrew grammar: He quotes “Genesis 4:1, where Eve says, 'I have acquired a man with ['et] Yahweh.' The Hebrew lemma 'et is most frequently an untranslated particle that marks the direct object of a verb. It may also be a homograph that is a preposition denoting the assistance or participation of the following noun ('with', 'together with').”

Closely related to this problem is the question of the identity of “the man.” Kaiser says, “Who this male descendant [of Genesis 3:15] was to be was not immediately revealed. Perhaps Eve thought Cain was that one. She named her son Cain saying she had 'gotten a man, even the Lord' (Gen. 4:1); at least that is one way of rendering the enigmatic phrase. Regardless of how it is to be interpreted, she was mistaken...”

Collins echoes the same thought: “He first disputes the idea that qana can mean 'create' rather than 'acquire' in any other Old Testament text. He then notes that v. 1 “is ambiguous: grammatically it can mean, 'I have gotten a man, namely, the LORD.' If anyone wonders if that was what Eve meant, he will quickly conclude, based on Cain's behavior, that if she did think it, she was wrong.”

Then we come to v. 25, Eve's utterance on Seth's birth. “the explanation Eve provided at the birth of Cain focused on herself: 'I have...' The explanation Eve provides at the birth of Seth focuses on God: 'God has...' This may indicate a spiritual maturation taking place in Eve, or simply the human role and the divine role present in all births.” I like his first explanation much better.

And there are other changes in wording in v. 25: “Eve's comment contrasts with her remark in 4:1: 'I have gained a man with the LORD's help.' Is there significance in her substituting 'offspring' for 'man' and 'God' for 'LORD'? Jacob and Cassuto see Eve as less proud and triumphant at the birth of Seth than at that of Cain. Gispen suggest the Eve is mourning the fate of her first two sons and therefore sees God as the remote and distant creator rather than as the LORD, a name affirming his intimacy with man. The word 'offspring' rather than 'man' may suggest she hoped for a line of children from Seth such as the rest of Genesis describes.” (Wenham)

And Collins additionally notes, “Eve's saying in 4:25...acknowledges the sin of Cain and the kindness of God. It also reflects her approbation of the offspring promise of 3:15, although it does not say whether she thought that Seth was the offspring. There is no ambiguity here about the ultimate origin of the child: God has appointed him.”

I can't help speculating about the effect of Eve's attitude on her two surviving sons. At Cain's birth it appears that she had not completely gotten over her wish to become equal to God which had caused her expulsion from the garden. And this feeling of superiority may have been communicated to Cain. This certainly would help to explain his surly behavior toward God. But after her disillusionment with Cain, she appears to have been content to found a line of offspring who were mere human beings content, for the most part, to live under God's sovereignty rather than attempting to challenge his rule.

 

IS GOD LIMITED IN ANY WAY?

When we talk about God's attributes, theological terms such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence come to mind as well as similar words describing his character. To some that seems to indicate that He has no limitations whatsoever. But that is not quite true since every one of those absolute terms excludes its opposite. With that in mind, let me quote below from the internet source PreachItTeachIt:

“First, God is limited by his character. His character, that is, his moral attributes are unchangeable. God cannot become bad or evil, or unfaithful, or untrustworthy. He does not have the ability to be bad in any sense.”

“Second, God is limited by his power. This might seem illogical. If God is all-powerful then surely he is unlimited. But, on the contrary, God’s all-powerful nature limits him to do things that are only consistent with his power.”

“Third, God is limited by his nature. It is impossible for him not to be everywhere at every time. It is impossible for him to limit his sight, or hearing, or understanding, or perceptions. You cannot surprise God or have him be unaware of your sufferings or troubles. He knows them all and it is impossible for him not to know them all.”

“Fourth, God is limited by his love. Remember that the scripture says that God is love (I John 4:16). His love is an all encompassing attribute...God’s love forbids him from doing his people harm—those whom he has chosen for himself.”

“Fifth, God is limited by his words. The scripture tells us that it is impossible for God to lie (Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 6:18). He is unable to go back on his promises. Once he has said something in the way of a promise then you can bank on it—forever. It will not change because his words do not change. What he speaks once he speaks forever.”

“God is limited by his eternality. This means that God does not exist in linear time as we understand it. God is eternal. The past, present, and future are the same to him. For God, all that will happen has happened and is happening and never ends. Therefore, for God to change would change his eternality, his very nature, which the scripture says is unchangeable. Thus, if such a thing were to happen God would cease to be God. Such a thing cannot happen.”

Omnipotence

One of the first challenges to my faith came when I was in high school and a friend asked me, “Is God powerful enough to make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?” I was a little surprised to see that same example quoted recently in PreachItTeachIt. It must be found somewhere in an atheist's handbook for it to have lasted so long. I couldn't come up with an adequate answer at the time, but now I realize that it is a good example of the limitation on an Omnipotent Being. He cannot do anything to limit His own omnipotence. Ryrie says, “Omnipotence means that God is all-powerful and able to do anything consistent with His own nature.”

Another example of God's inability in an area is the question, “Can God make 2 + 2 = 6?” Ryrie responds by saying, “That particular question is in the realm of arithmetic, not power.” I am not really satisfied with that response myself and would prefer to put it, “God cannot do anything that cannot be done,” i.e. anything that is contradictory to what is logically possible.

In general, the doctrine of God's omnipotence appears throughout the Bible.

“Ah Lord God! It is you who made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by our outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you.” (Jeremiah 32:17) And God confirms the prophet's comment in verse 27: “See, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too hard for me?”

Omniscience

One can certainly point to a number of passages in the Bible which appear to indicate that God is unaware of something, and this begins right in the first chapters of Genesis. In 3:9, Adam and Eve are “hiding” from God and He asks, “Where are you?” The closest parallel I can think of is when a parent plays hide-and-seek with his small child and the child hides his head under a blanket, thinking that it can't then be seen. The parent, of course, goes around the house acting as if he hasn't the slightest idea where the child, who is giggling by now, is hiding.

Then we come to the Tower of Babel episode (Genesis 11) in which God goes down to look at the tower. As Ross says, “The description, written very anthropomorphically, describes the Lord's close interest and participation in human affairs. He did not need to come down to look at their work – in fact, his coming down implies prior knowledge.” He and other commentators note the irony intended in the statement. “And as for its vaunted height, so far short of heaven did this so-called skyscraper fall that God could hardly see it; he had to come down to look at it!” (Wenham)

Or we could cite the time in Genesis 18 when God “goes down to earth” to see for himself what is happening at Sodom and Gomorrah. Wenham explains it by stating, “It is not that God needs to go down to confirm what he knows, but that he is visiting it with a view to judgment.”

Then in Genesis 22:12, God waits to see if Abraham will go ahead and sacrifice his son Isaac. “The point here is that the Lord's judgment is based on full and accurate information.” (Ross)

Habakkuk 1:13a (“Your eyes are too pure to behold evil, and you cannot look on wrongdoing”) seemingly poses another challenge to the doctrine of omniscience. But that is only because one needs to read the rest of the verse to get its full meaning: “Why do you look on the treacherous, and are silent when the wicked swallow those more righteous than they?” In other words, it isn't that God needs to turn his eyes away from any evil activity on earth, but that God cannot merely look on while refusing to do anything about it.

As Robertson says, “Obviously God does in some sense 'see' evil. His omniscience extends to all the affairs of his creation. But he never looks to condone or tolerate evil.” and NEB translates “look on” as “countenance.” Similarly, Chisholm and Bruckner both use the word “tolerate.”

Omnipresence

Psalms 139:7-10 is one of the clearest expressions of this key doctrine.

However, there are a number of places in the Bible where God appears in a given place; these are called theophanies and they appear to challenge the doctrine of omnipresence. Here is how some commentators attempt to deal with this problem:

“...OT theophany...can only be defined here tentatively as a localized, immanent manifestation in time and space of God's transcendent and invisible omnipresence for a specific purpose.” (Hague)

Niehaus: “Yahweh's appearance in theophany is temporary. This fact does not contradict God's omnipresence, which is clearly asserted elsewhere...Rather it distinguishes theophanies from the continuous revelation of God in all nature.

Immutability

This doctrine of God is amply stated in the OT:

“God is not a human being that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind.” (Numbers 23:19) Ashley comments on this verse as follows: “Although the translation lie is common, the context shows that the primary thought is not that God does not utter untruths (although that is true), but that his purposes are utterly true and reliable, and that his nature does not disappoint or fail, as is the case with human creatures.”

The same idea is repeated in I Samuel 15:29: “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent.”

“I the LORD do not change.” (Malachi 3:6)

Psalm 102:25-27 is alluded to by the author of Hebrews in 1:11-12 with its statement “but thou art the same” applied to God. As a corollary of that statement, it means that He will never lie or go back on His word (as expressed in II Timothy 2:13; Titus 1:2). That could be interpreted as a limitation on God's part.

But there is a caveat to this doctrine that Kaiser points out: “The point is that unchangeableness must not be thought of as it it were some type of frozen immobility. God is not some impervious being who cannot respond when circumstances or individuals change. Rather he is a living person, and as such he can and does change when the occasion demands it. He does not change in his character, person or plan. But he can and does respond to our changes.”

Murray similarly comments on the idea of God repenting: “When repentance is predicated of God, either in the direction of judgment or of mercy, there is reference to the change that takes place in His relations to men. God is immutable in His being, perfections, and purposes. But He changes His relationship and attitude...”

Stubbs: “Scripture sometimes speaks of God changing his mind [or 'repenting'] (cf. Jer 18:7-10) but this is God's 'unmovedness while others move and change. The divine finger ever points to the same spot but man have moved from it to the opposite pole' (A. Edersheim).”

Alter says, “God's purposes are always entrammeled in history, dependent on the acts of individual men and women for their continuing realization.”

Satterthwaite adds, “Certainly there is no oversimplification here or any attempt to present humans as mere cogs in a divine plan; rather there is a respect for human personality...”

Then we have Hebrews 6:18, which states, “It is impossible that God would prove false.” And as Kittredge says, “The promise made to Abraham applies to all Christians.” Bruce adds, “The 'two immutable things' from which this encouragement is derived are (a) the promise of God (for 'it is impossible for God to lie'), and (b) the oath by which His promise is confirmed.” “God's promise itself would be 'unchangeable' without the oath, but the two together gave covenanters confidence.” (Buchanan)

A related NT passage is II Timothy 2:13 – “If we are faithless, he remains faithful – for he cannot deny himself.” Ward says that there is “a widely held theory that Paul was quoting from a hymn...It is not impossible that the hymn may have been composed by Paul himself...He [God] is loyal to his pledged word (Heb. 10:23; 11:11)...Though transgression be committed God will not violate his covenant...”

Similarly, Lea adds, “The statement that 'he will remain faithful to mete out punishment to the guilty. However, in keeping with Paul's statement in Rom 3:3-4 and 8:35-39, he seems to have suggested that 'however wayward and faithless men may be, God's love continues unalterable and he remains true to his promises.' [quoting from Kelly].”

If it is impossible for God to change, then as James 1:13 puts it, “God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one.” Concentrating on the first phrase only, Davids explains that the Greek can be interpreted in three possible ways: (1) God cannot be solicited to evil, (2) God is inexperienced in evil, or (3) God ought not to be tested by evil persons. Davids opts for the last option as making the most sense in this context as well as being a restatement of Deuteronomy 6:16. If he is correct, then this verse really says nothing regarding God's limitations.

However, not all scholars agree with Davids on this issue. For example, L.T. Johnson comments on this verse as follows: “The basic point is clear enough: God has nothing to do with evil. The sentiment here is crisply stated by Sentences of Sextus 30: God is 'the wise light that has no room for its opposite.'” If this view is correct, then God's goodness excludes the possibility of Him associating with sin and evil.

There is one thing to note in conjunction with the idea of the possible and impossible for God. Human beings have the unfortunate tendency to judge God's behavior by our own limited standards. Thus, Zechariah 8:6 contains these words: “Thus says the LORD of hosts: Even though it seems impossible to the remnant of this people in these days [to ever return to Jerusalem], should it also seem impossible to me, says the LORD of hosts?” As Petersen notes, “The Zechariah oracle seems concerned...with the problem of assessing the deity's character on the basis of human expectation...”

Moving to the New Testament, we have the same idea expressed in Matthew 19:26 and parallels in Mark and Luke when Jesus' apostles are astounded at his famous saying regarding the rich man and the eye of the needle and ask, “But who then can be saved?” Jesus answers, “With men this impossible, but with God all things are possible.” This is not necessarily to be taken as a blanket statement for, as Fitzmyer comments, “Actually, the saying is somewhat proverbial [and thus expressing a general truth applicable in many, but not all, cases] and more generic than the question posed; its emphasis is that salvation comes ultimately from God...”

And France points out, “The specific subject is salvation, but the maxim...of course has much broader application: where humanity is helpless, God can.”

There is another famous passage in the NT which bears on the subject, namely, Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane. R.E. Brown points out, “Even though all three Synoptics report Jesus' prayer about removal of the cup, the way in which they preface it shows increasing softening of the demand:

“Abba, Father, all things are possible to you.” (Mark 14:36)

“My Father, if it is possible.” (Matthew 26:39)

“Father, if you desire.” (Luke 22:42)

Ultimately, Jesus says in Mark, “But not what I will, but what you will.” Thus all three accounts agree that even though all things might be possible for God, not all are necessarily in line with his will and plan.

But what about Jesus Christ? The Jehovah Witnesses have memorized every NT passage that shows Jesus' limitations and will be glad to point them out to you to prove that therefore Jesus can't be God. One such passage is Mark 13:32 in which Jesus specifically denied being omniscient. Colin Brown says that “the doctrine of kenosis [explains that] Christ emptied himself or did not make use of some at least of his divine attributes during the period of his earthly life. Thus he was not omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient or omnipotent in his incarnate state...he deliberately accommodated himself to the common conditions of mankind.” See Philippians 2:7.

On the other hand, the author of Hebrews claims immutability to Jesus in 13:8 in parallel with God's identical characteristic in 1:11-12.

Then regarding omnipotence, we have the comment in Mark 6:5a that Jesus could do no deed of power in his hometown. As Mann says, “This is the strongest statement in the gospels on the limitations of Jesus though it is mitigated slightly in the second part of the verse.” Thus, 6:5b does state that Jesus healed a few sick people there. This passage has prompted comments from scholars, such as quoted below.

“The powers that work through such a prophet are dependent on people's positive response with faith.” (Horsley)

“There was no limitation on His power, but His purpose was to perform miracles in the presence of faith.” (Grassmick)

“Because of the unbelief of the people of Nazareth, Jesus was unable, consistently with the principle on which he acted to do miracles among them, apart from His healing a few sick people, who, presumably, did display a modicum of faith in Him.” (Short)

“Matthew (13:58) modifies the statement to read 'he did not do', instead of Mark's could do no mighty work there. Mark's statement, however, does not imply that Jesus was in any sense powerless, but that He could not proceed in accordance with His purpose where faith was absent.” (Swift)

PHILIPPIANS 4

Let me start with some words concerning the literary arrangement of this chapter and its overall position within the epistle.

Figure 1: The Structure of Philippians

I. Introduction (1:1-2)

II. Thanksgiving and Prayer (1:3-11)

III. Paul's situation (1:12-26)

IV. Exhortation (1:27-2:16)

III'. Paul's situation (2:17-3:1a)

IV'. Exhortation (3:1b-21)

II'. Thanksgiving and Prayer (4:1-20)

I'. Conclusion (4:21-23)

Chapter 4 of the letter is also arranged in a symmetrical manner:

Figure 2: The Structure of Section II'-I'

A. Introduction: stand firm in the Lord (4:1)

B. Co-workers in the Gospel (4:2-3)

C. Rejoice; Let your requests be known to God (4:4-7)

D. Think on these things (4:8-9)

C'. I rejoice; God strengthens me (4:10-13)

B'. Co-workers in the Gospel (4:14-18)

A'. Conclusion: God will supply every need (4:19-23)

Common language employed in this section includes: “beloved (4:1,8),” “Christ Jesus” (4:7,19), “all” (8x), “work / co-workers” (4:2,3), “share” (4:14,15), “gospel” (4:3,15), “need” (4:11,12,16,19), “receive” (4:9,15,18), “know/see” (4:9,12,15), “(in the) Lord” (5x), “not that I” (4:11,17), and “rejoice” (3x). Also note the chiastic (i.e. mirror-image) arrangement found within C':

        I have learned (v. 11)

                I know what it is to have (v. 12a)

                I know what it is to have (v. 12b)

        I have learned (v. 12c)

The center of emphasis in this whole unit falls on the famous semi-poetic admonition in v. 8 and the following doxology of v. 9 which parallels the conclusion of Section II'. Since the passages after D repeat earlier thoughts in Section II', the word “finally” introducing D is seen to be entirely appropriate.

Selected comments from the literature on individual units within Philippians 4 are presented below below:

Philippians 4:1

“'Therefore' introduces this exhortation and applies what he wrote in chapter 3 about sanctification and glorification.” (Lightner)

Hewlett notes that “before touching a sore spot in their affairs, he assures by using the phrase 'dear friends' that their well-being is vital to him.”

See I Thessalonians 2:19-20 for another example of Paul's use of the phrase “joy and crown.”

Philippians 4:2-3

Foulkes points out that “Clement is not otherwise known in the NT; it was quite a common name, and it is unlikely that this was the Clement who was important in the church in Rome at the end of the century.”

There is some controversy regarding the interpretation of v. 3 since “syzgus” may be understood as a proper name (Syzgus, as The Message puts it). Alternatively, it can be translated as “companion” (NRSV) or its equivalent: yoke-fellow (KJV), partner (TEV), or teammate (Living Bible). The Jerusalem Bible takes the unusual position of incorporating both possibilities in its wording: “I ask you Syzgus to be truly a 'companion.'”

To clarify who the “One” in v. 3 is, some ancient manuscripts substitute “Christ” instead.

“The Book of Life” is that containing the names of the saved, mentioned also in Psalms 69:28; Daniel 12:1; Luke 10:20; Revelation 3:6; 13:8; 17:8; 20:15; and 22:19.

Philippians 4:4-7

vv. 4-5 – Lightner says, “Epieikes ('gentleness') suggests a forbearing, nonretaliatory spirit. Joy, an inner quality in relation to circumstances, may not always be seen; but the way one reacts to others – whether in gentleness or harshness – will be noticed.”

v. 5 – See Psalms 119:151 in relation to this verse.

v. 6 – Osborne points out that “four of the terms [of prayer language] occur in Philippians 4:6, 'Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving present your requests to God.' Most likely Paul is deliberately stockpiling prayer terms synonymously in order to present prayer in its most comprehensive form rather than speaking of different aspects of prayer.”

v. 7 – Faulkes: “When prayer replaces worry, God's gift of the peace 'which transcends human understanding' comes in, and that peace acts as a sentry guarding the Christian's mind and emotions from being overwhelmed by the sudden onrush of fear, anxiety or temptation.”

Philippians 4:8-9

“By the word 'finally' Paul indicated he was about to conclude the section. Six items are mentioned as objects of a wholesome thought life, and each one is introduced with 'whatever.' In the Greek 'whatever' is plural, which suggests that several things could be included under each heading.” (Lightner)

Cosgrove points out that “moral teaching is not only by word but also by personal examples to be imitated (1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 2 Thess. 3:7-9; 1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 3:10-11; Heb. 6:12; 13:7; 1 Pet. 5:3).”

Philippians 4:10-13

“This message of thanks is a rare blending of affection, of dignity, of delicacy with a certain undertone of gentle pleasantry. It is an embodiment of ideal Christian courtesy.” (Erdman)

Commenting on v. 11, Hewlett states, “This is no stoical indifference to prosperity or adversity, but the confidence given by the secret of contentment he is now to disclose.”

Jacques Ellul always has a unique take on things, and here is what he says regarding verses 12-13: “What Paul is showing us here is really the victory of faith over money and everything stemming from money, a victory that is possible only because money is now a conquered power...Spiritually, we can no longer fear money because on the cross Jesus took away its victory and its victims...It is as pointless to make superhuman efforts to earn money (or to develop the economy, productivity and so forth, which amounts to the same thing) as to feel guilty for having money (instead of feeling guilty, all we need to do is put this money at the disposal of others, exactly what Paul counsels). These are non-Christian attitudes which Christians should leave behind.”

Philippians 4:14-18

Hendricksen: “Paul is careful not to leave the impression that the gift had been superfluous and that he did not appreciate it. On the contrary, he indicates that he was definitely pleased with it...Had the Philippians not been true sympathizers, so that they felt Paul's affliction as if it were their very own, they would not have performed their generous deed. The gift indicated that they had made common cause with Paul's affliction, were true sharers in it. Truly, the fellowship (see Phil. 1:5) was operating beautifully!”

Osiek is one of several commentators who have noted that the terminology of business features prominently here, including 'giving and receiving', 'profit,' 'account,' and 'paid in full.'

The Jerusalem Bible notes that “Paul always refused all payments however legitimate; the one exception was what he received from his beloved Christians of Philippi, cf. Ac. 16:15; 18:3-4; 2 Co 11:8.”

Philippians 4:19-20

Marshall says that “when Paul prays in his opening salutation for the divine blessings of grace and peace to be part of their experience, the Lord Jesus Christ is named alongside God the Father as the source of these gifts (1:2; cf. 4:19).”

“God's providence, finally, is pictured in Scripture as 'glorious riches' given by God to meet all human needs, and those riches are found 'in Christ Jesus.'” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

“Doxologies are short, spontaneous ascriptions of praise to God which frequently appear as concluding formulations to prayers, hymnic expressions and sections of Paul's letters. Their basic structure is threefold. First, the person to whom praise is ascribed is mentioned ('to our God and Father,' Phil 4:20). Then follows the word of praise, usually doxa ('glory,' or an equivalent), and finally, the doxology concludes with a temporal description, normally an eternity formula ('for ever and ever'). In most cases the doxology is followed by 'amen'...The 'amen' makes it clear that Paul's ascription of praise is not simply a matter of the lips, but is the spontaneous response of his whole being.” (O'Brien)

Philippians 4:21-23

“Paul's 'conclusion structure' – greetings 4:21-22 and a benediction 4:23 – was common in NT letters, fixed in Paul's practice by the time he wrote Phil[ippians]...The benediction might stem from liturgical usage in the Hellenistic church. Some MSS add 'amen' as a response to v 23. Vv 21-23 reflect Paul's situation and the warmth of his relations with the Philippians. Some claim he wrote these 34 Gk. words with his own hand..., but this is unprovable.” (Reumann)

Several commentators take the time to clarify that “the members of the emperor's household,” are not his family members but members of the imperial civil service.

Marshall remarks that “the readers have a close relationship with Jesus through their faith in him (cf. 3:9b), and this relationship is emphasized even more clearly when they are said simply to be in Christ (as in 1:1,14; 3:9a; 4:21). Here the language suggests the idea of union with Christ...”

Foulkes ends his comments on Philippians with the words: “The Epistle closes as it began with that prayer, which embraces every other petition, for 'the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.'”

CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE EPISTLES AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

I was almost tempted to skip commenting on these next two pairs of Scripture which Jim Goad states are completely contradictory to one another. It was not because the issues were too hard to resolve, but for the opposite reason. The answers in both case were so patently obvious that they hardly needed any resolution at all. However, since some of you may have wondered about these “contradictions,” I will briefly address them anyway.

In the first place, one should always be suspicious of any critical comparison of a New Testament passage with one from the Old Testament written hundreds of years earlier and belonging to a completely different historical context. Secondly, it is always risky comparing passages written in different genres since language may be used quite differently in different types of literature. As you will see below, Jim Goad provides good (I should say “bad”) examples of both those errors in reasoning.

The first pair of passages he cites is shown below:

Genesis 9:3

“Every living thing that moves shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.”

Romans 14:21

“It is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

In comparing these two passages, Goad skips over several intervening covenants between God and man which deal with this subject of permitted food. To be more complete, we must consider the following food regulations which were set down by God to apply to various times during humanity's journey:

    1. First was the provision of food for Adam and Eve and their descendants, which was, arguably, a strictly vegetarian diet.

    2. But after the flood, God made a new covenant with all mankind which included the allowance of both meat and vegetables.

    3. However, when the Jews were set apart from the rest of humanity, the detailed levitical food laws were instituted in order to mark them out as God's unique people.

    4. But starting with Peter's rooftop vision in Acts 10:9-16, God declared all foods clean to eat.

    5. Unfortunately, this set up some conflicts between the Jewish and Gentile Christians within congregations, and the Jerusalem Council set down an accommodation so that the former group would not be offended by the freedom enjoyed by other brothers. This ruling urged Christians to at least abstain from eating meat offered to idols and that which had not been drained of blood. (Acts 15:29)

    6. Similar conflicts broke out in other churches between “weak” brothers who were still quite particular as to their diet and “strong” Christians who loudly proclaimed that they could eat anything they wished. This was the specific background for Paul's comments in Romans 14:21.

Concerning this last passage, Fitzmyer says, “Once it is seen that such an issue is not related to the essentials of Christian faith, the obligation of mutual charity for all becomes clear. Sameness of viewing such indifferent matters is not a Christian ideal...Hence one's conduct should not lead one to criticize a fellow Christian. See 14:10; 1 Cor 10:25-27. There is room in the Christian community for both sorts of people.”

Barclay adds: “A man is always in some sense his brother's keeper. He is responsible, not only for himself, but for everyone who comes into contact with him.”

Morris brings up another good point: “Paul does not say 'It is not good to eat meat', but 'It is good not to eat meat'; he is setting forth the course to action that will help the brother. His use of the aorist tense for his infinitives may be significant. There is nothing wrong with the eating and drinking as such. They are to be avoided when they cause offense but not necessarily at other times. Paul is relating his teaching to a given situation.”

The second contradictory passages according to Goad are:

Psalms 97:1-2a

“The LORD reigns; let the earth rejoice; let the many coastlands be glad! Clouds and thick darkness are round about him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.”

II Timothy 6:15-16a

“This will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see.”

The one-sentence answer to this so-called quandary is: “While God himself dwells in light and is himself light, he shields that unapproachable light from human beings by surrounding himself with clouds of darkness.” A short look at another theophany [appearance of God] in Psalm 18:7-15 demonstrates this fact by including both elements: fire and glowing coals as well as darkness under his feet and clouds covering him all around and over him. Confirmatory comments from others are given below.

Tanner: “This opening section [Psalm 97:1-5] tells of the power of God's reign. In language like that of Exodus 19, Isaiah 6 and Habakkuk 3, these verses portray the great mystery of God's inner sanctum. Verse 1 makes the declaration and calls on the earth and the coastlands to sing, expressing the vast expanse of God's land. This is followed by a description of the throne room of God...Reminiscent of the theophany on Sinai, clouds and deep darkness form the cover.”

Wanamaker: “From Eph. 5:8-9 we may deduce that 'light' with reference to God in the Paulines means 'goodness, righteousness, and truth...Light characterizes his very existence (cf. Ps. 104:2). That light is 'unapproachable...” This last sentence is another way of describing the darkness surrounding God.

M'Caw and Motyer: “The divine advent is seen as associated with smoke and blackness and the voice of words, as when the law was given at Sinai. It is also marked by brilliant radiance and lightning as in the swift illumination of the revelation of grace.” Notice that these scholars bring in another complicating factor that must be taken into account – the possibility that the elements of light and darkness have a primarily figurative meaning rather than a strictly literal one.

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “God's power over darkness is evident in the fact that he uses it to achieve his purposes. He uses darkness to cover himself from human view, for example. In Old Testament theophanies the concealing or covering quality of darkness makes it part of the means of God's appearance...God is even said to 'dwell in thick darkness' (1 Kings 8:12; 2 Chronicles 6:1), a transcendent spiritual being veiled from human view...God's veiling of himself in darkness is an act of mercy toward the human race...”

“Fire, lightning, storm and cloud often mark these descriptions...God often appears in the form of fire and smoke (or cloud). Fire attracts and frightens. It purifies and destroys. Smoke, on the other hand, conceals, indicating that while our glimpse of Godhead is accurate, it is also shielded. We learn true things about God, but our knowledge is never exhaustive”

“The cloud represents God's presence but also his hiddenness (see Lam 2:2). No one can see God and live, so the cloud shields people from actually seeing the form of God. It reveals God but also preserves the mystery that surrounds him.”

“Most notable among the lights of the temple was the Shekinah, the glory of God. This was not ordinary physical light, but it was visible in the form of a luminous cloud that filled holy space (2 Chron 5:13-14). This is similar to the glorious cloud that settled on Mount Sinai when Moses ascended to receive the law from God (Ex 24:15-18) after which 'the skin of his [I.e. Moses'] face shone because he had been talking with God.' (Ex 34:29).”

Some specific biblical passages of theophanies containing these same elements include the lightning and flashing arrows and spears in Psalm 18:13-14 and Habakkuk 3:9-12, the fiery bush of Exodus 3:2-4, the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of light by night (Exodus 13:21-22), the fire in Elijah's vision of I Kings 19:11-12, the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:9-10, the Lord's throne filled with smoke (Isaiah 6:1-8), Jesus' shining face and the cloud during the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-5), and the cloud that took Jesus out of sight at the ascension (Acts 1:9)

Finally, at the end of time the saved will see him unveiled “and there will be no more night; they need no light or lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.” (Revelation 22:5

 

DID THE JEWS OF NEW TESTAMENT TIMES ACTIVELY SEEK OUT CONVERTS? (MATTHEW 23:15)

I became interested in this subject after reading Jesus' comment: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourself.”

Since nowadays we would hardly characterize Judaism as an actively evangelizing religion, Jesus' comments sounded a little strange to me. I was well aware of the indications in the Old Testament of specific gentiles being welcomed into the Israelite community (Ruth is one prominent example), but that could hardly be attributed to a concerted evangelistic campaign on the part of the Jews. However, I had little conception of the attitude toward attracting others to Judaism during the Hellenistic period. The comments below from various scholars helped to enlighten me on this subject.

I will start with a simple note found in the Jerusalem Bible: “Jewish propaganda was extremely active in the Greco-Roman world.” Others ably elaborate on this statement. But first, Blomberg adds a qualification to Jesus' words: “This probably does not refer to large numbers of new converts but to the earnestness with which 'God-fearers' among the Gentiles were encouraged to become full-fledged Jews, accepting the yoke of the Law, including circumcision.”

Becker adds a similar note of explanation when he says, “An intensive missionary movement began in the Hellenistic Jewish Diaspora. On the one hand, it was very effective because of the concept of the transcendent God who is invisible and incapable of representation by an image. On the other hand, it was limited by circumcision as an act of complete adherence because of fear of anti-Semitism...In Matt. 23:15 among the woes pronounced against the Pharisees, Jesus is not here attacking the missionary zeal of the Pharisees as such, but the fact that they convert their followers to their own legalistic understanding of the law and thus make them 'children of hell.'”

“Josephus, Ant., xx.2.4 illustrates the lengths to which this excessive zeal would go in attempting to convert those who had already become adherents of the Jewish faith under the more liberal propaganda of Hellenistic Judaism.” (Hill)

Ellison points out, “Both Roman emperors and later a triumphant Church were to punish Jewish proselytizing by death, but the activity was widespread at the time [i.e. early years A.D.]...The readiness of many of them [i.e. God-fearers] to listen to Paul shows that the teaching they had received was very often for good. To become a full proselyte (gersedeq) involved adopting all the legal minutiae of the Pharisees. It is noteworthy that only one, possibly two, of the latter class are expressly mentioned as becoming Christian, viz. Nicholas of Antioch (Ac. 6:5) and perhaps the Ethiopian eunuch (Ac. 8:27). This principle holds also for the person more concerned to win a convert for a denomination than for Christ.”

Hendricksen: “The years during which the incarnation and the earthly ministry of Christ took place were pre-eminently marked by missionary activity carried on by the Jews. This is not strange. In fact, the Jewish religion, in contrast with all kinds of pagan cults, had never been exclusivistic.” He quotes fourteen OT passages to make his point.

And Helyer remarks that the apocryphal book of Judith produced in the time between the two testaments “assumes a Judaism that is open to proselyting – a stance reflected in NT literature (cf. Mt 23:15; Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43).”

R.A. Stewart goes into even more detail: “There is a remarkable spirit of charity in Lv. xix.34 and parallels, a willingness to receive foreigners into fellowship on the condition of circumcision (Ex. xii.48, or even without this (Nu. xv.14-16)...Political and geographical circumstances may have kept the number of converts relatively small in Old Testament times...In the period of the Graeco-Roman Dispersion, proselytes became numerous...Many Rabbis, however, had very different views. The Babylonia Talmud insists in one context that the proselyte has a strong predisposition to sin because of his evil background...the same Talmud elsewhere likens them to a sore on the skin of Israel...By New Testament times there must have been a steady stream of proselytes into the Jewish fold, as the book of Acts confirms (ii. 10, vi. 5, xiii.43)...Judaism was considerably more hospitable to the proselyte and honest inquirer than was the more narrow, legalistic, and traditional cult of Palestine and Babylonia...There has been much controversy as to why Jesus should have used the words of Mt. xxiii.15 when the scribes and Pharisees were so notoriously indifferent to proselytization. The 'one' might refer to their meager returns, or the verse could point to a particular historical incident, when four leading Rabbis attempted to secure a distinguished Roman convert.”

Lastly, here are a few extended quotes from Shaye Cohen's valuable study of Jewish history in the time between the Old and New Testaments titled From the Maccabees to the Mishnah:

“The latter part of the second temple period, that is, the period from the rise of the Maccabees (160s B.C.E.) to the destruction of the temple (70 C.E.) was another rich and significant chapter in Jewish history...the 'golden age' of diaspora Judaism, especially in Egypt, which produced a rich literature in Greek seeking to package Jewish ideas in Hellenistic wrapping; and of Judaism's intense interaction with its host culture, producing in some quarters a hatred of Judaism, but in others an attraction to it (resulting in 'converts' and 'God-fearers').”

“It was the age of philo-Judaism as well as anti-Judaism, of conversion to Judaism as well as hatred of Judaism. Although the Jews sought to keep themselves separate and distinct, they also were eager to accept and retain gentile converts. Indeed, some of the anti-Jewish literature of this period is motivated...by a desire to discourage conversion to Judaism. The literature that evinces a dislike of Judaism paradoxically confirms Judaism's powerful attraction.”

“Conversion to Judaism entails three elements: belief in God (and denial of pagan gods), circumcision (and immersion/baptism), and integration into the Jewish community. Many gentiles, both men and women, converted to Judaism during the last centuries B.C.E. and the first two centuries C.E. Even more numerous, however, were those gentiles who accepted certain aspects of Judaism but did not convert to it...In Rome, many gentiles observed the Sabbath, the fasts, and the food laws; in Alexandria many gentiles observed the Jewish holidays; in Asia Minor many gentiles attended synagogue on the Sabbath. Although these gentiles observed any number of Jewish practices and venerated in one form or another the God of the Jews, they did not see themselves as Jews and were not seen by others as Jews. One Jewish practice they studiously avoided was circumcision...The book of Acts calls these people 'those who fear'...”

“Some Jews even engaged in 'missionary' work...Josephus narrates that in the middle of the first century C.E. the royal house of the kingdom of Adiabene became Jewish under the tutelage of itinerant Jewish merchants. Several writers from the city of Rome refer to the eagerness of the Jews to win gentiles to their side. There is no evidence for an organized Jewish mission to the gentiles, but individuals seem to have engaged in this activity on their own. Some scholars have suggested that much of the Jewish literature written in Greek had as its goal the propagation of Judaism among the gentiles, since the literature often emphasizes those elements of Judaism which would make it attractive to outsiders.”

This situation changed drastically after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD so that “the Jews, or at least the rabbis, were no longer eager to sell their spiritual wares to the gentiles. The motives of the mission to the gentiles are obscure, but whatever they may have been – whether to hasten the messianic deliverance, whether to save souls, whether to garner political support – the rabbis were not interested. They were not active messianists...Outside of rabbinic circles perhaps some Jews still actively attempted to interest gentiles, especially Christians, in Judaism, but the evidence for such activity is minimal.”