IMAGERY IN LAMENTATIONS

One major hallmark of poetry, whether in English or Hebrew, is the use of vivid imagery to express ideas. Take the Book of Lamentations as an example.

Lamentations 1

Most of this chapter is written in the first person as if by the city of Jerusalem herself.

Lam. 1:1 Jerusalem is first anthropomorphized as a princess who has become a lonely widow and a vassal.

 Lam. 1:2 Next she is pictured as weeping woman who has been deserted by all her friends and lovers.

Lam. 1:4 Even the roads leading to Jerusalem and the gates of the city are said to be mourning due to the lack of people coming in on feast days.

Lam. 1:6 “Her princes have become like harts that find no pasture and are pursued by enemies.”

Lam. 1:8-9 Returning to an anthropomorphic image, Jerusalem is now pictured as a defiled and naked woman who turns her head away in shame.

Lam. 1:13-15 Now we come to a series of images picturing how God has dealt with Jerusalem in judgment. These include accusations that God has sent fire into her bones, spread a net for her feet, bound her sins into a yoke, convened an assembly against her, and “trodden the virgin daughter of Judah as in a wine vat.”

Lam. 1:20b contains an interesting image. This couplet reads,

        “In the street the sword bereaves,

        in the house it is like death.”

Here we have a form of symbolic parallelism in which the second line is more literal that the opening line and helps to clarify its meaning. In this case, “the sword” is a metonymy (where a part stands for the whole) for an enemy wielding a sword.

Lam. 1:22a “Let all their evil doing come before thee.” This is another example of anthropomorphism in which the evil deeds are pictured as a defendant coming before the court of judgment over which God presides as judge.

Lamentations 2
The emphasis in this second poem is on a third-person description of the LORD's actions followed by a direct address to the city, pleading with her to turn back to Him.

The first eight verses of this chapter all start out with either “The LORD” or “He” and provide a litany of images describing what God's actions against Judah have been. Thus he is said to have:

    “set the daughter of Zion under a cloud”

    “not remembered his footstool in the day of his anger”

    “broken down the strongholds”

    “withdrawn from them his right hand”

    “burned like a flaming fire”

    “bent his bow like an enemy”

    “poured out his fury like fire”

    “slain all the pride of our eyes”

    “multiplied mourning”

    “broken down his booth like that of a garden”

Then the poet turns to the effect that the destruction of Jerusalem has had on the city and its inhabitants.

    The city wall is “marked off by the line.”

    Her kings, wealthy men, and law are no more.

    Her prophets obtain no visions.

    The elders and women sit in mourning.

    The poet himself is lost in grief.

    The infants faint like wounded men and die for hunger.

    In brief, “Vast as the sea is your ruin.”

Then the author advises the inhabitants left to:

        “Let tears stream down like a torrent,

        “Pour out your heart like water.”

But they only had themselves to blame for these disasters since, as God says, “You did invite as to the day of an appointed feast my terrors on every side. This image of “appointed feast” at the last verse of Lamentations 2 ties it together with the opening of Lamentations 1, where in v. 4 we also read of “the appointed feasts.”

Lamentations 3

This is a personal lament by the author directed to God. It contains notable imagery such as the following:

    “I am under the rod of his wrath.” v. 1a

    “He turns his hand against me.” v. 1b

    “He has besieged and enveloped me.” v. 5

    “He has walled me about...he has put heavy chains on me.” v. 7

    “He is to me like a bear lying in wait, like a lion in hiding.” v. 10

    “He bent his bow and aimed at me; he drove the arrows of His quiver into my heart.” vv. 12-13

    “He has made my teeth grind on gravel” (v. 16)

    “My soul...is bowed down within me.” (v. 20)

But the poem turns in a positive direction in vv. 21-36 as the author sees hope behind all these actions:

    “His mercies are new every morning.”

    “The LORD is my portion, says my soul.”

    “It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth.”

    “To crush under foot all the prisoners of the earth...the LORD does not approve.”

    “Does not good and evil come from the mouth of the Most High?”

But this chapter returns in v. 43 to a litany of woes as in vv. 1-20, except that now the author speaks for the people as well as himself, with figures of speech such as:

    “You have wrapped yourself with anger...and a cloud.”

    “You have made us refuse.”

    “My eyes flow with rivers of tears.”

    “I have been hunted like a bird.”

    “I am the burden of all their [my enemies'] song.”

Lamentations 4

This chapter is filled with imagery, especially comparative similes:

    “How the gold has grown dim.”

    “The precious sins of Zion...are reckoned as earthen pots.”

    “...the daughter of my people has been cruel like the ostriches...”

    “Her princes were purer than snow, whiter than milk, their bodies more ruddy than coral, the beauty of their form was like sapphire.”

    “Now their visage is blacker than soot...their skin...has become as dry as wood.”

    “Happier than the victims of the sword were the victims of hunger.”

    “The LORD kindled a fire in Zion.”

    “Our pursuers were swifter than the vultures in the heavens.”

    “But to you also the cup shall pass.”

Lamentations 5

The poet turns again to God, but this time his complaints over their reduced condition tend to be more literal and less figurative in nature, with the exception of phrases such as:

    “Our mothers are like widows.”

    “Our skin is hot as an oven.”

    “The crown has fallen from our head.”

Again, we see a catchword binding together the whole of chapters 4-5 with the image of a jackal in 4:3 and 5:18.

A few of the images identified above need a little extra explanation:

Lamentations 2:2

“A degree of uncertainty...exists with regard to the interpretation...centering on the precise meaning of both 'splendor of Israel' and 'his footstool'...God's footstool...is certainly the ark in I Chr 28:2 and may be so in other instances also (Ps. 99:5; 132:7). Of course, it may refer more widely in these places, as also here, to the temple...or even to Jerusalem as a whole...We cannot be entirely sure...Its general thrust, however, is clear enough. God has turned against his people, ignoring their special status...and has removed them from the position of preeminence.” (Provan)

“This is a reference to Zion or the temple as a symbol of the presence of God. It is not a reference to the ark...since the ark was not destroyed in 587 B.C., but much earlier...The intention of this image seems to be to describe in a reverent, modest way the mode of God's presence: his throne is in heaven, that is, his dwelling is transcendent and remote, but he is nevertheless present in a special way in his temple, the place where his feet touch.” (Hillers)

Lamentations 2:6

Stephens-Hodge says, “Even his booth or 'tabernacle', the place of all places where mercy might confidently be awaited, had been broken down and laid in ruins, as if it were no more than a booth of the vineyards, put up temporarily in harvest time and then pulled down again, thereby showing the powerlessness of outward ritual to avert God's judgments from a guilty people...the destroyed Temple is a dilapidated and abandoned harvest booth.”

Provan states: “The difficulty with kaggan, 'like a garden', is to know what exactly it means in the context...The idea could be that God has destroyed his dwelling as easily as one might destroy such a [temporary] shelter.”

Lamentations 2:8

Hillers states, “Stretching a line is the action of a builder; done to mark straight lines. It is occasionally used, as here, as a metaphor for divine judgment. It is not completely clear how a phrase from the vocabulary of building becomes a synonym for destruction, but it may be that the idea is of a strict, predetermined measure from which God will not deviate; cf. II Kings 21:13; Isa 28:17; 34:11.”

But there are alternative explanations for the image:

“He 'stretched out a measuring line' like a workman about to destroy in a systematic and deliberate fashion the wall.” (Osborne)

“It is possible, however, to imagine situations other than the construction of buildings in which a measuring line, and the other tools of measurement which are associated with it...might have been used. Demolition itself requires careful planning, and measurements are also needed when buildings are surveyed in order to find out if they need to be demolished...God first checks the wall and condemns it. Only then does he proceed to destroy it.” (Provan) In this same context, Dobbs-Allsopp cites II Kings 24:13 and Isaiah 34:11.

Lamentations 3:16 – Provan states, “The picture being presented here is...not clear. Is it the consumption of gravel which is in view...? Or is the reference to abasement, as in the colloquial English expression 'to rub someone's face in the dirt'...? If the latter is correct, then we might have a parallel to it in the second part of the line, with its reference to ashes.”

But if the former is correct, then “He has also given stones instead of bread; hence the teeth grinding on gravel.” (Stephens-Hodge)

Lamentations 3:44

This verse pictures God as being wrapped in a cloud. Two articles in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery address this passage:

One anonymous entry states that “covering also indicates alienation. Lamentation 3:43,44 provides a sobering example of this connection where it portrays God as covering himself in righteous indignation and cutting off all access to himself by his people in prayer.”

Another article says, “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.”

Lamentations 3:63

The King James Version is more than a bit obscure here: “I am their musick.”

RSV is a little more clear in meaning: “I am the burden of their songs.”

But NRSV is an improvement: “I am the object of their taunt-songs.”

Or if you prefer, The Message paraphrases the verse as “They mock me with vulgar doggerel.”

Lamentations 4:1

Although Hillers objects that gold can never be tarnished, Provan says that “It must be asked whether Hillers' objections...are very compelling. We are probably to take the line with what follows in v. 1b. The gold has lost its luster because, like the stones, it has been lying 'scattered at the head of every street'...The reference to its change in appearance would not then be inconsistent with the reference to its value in v. 2.”

Osborne explains that “the sons of Zion, once as precious as gold...are now discarded as dross.”

Dobbs-Allsopp, however, says, “Gold, usually impervious to tarnishing, has grown dim and changed, emphasizing the severity of the suffering.”

Lamentations 4:3

“The scientific accuracy of the caricature is in no way germane. For example, the cruelty of the ostrich (Lam 4:3) or its greedy witlessness (Job 39:13-18), perhaps motivated by misunderstood habits, derive their meaning from the Hebrew cultural mythology of the ostrich and so serve the author's illustrative purpose regardless of the actual natural history of the bird.” (DBI)

Provan: “There are certain aspects of the behavior of ostriches which might have resulted in their gaining a reputation among the ancients for cruelty toward offspring. Under certain environmental conditions, for example, the family group may break up when the chicks are only a few weeks old, the adults renewing sexual activity and becoming highly aggressive towards all juveniles.”

 

IS GOD EVIL?

Two other blog posts of mine titled “Theodicy: The Problem of Evil” and “Immoral Teachings in the Bible” are somewhat related to the above question. Also, there is a recent full-length book on this subject by Paul Copan – Is God a Moral Monster?, subtitled “Making Sense of the Old Testament God.” The short treatment below is by no means exhaustive, but deals with only a few pertinent biblical texts in a general manner.

First, it should be openly admitted that there are some passages in the Bible, especially in the OT in which God is pictured as being behind evil actions. These include Isaiah 45:7; Jeremiah 4:6; Amos 3:6; Micah 2:3; Ecclesiasiastes 1:13; and Job 2:10. And there are a number of places in the Old Testament in which human beings complain, either rightly or wrongly, about God's evil actions toward them (see I Kings 17:20; Job 9:17-18; Psalm 39:10; Lamentations 3:1-16, etc.)

Some believers who recognize that fact have reacted to it in rather inappropriate ways. For example, there is the case of the early church heretic named Marcion (ca. AD 85-160). He distinguished between the evil creator God (the “Demiurge”) of the Old Testament and the good God of the New Testament who sent Christ to earth. Therefore, in his canon of Scripture he rejected all of the OT and only accepted those parts of the NT which fit into his theology. But, in line with some of the thoughts given below, even this “evil” action on Marcion's part prompted the church to firm up the official canon of Scripture, and so it had a “good” effect overall.

Another inappropriate stance to take toward suggestions in the Bible that God is behind evil in the world is to simply deny that what we call evil exists in the first place. This was Mary Baker Eddy's approach. She managed to convince a number of people that so-called evil is simply a matter of an error of thinking. Therefore by properly directing and realigning our minds, such things as illness and distress would completely disappear. However, to bring this novel idea in line with Scripture, she needed to completely redefine many of the Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible as she saw fit.

Then there is the case of Eastern religions such as Hinduism, about which Wenham comments: “If good and evil are both identified with God, it means finally that good and evil are identified with one another. To have abolished the distinctions between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error, beauty and ugliness, must surely be the Devil's final triumph.” 

Or, there is the example my daughter and her husband witnessed while visiting a liberal church in our town and hearing the story of Job paraphrased in the morning sermon. As the conclusion to her sermon, the pastor stated, “What lesson can we learn from all this? It is simply this: If you are tempted to blame God for any problems you are having in your lives, don't. God had nothing whatsoever to do with it.” Of course, that inadequate solution to the problem of evil involves just denying the plain fact that God was behind every bit of the problems Job was having.

Also, that pastor's comment could be taken to mean that the book of Job portrays a battle between two equally matched powers: God and Satan. If so, then it expresses a form of dualism, beginning probably with the rise of Zoroastrianism in ancient Persia, in which Satan's carrying out evil against human beings is done totally outside of God's control.

Achilles notes that though “numerous dualistic notes may be heard in the NT, one can never find a dualism in which evil has the same power as good. Equally the thought is rejected that the root of evil could lie in God; 'for God is untouched [lit. cannot be tempted] by evil' (Jas. 1:13, NEB).”

However, from the story of Job we can derive at least two different acceptable solutions to the problem of the association of God and evil, as I will now attempt to demonstrate.

God utilizes evil events to accomplish good.

This fact should really need little proof. All we have to do is consider the death of Christ on the cross, the cruelest example of injustice the world has ever seen. And yet without that sacrifice, all mankind would be condemned to an eternal death.

Or take the case of Joseph, who spent decades of unfair exile and imprisonment after his brothers had sold him into slavery. And yet, at the end of the book of Genesis, he told his brothers, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.”

And revisiting the story of Job, we see that the evil action of Satan resulted ultimately in (a) a demonstration for all time for Satan and for all those who worship God that they can and should do so for reasons other than selfish ones; (b) Job's friends being chastised for attempting to speak on behalf God concerning things they did not really understand; (c) Job seeing God face to face for the first time and being properly humbled; (d) Job's status in society and as a family patriarch being restored as well as his health and wealth; and (e) Job learning that he should pray even for those who persecuted him, as well as for his own family.

God is not the immediate cause of evil.

This is one theological approach to distancing God somewhat from the chain of events to defend Him of the charge of being or causing evil. Thus, the story of Job shows that the originator and immediate cause of the evil inflicted on him was Satan. However, as I mentioned above, that does not entirely remove God from the situation, since it is obvious from the first two chapter of that book that Satan had no power to touch Job without God's express approval.

There is that same distinction in the case of God (as the permissive cause) allowing a lying spirit (the immediate cause) to mislead Ahab (I Kings 22:19-23) in order to accomplish His will. Or there is the similar situation in which it is unclear who incited David to carry out a census of the people, God (II Samuel 24:1) or Satan (I Chronicles 21:1). The best solution, again, is to state that God was the permissive cause while Satan was the immediate cause of this evil.

Kaiser points out that “according to the Hebrew way of speaking, which ignores secondary causation in a way Western thought would never do, whatever God permits may be directly attributed to him, often without noting that secondary and sinful parties were the immediate causes of the disaster.”

“Evil” does not always mean moral evil.

Much of the difficulty we have in picturing God as the author of evil comes from a misunderstanding of the Hebrew word for evil. Meier explains, “There is no terminological distinction between moral evil and calamity, for the same Hebrew word (ra' or ra'a) is used for both. Evil is anything that is unpleasant, repulsive, or distorted (Gen. 41.3-4).” Thus, from a human viewpoint, events which seem “evil” to us may really be “good” from God's point of view.

Baker: “In some cases there is no moral censure involved in the adj. [ra']..At times the adj. is used to accentuate the grievousness of something that is intrinsically harmful to one's physical well-being, even though no moral judgment is being made by the use of the adj. itself...Even something that is ultimately beneficial can appear to its recipient to be bad or stern, such as Yahweh's discipline that befalls a sinner (Prov 15:10). Most commonly, the adj. is applied to people and their activities in contexts that indicate moral turpitude. This is uniting into one word of what in English is expressed by two words, physical (bad) and moral (evil). Both abrogate in some way the fullness of life....As a result of humanity's wickednss and wicked natrue, the good but holy and righteous God will send judgment, which, from the perspective of the one who is its object, is dreadful (ra') (Ezek 14:21; cf. Exod 33:4; Deut 6:22).”

Similarly, Howley writes that this Hebrew word “has a broader meaning than sin...It is essentially what is unpleasant, disagreeable, offensive...In the New Testament kakos and poneros mean respectively the quality of evil in its essential character, and its hurtful effects or influence. It is used in both physical and moral senses. While these aspects are different, there is frequently a close relationship between them. Much physical evil is due to moral evil...[but] not all physical ill is a punishment of wrongdoing (Lk. xiii.2,4; Jn. ix.3; cf. Job).”

Vine expresses the same twofold meaning which may be ascribed to either of these two Greek words, depending on the context and gives numerous examples in the NT for each usage. He also points to several NT texts where both kakos and poneros appear together and the pair translated by phrases such as “noisome and grievous.”

As for physical evil, “The prophets regarded God as the ultimate Cause of evil, as expressed in pain, suffering, or disaster. In His sovereignty He tolerates evil in this universe though He overrules and uses it in His administration of the world...Nature's present 'vanity' (profitlessness, Rom. viii. 19-23) is its mark of evil, the earth being under a curse (Gn. iii. 17,18). Christian suffering, whether trouble or persecution, is divinely permitted for purposes of spiritual blessing (Jas. 1. 2-4; 1 Pet. I.7; etc). It is chastening, not penal; nor can it separate from the love of God (Rom. viii. 38,39).”

Concerning moral evil, Howley says, “God is against evil, but its existence is often a stumbling-block to belief in a God of love. It can only be attributed to the abuse of free-will on the part of created beings, angelic and human. God's whole saving activity is directed to deal with evil...Evil will be eliminated from the universe, and the creation will share redeemed man's glorious destiny. Both physical and moral evil will be banished eternally (Rev. xxi. 1-8).”

“The evil spoken of in this text [Isaiah 45:7] and similar passages (such as Jer 18:11; Lam 3:38 and Amos 3:6) refers to natural evil and not moral evil. Natural evil is seen in a volcanic eruption, plague, earthquake and destructive fire. It is God who must allow (and that is the proper term) these calamities to come.” (Kaiser)

I CORINTHIANS 1:21-25

A. The Wisdom of God

    1. In the wisdom of God

        2. the world did not know God through wisdom.

    1'. It pleased God

        2'. through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe

                    B. Effect on Unbelievers

                        1. Jews demand signs and

                            2. Greeks desire wisdom

                                3. But we preach Christ crucified

                        1'. a stumbling block to Jews and

                            2'. foolishness to Gentiles

                    B'. Effect on Those Who are Called,

                        1. both Jews

                            2. and Gentiles

                                3. Christ

                        1'. the power of God

                            2'. and the wisdom of God

A'. The Wisdom of God

    1. for God's foolishness is wiser

        2. than human wisdom and

    1'. God's weakness is stronger

        2'. than human strength.

Note how carefully Paul constructs this symmetrical passage, even down to the fact that both A and A' take a 1-2-1'-2' form while B and B' exhibit a 1-2-3-1'-2' organization.

The centers of the two central units in this passage zero in on the content of God's message, which is simply Christ (B3 and B'3) . This message is rejected by most Jews since it appears to reflect a weak and powerless God (B1 and B1'), whereas Christ really shows the power of God (B'1'). You will find many Jews today who reject Jesus as the Messiah mainly because he was not strong enough to lead a successful rebellion to eject Israel's foreign government and re-establish Jerusalem in all her glory, as predicted in the Old Testament. These prophecies, Christians reply, certainly will be fulfilled, but in a future time at Christ's Second Coming. Christ's real power was demonstrated by the fact that he went to the cross knowing fully what was coming even though he could have easily prevented it.

Greeks, on the other hand, find the message sheer nonsense (B2 and B2'), whereas Christ demonstrates God's wisdom instead (B'2'). From the Greek and Roman point of view, as well as that I have heard expressed by modern atheists, it makes no logical sense to believe that the death of a poor carpenter from a backwater town could have any effect whatsoever on the ultimate fate of anyone else in the world. But behind this apparent foolishness, Paul says, lies the hidden wisdom of God stressed in units A and A'.

Another lesson from this short passage can be seen in comparing “those who believe” (A2') and “those who are called” (B'). Both Calvinists who stress God's omnipotence and Arminians who concentrate on man's free will need to keep in mind that these two forces work in tandem in a way which is a little hard for us humans to comprehend in order to bring about eternal salvation. The major problem is when each of these two camps vehemently denies that the other has any theological leg on which to stand.

ROLES OF MEN AND WOMEN IN CHURCH

I earlier wrote a post titled “The Role of Women in the Church” in which I attempted to comment on the key New Testament passages dealing with this issue, all in the writings of Paul. This is a sort of follow-up on that post, but this time summarizing the thoughts in three articles appearing in the April 2023 issue of CT magazine.

But first I should share my own church experiences spanning many years as a regular attender or member of a total of nine different congregations representing six different denominations or church traditions, all of which could be broadly labeled as evangelical and having a great deal of local autonomy. But the only commonality I could detect in regard to the accepted role of women within these various congregations was the fact that men and women had an equal vote when any important question was brought before the whole church.

Thus, it turns out that I have seen at first hand some churches which would be labeled as complementarian (defined by Hugenberger as “those who believe there are distinct, complementary roles for men and women in marriage, church, and sometimes society”) as well as those which were egalitarian (“those who deny there are distinct roles for men and women”). And my personal observation is that both extreme positions can sometimes result in a perfectly functional congregation and sometimes in a highly disfunctional one. It all depends on the good will or lack thereof exhibited by the parishioners and leadership.

The first article was by Gordon Hugenberger of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and it attempted to bridge the gap between the two positions by stressing their commonalities rather than their differences. He starts with reminding the readers that Genesis 1:27 states that men and women share equally in their reflecting the image of God. Then he turns to those pertinent passages in Paul's letters in which the apostle makes no distinction between the two genders:

    I Corinthians 12:7 – Both men and women are to exercise the spiritual gifts they have been given for the service of the church.

    Colossians 3:16 – This includes teaching and admonishing others and singing praises to God.

And in the book of Acts, he points to the following texts:

    Acts 2:17-21 – Both men and women on the Day of Pentecost received the outpoured Spirit and his gifts.

    Acts 18:26 – Priscilla with her husband, Aquila, corrected the theology of the prominent teacher Apollos.

Turning next to Paul's “problem passages,” Hugenberger feels that both sides would agree that at least in some settings there is nothing wrong with a woman teaching a man (I Timothy 2:12). The sticking point involves the exact meaning of having “authority over a man” since it may only apply to abusive authority.

Similarly, both sides should agree that a woman praying out loud in church or “prophesying” is not absolutely prohibited in Scripture (I Corinthians 11:5; 14:3). Women singing hymns and praises to God are certainly not condemned by Paul despite his admonition in I Timothy 2:12 for them to “be quiet.”

Other factors for complementarians to keep in mind when using this passage include:

    1. Paul's words only applied to church settings.

    2. The teaching may have been a temporary measure due to the limited education opportunities for women at the time.

    3. Although Paul bases his comments on the example of Adam and Eve and therefore would seem to make his teaching time- and culture-independent, the teachings in Genesis 2:24 explicitly refer to marriage roles, not roles within the church.

    4. As has been recognized and stressed by other scholars, the Greek terms for man and woman used by Paul can also mean “husband and wife,” and therefore apply to married couples only as in all other NT texts in which the terms appear. This was even the understanding of Martin Luther.

    5. Being “quiet” may mean a warning against any sort of “unwelcome, disruptive or negative speech (arguing, complaining, harping, nagging).”

Danielle Treweek, in the following CT article on this subject, bemoans the “increasing cancellation, co-option, and cannibalization of complementarianism.”

    1. Cancellation: The problem comes in when opponents of complementarianism adamently insist that there is no place in modern society for such a backward view of women. Treweek admits that there have been many abuses regarding how women are relegated to a second-class status in some churches, but that should be no excuse for egalitarians cutting off all discussion on the subject and just condemning those who disagree with them.

    2. Co-option: More repressive proponents of patriarchalism are attempting to force complementarians into their own mold, which may include banning women from higher education opportunities and urging husbands to have complete control over which books their wives are allowed to read. These fundamentalist groups actually consider all complementarians to be too liberal.

    3. Cannibalization: This is a danger that comes from within rather than from outside sources. “It occurs when no allowance is made for differing conclusions that are still grounded in and consistent with complementarianism's defining theological affirmations.” It happens when those within the same denomination or congregation begin carrying out witch hunts against their fellow congregants who do not agree 100% with their own personal interpretation of Scripture on the subject.

The third article in the series was written by Gaby Viesca from the egalitarian viewpoint. Her concern is with the process that some churches go through when they decide to transition to a truly gender-equal environment. She notes, as I have personally seen concerning other important congregational issues, church leaders often spend a great deal of time in internal discussion, prayer and soul-searching before announcing a major policy change. However, they seldom consider what sort of a negative impact it may have on the individual members in the congregation. And because of that, they often take little care in how they should actually roll out this new policy until it is too late and much damage has been done.

The sort of damage may come from two directions. By going against long-standing practices in the church, any sort of major change may make older conservative members feel that they are being totally disenfranchised. But at the same time, it may raise falsely high expectations among women in the congregation when they realize that this sort of full-fledged change is taking much longer than they felt necessary. Those women may then, perhaps rightly, suspect that the change was lip service only.

REVELATION 18

In order to counter those who say that the Book of Revelation is a bunch of meaningless nonsense dreamed up by the author, I have written a number of posts discussing how very carefully the book is composed. And to demonstrate that the order of the book as a whole is finely constructed, I would like to now concentrate on just one section to show that this order extends down to the smallest units within it. The passage I selected is Revelation 18, a chapter dealing with one subject – the fall of Babylon the Great. It can be diagrammed as follows, with the prose sections given in bold type and key words listed in quotes:

                                                   Figure 1: Structure of Revelation 18

    Introduction 1 (vv. 1-2a): “another angel from heaven,” “mighty”

        Song 1 (v. 2b): Babylon inhabited by demons

            Reason for the fall (v. 3): “For the nations...”

    Introduction 2 (v. 4a): “another voice from heaven”

        Song 2 (v. 4b): a call to come out of Babylon

            Reason for the fall (vv. 5-8): “For her sins...”

                The kings lament (vv. 9-10a) “wept at smoke,” “They will stand far off”

                    Lament 1 (v. 10b): “alas, alas, the great city”

                        Reason for lament (10c): “for in one hour...”

                            The merchants lament (vv. 11-13)

                                Lament 2 (vv. 14)

                            The merchants lament (v. 15) “They stand far off”

                                Lament 2' (v. 16): “alas, alas, the great city”

                         Reason for lament (v. 17): “for in one hour”

                  Seafarers lament (vv. 17b-18a) “They will stand far off,” “wept at smoke”

                      Lament 3 (v. 18b): “what city was like the great city?”

                  Seafarers lament (v. 19a) “They wept and mourned

                      Lament 3' (v. 19b): “alas, alas, the great city”

                            Reason for lament (v. 19c): “for in one hour”

      Conclusion (vv. 20-21a): “heaven,” “a mighty angel”

          Song 3 (vv. 21b-23a): Babylon deserted by its inhabitants

              Reasons for the fall: (vv. 23b-24) “For your merchants..;”

The litany of precious goods in vv. 11-13 contains exactly 28 (i.e. 4x7) individual items, in keeping with the overwhelming emphasis in the book on the symbolic meaning of “7” as perfection or completion.

Inclusios (verbal bookends to individual units) in this chapter include: “plagues” at vv. 4b and 8 as well as “prophets” in vv. 20 and 24. The words “nations” and “earth (twice)” in verses 3 and 23-24 serve the same function to tie the whole chapter together.

Also, note from the structure above that in each of the three groups of laments over Babylon the phrases “alas, alas, the great city,” “in one hour,” and “they stand far off” appear.

Within Song 3, the following seven similar phrases serve as a repeated chorus which alternates in key words:

    “will be found no more” (21b)

            “will be heard in you no more” (22a)

    “will be found in you no more” (22b)

            “will be heard in you no more” (22c)

    “will shine in you no more” (23a)

            “will be heard in you no more” (23b)

    “in you was found” (24)

The first time it appears, it is Babylon herself which will be found no more. And the reason for that judgment is given in the last appearance – she has slaughtered in prophets and saints.

One hint as to the main point of emphasis in this chapter is given by the fact that “the merchants of the earth” are mentioned in three key locations in the text: the start (v. 3), middle (vv. 11,15), and end (v. 23b).

At this point I should mention that the distinctions in Figure 1 made between poetic and prose sections are based on those found in NRSV and are not to be taken as the “Gospel truth.” In fact, the division between these two genres is by no means a hard and fast one, as we can see by comparing other English translations:

    Even the related RSV translation differs from the NRSV in that it considers v. 20 to be written as poetry, not prose.

    TEV feels that only verses 4b-8 in this chapter should be indented as poetry. And the NEB treats the whole of Revelation as prose.

    The tabulation below shows which verses are treated as poetic according to other versions. Those in NRSV ares repeated for easier comparison:

Translation       Poetic Passages

JB                    10b; 16b-17a; 19b; 22-23

AB                  2b-3; 4b-8; 10b; 14; 16-17a; 18b; 19b-20; 21b-24

NIV                 2b-3; 4b-8; 10b; 16b-17a; 19b-20; 21b-24

NRSV             2b-3; 4b-8; 10b; 14; 16-17; 18b; 19b; 21b-24

Because of these uncertainties regarding the genres in this chapter, it would perhaps be best to ignore those distinctions altogether in arriving at the literary structure of Revelation 18 and stick to indications in the text regarding to distinct changes of subject. When one does that, something like this much less detailed, but more symmetrical, organization of Figure 2 is obtained, in which all of the various verbal parallels cited above still hold.

                                        Figure 2: Revised Structure of Revelation 18

    A. Introduction (vv. 1-8): Babylon will be inhabited by demons for her sins

            B. Laments for the Great City (vv. 9-19)

                1. The kings lament (vv. 9-10)

                    2. The merchants lament (vv. 11-17a)

                1'. The seafarers lament (vv. 17b-19)

    A'. Conclusion (vv. 20-21a): Babylon deserted by its inhabitants for her sins

For a verse-by-verse discussion of this chapter, see my posts titled “Lesson in Context: Part I (Revelation 18)” and “The Importance of Context: Part 2 (Revelation 18).”

SEVEN LETTERS RELATING TO JEREMIAH

 

                                          Letter from a Prophet (assemblage, 2005)

Of course, in one sense the whole book of Jeremiah is one long letter, not only to the Jews at the time but in a wider sense to us today. But within this book are at least three specific letters, all found in Jeremiah 29. The changes in authors and addressees make this chapter a little hard to comprehend, so here is a rough guide on how to read it:

Jeremiah 29:1-23 (illustrated above) – Jeremiah writes from Jerusalem to the first group of exiles in Babylon to tell them one basic truth, namely that they will be there for the long haul. Thus, he advises them to settle down and raise families there and pray for the welfare of Babylon. In fact, this is just what exiles such as Daniel and his three friend did, and they were able to act as leaven in that pagan land.

Jeremiah 29:24-28 – Next we learn that a false prophet, Shemaiah, has written a letter to Jerusalem instructing the overseer of the Temple that he should have arrested Jeremiah for sending such a discouraging letter to the exiles. But fortunately the overseer and Jeremiah are friends, so the prophet quickly becomes aware of the letter.

Jeremiah 29:30-31 – Lastly, God instructs Jeremiah to write back to the exiles exposing Shemaiah for his lies and using God's name in vain.

The next two documents of interest, titled The Book of Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah were actually written quite later than the events of Jeremiah's time, but were included in the Greek translation of the Old Testament and are part of the Apocrypha, those writings are accepted as genuine (to one extent or another) by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches but rejected for the most part as canonical by the Protestant churches. If you do find them in an English translation of the Bible, they may be found lumped together or listed separately, actually embedded within the text of Jeremiah or found within the Apocrypha.

The Book of Baruch purports to be written by Jeremiah's brother and scribe, who is prominently mentioned in chapters 32, 36, 43 and 45 of Jeremiah. One expert on the books of the Apocrypha, Robert Dentan, expresses his opinion that the “Book of Baruch has no particular historical or religious value.” Only the first 14 verses clearly deal with a letter sent by Baruch in Babylonia to the Jews remaining in Judea. In his message, Baruch first echoes the concept of Jeremiah 29:1-23 concerning prayers to be given for the good of Babylon and its leaders, but then he goes on at some length confessing that the exiles deserve whatever treatment they get due to their disobedience to the words of God. The rest of the book is a mixture of prose and poetry, including a hymn to wisdom and a prayer for mercy before concluding with a mixture of eventual hope for the exiles along with (paradoxically) a closing curse on the nation of Babylon. This last element seems strangely out of place considering how the book began.

Although the Letter of Jeremiah possesses some of the formal literary characteristics of a canonical OT book, the same cannot be said of its actual contents. Dentan characterizes it as “a rambling polemic against idolatry, but of a far lower and much less imaginative character than in Wisdom 13-15 (another apocryphal writing). Thus, there is really no distinction in what the author says in the three major parts of the letter. The author, obviously not Jeremiah, repeats the same thought over and over again in a very heavy-handed manner – idols are not gods at all since they are just made out of physical materials. Supposedly it was written by Jeremiah to the Babylonian exiles, but few accept that as fact.

The last two letters relating to Jeremiah are of quite a different type. They are among what has been known by archeologists as the Lachish Letters, These were communications written on ostraca (fragments of broken pottery) from a Jewish military scout positioned outside the city of Lachish to his commander within the city.

1. In one of these letters, the scout reports that he saw the signal fires of the city of Azekah go out. Jeremiah 34:1-7 reports to the King of Judah what happened when Nebuchadnezzar's army attacked. In verse 7, Jeremiah talks of the time “when Babylon was fighting against Jerusalem and against the only other cities of Judah that were left, Lachish and Azekah.” So the Lachish letters actually contain an eye-witness account of the exact moment when Azekah fell, but before Lachish had been taken. And the Hebrew word for “signal fire” in the letter is the same one that Jeremiah uses in Jeremiah 6:1 – “Blow the trumpet in Tekoa, and raise a signal on Beth-haccherem.”

2. On another ostracon, the same scout mentions a prophet who had been proclaiming warnings about a coming disaster, which had the effect of “making the people's hands weak,” in other words, demoralizing them. That was precisely what Jeremiah had been doing at the time, but for a different reason. In Jeremiah 38:1-4, the prophet had made the dire prediction to all the people that the city of Jerusalem was soon going to be taken by the Babylonians. So he urges them to surrender to save their lives. In response, the king's officials say, “This man ought to be put to death, because he is discouraging the soldiers who are left in this city.” The underlined phrase in Hebrew is literally “making the hands weak,” the same idiom found in this Lachish letter.

IS GOD A WOMAN? (GENESIS 1:26-27

To some readers this might seem to be a heretical question to ask while others might reply, “Of course.”

Much of the discussion begins right in the first chapter of Genesis, where we read:

Then God said,

    “Let us make man in our image,

    after our likeness;

        and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,

                                               and over the birds of the air,

                                               and over the cattle,

                                               and over all the earth,

                                               and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

    So God created man in his own image

    in the image of God he created him;

    male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26-27)

Concerning the last two critical lines cited above, Ortlund states, “The inner logic of the whole bound together with the same verb ('created') demands that both male and female alike be dignified as bearers of the divine image.” Similarly, Brauch says, “It is significant that man and woman are not first defined by their sexuality or gender; they are first defined by the fact that together they are created in the image of God.”

But then the interesting questions arise: “Does this mean that God shares the sexual attributes of both males and females?” “If not, what is the nature of this shared correspondence between us and Him?” “Can we then use these common characteristics to get an idea of the nature of God Himself by looking at human behavior and abilities?”

Let us first deal with the question of the sexuality of God, if we can even imagine such a concept. And here I will quote from three Bible scholars, the first two of whom happen to be women.

    Sakenfeld: “A more complete and balanced picture of the God portrayed in the Bible has been encouraged by emphasizing texts in which the deity is compared to a woman...Such texts, supplemented by texts using the imagery of inanimate objects for the deity (e.g. God as rock or shield), are used to undergird and reinforce the classic teaching that God is not biologically made, but is indeed beyond male and female. The small number of texts comparing God to a woman, together with the fact that these are generally comparisons (not direct appellations) results in disagreement about the significance of these resources, particularly whether they provide a warrant for referring to the biblical deity as 'mother' in contemporary theology and prayer.”

    Achtemeier: “God is never called mother in the Bible, though he exercises mother-like love and care for his children. Female terms for God are used in the Bible only in similes, pointing to one activity [only]. If they are interpreted as metaphors, the deity is then connected with the images of birth and suckling, and they erroneously result in the view of a goddess giving birth to all things and persons, who then participate in the divine being. The distinction that the Bible insists on between creator and creature is then lost.”

    Goldstein talks a little more about the biblical texts comparing God to a woman: “God appears to be female at Deut 32:18; cf. Isa 42:14; Ps 2:7.” Before I quote from those passages though, here is what else Goldstein says, “In Hebrew the 'Spirit' of the Lord is feminine [in grammatical gender] and could be taken as a separate person, just as was the Holy Spirit in Christianity...” But if we are to consider the three persons of the Trinity, one could also point out that the Spirit's role in ensuring that Mary had a baby is expressed in clearly masculine terms, and that God in flesh, Jesus Christ, certainly appeared in the male form although in Matthew 23:37 He says, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem...How often have I desired to gather your children as a hen gathers her brood under her wings...”. So again, trying to assign a particular sex to any person of the Trinity is doomed to fall short of the mark.

Deuteronomy 32:18 – “You were unmindful of the rock that begot you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth.” Actually, in this verse the beginning clause compares God to a male while He is pictured as a woman in the second clause. So although this verse does use metaphoric language, it is equally applied to both sexes.

Isaiah 42:14 – “For a long time I have held my peace, I have kept still and restrained myself; now I will cry out like a woman in travail, I will gasp and pant.” Here we clearly have a simile.

Psalm 2:7 – “'You are my son, he said, 'this day I become your father.'” Goldstein is clearly off-base in quoting his verse since all modern translations agree that God is referred to as father here, not mother.

Lest some people feel that to have referred to God using feminine language would have been distasteful to those in biblical times, consider this comment by Keener: “Maternal milk was considered best...God is here [I Peter 2:2] the source of the milk. In 1 Cor. 3:2 and 1 Thess. 2:7 Paul compares himself to a mother or nurse breastfeeding a baby, and such feminine images for males were neither extremely rare nor, even in antiquity, necessarily demeaning.”

If there are in fact no clear-cut references to God as female, does that mean that only men are made in God's image. Apparently some think so. Marcus Barth explains that “the Greek translation of Hebrew 'ish by anthropos [in Ephesians 5:31] expresses the idea that Adam (anthropos) alone, before Eve was created and without her company, was the carrier of God's image and glory; see Gen 1:27 and I Cor 11:7. Despite its endorsement by some rabbis and other Jews this interpretation of Gen 1:27 is highly questionable. For this verse speaks of 'adam (anthropos) not of 'ish (aner).”

But if the godly imagery in Genesis 2:7 applies equally to men and women, then what does that image entail? The answer differs depending on whom you ask and is hard to pin down, even in general terms. Witness the following statements:

    Schaeffer: “What differentiates Adam and Eve from the rest of creation is that they were created in the image of God. For twentieth-century [or 21^st century] man this phrase, the image of God, is as important as anything in Scripture, because men today can no longer answer the crucial question, 'Who am I?'...The Christian knows that in the flow of history man comes from a different origin. It is not that God has made both man and the great machine of the universe, but that he has made man different from the rest of the universe. And that which differentiates man from the machine is that his basic relationship is upward rather than downward or horizontal. He is created to relate to God in a way that none of the other created beings are.”

    Merrill breaks down the understandings of Genesis 1:27 into two categories: (1) “To be in the image of God cannot mean equivalence between deity and humanity...but only an analogous or corresponding relationship between the two.” (2) “Humanity does not so much share with God his essential reality but, rather, is a representative of that reality. That is, human kind has a functional role to play, a role that requires no ontological [i.e. dealing with the nature of being] commonness with God.” Merrill opts for the second general definition.

    Allen: “The term 'image' has been variously explained as personality, nature (as body and spirit), or capacity for moral decision.”

    Kaiser: “Male and female shared alike and equally in this highest mark yet set on creation. Only later in NT terms will the definitional content of this image become clear (e.g. knowledge, Col. 3:10; righteousness and holiness, Eph. 4:24). In the Genesis record, the precise content of the image is less specific. We see it expressed in concepts such as the possibility of fellowship and communion with God, the exercise of responsible dominion and leadership over the creation owned by God, and the fact that in some unspecified as yet way, God is the prototype of which man and woman are merely copies, replicas and facsimiles.”

    Packer explains that when “the old Reformed theologians dealt with the attributes of God, they used to classify them in two groups: incommunicable and communicable.” Only the latter group is in mind “when it [the Bible] tells us that God made man in His own image (Gen. 1:26f) – namely, that God made man a free spiritual being, a responsible moral agent with powers of choice and action, able to commune with Him and respond to Him, and by nature good, truthful, holy, upright (cf. Eccles 7:29): in a word, godly. Unfortunately, the moral qualities were lost in the Fall.”

    By contrast, Flender says: “The goal and purpose of the image of God in man is dominion over the world...The Old Testament knows nothing of man losing this image through the fall.”

The immediate context of Genesis 1:26-27 obviously concerns mankind ruling over creation, and thus this is the clue, according to a majority (but by no means all) of theologians, to the meaning of image. The following comments echo that thought:

    “The difficulty is that no indication of the likeness is provided, aside from the fact that the humans will function for God in the exercise of dominion over creation (1:26-27). The nature of the likeness has been conceived as physical, personal, or functional; all can easily fall within the semantic range of terms involved. The nature of the likeness of humans to God as far as the Gen. narrative is concerned can be established with relative clarity. The function of dominion is indicated in the passage, so it is reasonable to make function the primary point of the analogy.” (Konkel)

    This image and likeness “would show itself above all in his dominion over the animal creation (26). In the immediate context it showed itself in his ability to have communion with God; ultimately, and perhaps most important of all, it made the incarnation of the Word of God possible. Other implications became clear in the course of continuing revelation.” (Ellison)

    Allen Ross states, “The term 'image' has been variously explained as personality, nature (as body and spirit), or capacity for moral decision. It does not signify a physical representation of corporeality, for God is a spirit. The term must therefore figuratively describe human life as a reflection of God's spiritual nature, that is, human life has the communicated attributes that came with the inbreathing (Gen. 2:7). Consequently, humans have spiritual life, ethical and moral sensitivities, conscience, and the capacity to represent God. The significance of the word 'image' should be connected to the divine purpose for life.”

    “God created Adam and Eve explicitly with the internal equipment (e.g., moral, spiritual, volitional, and rational attributes) to be able functionally to 'subdue,' 'rule,' and 'fill' the entire earth with the presence and glory of God. The very notion of being in God's 'image' likely included reflecting the divine glory, since God himself was essentially a glorious being...” (Beale)

But there is one key aspect of this image which almost all commentators pass over – that of creativity. Perhaps it is just my personal interest in that subject which makes me feel this, but I think that I am on firm ground in wanting to highlight this key characteristic that we have in common with God.

In the first place, in considering the setting in which God's words in Genesis 1:26-27 are given, one cannot just stop with the immediate content of those two verses. We must remember that in this chapter, the one overwhelming aspect of God's personality which is in evidence is His creativity.

Secondly, in considering what attributes are needed by mankind in order to subdue, rule, and fill the world, mere moral, spiritual or volitional qualities are not enough. I would even argue that rational attributes added to the list would not suffice to give humanity the wherewithal to carry out our divine mandate. That is because, at least in my mind, rationality and creativity should not be simply equated with one another. I have known plenty of scientists and engineers during my career and am in a good position to state that a high IQ alone is seldom able to break new ground in understanding the world around us to the point of being able to make a positive (or even a negative) impact on it. Some of the most incompetent chemists I have ever met had come from Ivy League schools and passed their undergraduate classes with straight A's. On the other hand, others barely squeaked by in their classwork but ended up being prolific inventors because of their highly creative personalities.

Thirdly, there are at least a few Bible commentators who apparently agree with me. Leland Ryken says, “We read in Genesis 1:27 that 'God created man in his own image.' Exactly what does this mean? When we first read about the image of God in people in Genesis 1, we have as yet heard nothing about God as redeemer or the God of providence or the covenant God or the God of moral truth. The one thing that we know about God is that he created the world. In its immediate narrative context, then, the doctrine of the image of God in people emphasizes that people are, like God, creators.

And he cites Dorothy Sayers as writing: “How then can [man] be said to resemble God? Is it his immortal soul, his rationality, his self-consciousness, his free will, or what, that gives him a claim to this rather startling distinction? A case may be argued for all these elements in the complex nature of man. But had the author of Genesis anything particular in his mind when he wrote? It is observable that in the passage leading up to the statement about man, he has given no detailed information about God. Looking at man, he sees in him something essentially divine, but when we turn back to see what he says about the original upon which the 'image' of God was modeled, we find only the single assertion, 'God created.' The characteristic common to God and man is apparently that: the desire and the ability to make things.”

One final aspect of creativity is brought out by Ross: “Human life, male and female, thus has great capacity and responsibility by virtue of being the image of God. First, humans may produce life – their own, spiritual-physical life. If humans are to imitate God, then creating life is a basic part of that task. A man and a woman can produce a living soul. This privilege is part of their blessing from God, a blessing that includes divine enablement. For believers, childbirth is an act of worship, a sharing in the work of God, the one who created life.”

 

EXODUS 28

                                                   All Decked Out (collage)                        

This chapter deals with the clothing that the chief priest is to wear, and ch. 39 relates how it was all carried out according to God's specifications. The parallel nature of the larger sections in which these two passages appear is shown below:

                                                   The Structure of Exodus 25-40

A. Pattern of the Tabernacle Given (chs. 25-27)

B. Aaron and the Tabernacle to be Consecrated (chs. 28-31)

C. Aaron and the People are Disobedient (ch. 32)

D. The Glory in the Tent, Pillar of Cloud (33:1-11)

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

A'. Tabernacle Constructed According to the Pattern (chs. 35-38)

B'. Aaron and the Tabernacle to be Consecrated (39:1-40:15)

C'. Aaron and Sons are Consecrated (40:16-33) 

           D'. The Glory in the Tabernacle, Pillar of Cloud (40:34-38)

I must admit that I pity any pastor or Sunday school teacher who is given any of these passages as the text of the day out of which to deliver an encouraging or admonishing message. It is probably around this point in the Bible that those who vow to read the whole of Scripture from start to finish tend to give up.

But we should remember that Paul in II Timothy 3:16 reminds us that “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” So let us forge on with a quick overview of Exodus 28, looking at what various scholars have gleaned from its verses. I should also point out that there is so much good material in Exodus 28 that this is actually the second time I have written a post on it. The previous post was titled “Exodus 28 and 39.” This present writing should be considered as a supplement to it.

Exodus 28:1-4

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states, “The holy garments of Aaron and his sons were 'for glory and for beauty.' It was when worshipers were surrounded by such artistic and architectural beauty that they could 'behold the beauty of the LORD' (Ps 27:4) and could enjoin others to 'worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness' (1 Chron 16:29 KJV; cf. Ps 29:2; 96:9).”

Merrill adds, “They first put on sacred garments, drawing attention to two factors of the priestly ministry: glory (kabod) and beauty (tip'eret). The worship of Yahweh thus had transcendent, even frightening, forms, but it was also invested with aesthetic attraction. All of the items of apparel are rich in symbolism, suggesting that the priest in his very appearance was a metaphor of divine-human mediation.”

The phrase “glorious adornment... your brother Aaron” appears here and at v. 40, acting as a set of verbal bookends for the whole chapter.

Writing on I Peter 1:16, Carson states, “The OT frequently insists that God's people must be holy for the holy God dwells among them (cf. Exod. 32-34; Isa. 6). Not infrequently this holiness included cultic purity (e.g. Exod. 28:2; Deut. 7:6; 26:19; Ezra 9:2; Ps. 50:13...).”

Exodus 28:5-8

The requirement in 28:6 to make an ephod of yarn and linen appears to disregard the decree in Lev. 19:19 against such mixtures. Schnittjer offers the following explanation: “It may be that the mixing of fabrics in the tabernacle curtains and the priestly garments made mixing fabrics off limits for the laity to honor Yahweh's holiness.”

“The gold thread, cut from hammered gold sheets, must have given the whole a dazzling appearance...Blue and purple were the most expensive colors available and were associated with royalty and power, while scarlet was associated with blood and ritual cleansing...Opinion is divided about where the ephod was worn. One view holds that it was like an apron and worn below the waist...the testimony of Josephus, however, favor[s] the interpretation that it was worn on the upper part of the body...” (Van Dam)

Exodus 28:9-14

Watts points to “the well-known Hebrew wordplay between 'son' (ben) and 'stone' ('eben) (cf. Exod. 28:9-12,21; 39:6-7,14; Lam. 4:1-2; Zech. 9:16).”

Exodus 28:15-30

See my posts titled “Judges 20:8-11 Urim and Thummin” and “Book of Judges: Questions and Answers” for more details concerning this method of divination.

“Although similar to rhabdomancy [throwing sticks or arrows into the air and reading the resulting patterns] and other lot-casting methods, the Urim and Thummim were viewed differently because they were given by God and used to determine his will (Prov 16:33).” (O'Mathuna)

“This divinatory use associated with the ephod could be the reason that in the days of the judges illegitimate copies of the high-priestly ephod were made with which to inquire of God (Judg 8:24-27; 17:5; 18:5).” (Van Dam)

In this context, it is interesting to read Acts 1:21-26 to note how the remaining eleven apostles went about choosing a replacement for Judas. This narrative seems to indicate that a version of the use of the Urim and Thummim was still active in NT times.

Van Dam says about the breastplate (hosen) that it “was about nine inches square, made of the same material as the ephod, and had mounted on it the twelve gems in four rows, with each gem engraved like a seal with the name of an Israelite tribe. In this way the memory of the Israelites was brought before the Lord continually...”

“The list of the twelve jewels adorning the foundation stones of the wall [in Revelation 21:18-20] is based on the list in Exod. 28:17-20...Eight of the stones are identical to the precious stones here in 21:19-20, while the other differently named stones are semantic equivalents of the ones in Exodus. Written on each stone of the breastpiece was one of the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (Exod. 28:21; 39:14)...Therefore, these stones symbolized all Israel, so that the priest in his cultic actions represented all Israel before the presence of God in the temple. As in the rest of Revelation, imagery formerly applied to Israel is now applied to the church of Jews and Gentiles who are part of the city-temple complex.” (Beale and McDonough)

“Colors are not mentioned frequently in the Bible. However, in two instances a brilliant spectrum of color is found. One instance is of the colorful gemstones set in the ephod of the high priest (Ex 28:15-21. The other is in the visions of the heavenly city made of jewels (Is 54:11-12; Rev 21:10,18-21). In these images the visual beauty of color is combined with the splendor of jewels to express the opulence found in God's presence.” (DBI)

Exodus 28:31-35

The robe of the ephod was decorated with pomegranates and bells, each of which has its own meaning. “Pomegranates...were used for their juicy pulp, and their flowers have medicinal value. Its importance...is shown by the spies bringing them back to indicate the bounty of the land. They were also symbolically important since ornaments based on their shape were used as part of the priestly clothing...as well as for the columns of Solomon's temple (I Kings 7:20).” (Baker)

“The bells were to be heard lest the high priest die.” (Van Dam) But this explanation is not universally accepted by all scholars, as Jenson explains below:

“The note that they were to sound when the high priest entered or left the Holy Place (28:35) is taken by Hamilton as merisms for their continual sounding during his time of ministry. This suggests that their function is not oriented to the people (as stated in Sir[ach] 45:9, 'as a reminder to his people'), the priests, or the Levites, or even the high priest himself. Some (e.g. Dolger) think that the bells have a...function protecting the high priests from demons inhabiting the threshold (cf. Exod 28:35, 'so that he will not die'). However, the priestly texts never associate demons with the sanctuary...Their function is more likely to be directed to God...The bells provide a dimension of sound that reinforces the senses of smell and sight, all of which reinforce the communication between God and his people that is at the heart of the priestly ritual and is the source of divine presence and blessing.”

Exodus 28:36-39

“The emphasis on holiness at the sanctuary was reinforced by the word 'holy' engraved in a gold plate fastened to the high priest's turban with blue lace. The majestic adornment of the high priest honored and praised God, before whom he ministered on behalf of the people.” (Hartley)

In commenting on the background of Revelation 12:1, Beale and McDonough say, “The twelve stars represent the twelve tribes of Israel. The woman's appearance may also connote Israel's priestly character (cf. 1:6; 5:10), since in Philo's and Josephus's explanation of Exod. 28:39 they use the imagery of a crown, the sun, moon, and twelve stars in describing the vestments of the Israelite high priests because they represented the twelve tribes before Yahweh in the temple service...”

Van Dam describes the turban as containing a “rosette-like gold plate...on which were engraved the words 'Holy to Yahweh.'...This prominent inscription identified the priest as consecrated to God and as God's representative among his people for the atonement of sins (Ex 28:38; cf. Ps 106:16...).”

“In apocalyptic visions, people's foreheads receive marks of identity, either good (sometimes for purposes of protection) or bad...” (DBI)

Exodus 28:40-43

Kostenberger, in commenting on John 10:34, notes: “Jesus' assertion that he was set apart and sent into the world by the Father harks back to passages in the OT and Second Temple literature where the term 'set apart' referred to those appointed to fulfill an important task or office, be it Moses the lawgiver, Jeremiah the prophet (Jer. 1:5) or the Aaronic priests (see Exod. 28:41; 40:13; Lev. 8:30; 2 Chron. 5:11; 26:18).”

“An Israelite had to refrain from sex before entering the presence of God, for sexual propriety was absolutely mandatory in worship (Ex 19:15; 20:26; 28:42-43). Thus, unlike certain ancient pagan cults in which sexual acts were performed, Israel totally separated sexuality from worship.” (Sprinkle)

“Priests had to take special care that their 'shameful parts' were never visible in the tabernacle, for by revealing their shame they affronted the God of the tabernacle, who would respond to the affront by diminishing them – permanently.” (deSilva)

“Clothes that would be in direct contact with the body, the tunic and the breeches, were of linen and would have made the wearer less prone to sweating, which had to be prevented (cf. Ezek 44:18). [Breeches] were required to cover one's nakedness (Ex 28:42), especially when stepping up to the altar (cf. Ex 20:26; Lev 6:10; 9:22). Such a requirement contrasts with ritual nudity found in Mesopotamia.” (Van Dam)

But linen may have had another significance. “The OT contains nearly thirty references to linen as part of the priest's garments...The NT counterpart to this is presented consistently – even emphatically – in all four Gospels: the linen cloths used by Joseph of Arimathea to wrap Jesus' body for burial. Hebrews 7 and 8 establish the doctrinal framework for this identification of Christ as humanity's perfect and permanent high priest.” (DBI)

There is actually a whole lot more information that could be shared regarding this OT chapter, but perhaps I will save it for a future post.