QUESTIONS IN LAMENTATIONS

  

                               Lamentations (1999)

The five chapters of this poetic book contain a number of questions, which is understandable considering the overall subject of the fall of Jerusalem with which the author is preoccupied. But the first question is: How many questions are there? This might sound like a silly question, but in the Hebrew language it is not always clear whether the author is making a statement or asking a question. For example, in comparing six modern English translations of the book, I found:

    eleven questions in the Jerusalem Bible; twelve in the Anchor Bible; fourteen each in NIV, RSV, and NRSV; and sixteen in NEB. Eliminating the outliers, one arrives at 15 questions, given below along with some explanatory comments:

Lamentations 1

verse 12a – Is it of no concern to you who pass by?

verse 12b – Is there any agony like mine?

“In Lamentations 1:12 the poetry goes to first person, and Jerusalem laments her suffering herself. Jerusalem blames God for making her desolate, for handing her over to those whom she cannot stand and sapping her strength.” (Branch) As Boda says, “The detachment of the first half [of Lam. 1] is soon lost in the second half as Lamentations 1:12-14 shifts to the first-person voice...”

“The appeal to uninvolved onlookers for a sympathetic appraisal occurs again at Job 21:9; Lam. 2:15; cf. Mt. 27:39.” (Osborne)

“Now not only the casual passer-by (v. 12), but all nations (v. 19) and, lastly, the Lord Himself (v. 20), are asked to ponder, with sympathetic understanding, the grievous affliction which has been thus placed upon her. The words in this verse have long been associated with our Lord in His passion. Although Christ depreciated sympathy for Himself (cf. 23:28), He identified Himself so closely with human sin and its consequences (cf. 2 Cor 5:21) that, as the prophetic words suggest, He would have us consider the significance of that identification.” (Stephens-Hodge)

The first question strikes a particular chord with me and reminds me of an event some decades ago. A friend and I were just driving back home to California during college break when we heard over the radio of a freak flood which had just taken place only a mile from the town we lived. There was a small dam on the top of a hill which had broken, unleashing all its water in a matter of minutes on all the houses directly below it.

At our first opportunity, we parked near the top of the site and walked down the hill to view most houses literally torn in two; one in-ground swimming pool still intact but standing completely above ground like a large cement wall; and even a VW hanging from what was left of a second story.

As we and other sight-seers walked down what was left of the road, one of the homeowners yelled at us to please have a heart and leave all of them alone in their grief. I would only hope that the passers-by in Lamentations 1:12 felt as guilty and ashamed as we did at that moment.

Finally, there is the rather fanciful feminist interpretation of verses 12-13 given by O'Connor, who pictures it as the image of a battered wife who has been beaten by Yahweh but blames herself. In this way, the text is said to justify spousal abuse.

Lamentations 2

verse 12 – Where are the corn and wine?

This question differs from all the others in the book in that it comes from small children pleading with their mother to feed them. See the comment on verse 20b below for comparison.

verse 13a – What can I say or compare you to?

verse 13b – To what can I liken you to comfort you?

verse 13c – Who can heal you?

Provan discusses at some length the options for translation and interpretation of this verse before stating that it “is usually interpreted as meaning that the poet is searching for an historical analogy to Zion's downfall. If such could be found, then she might find comfort in knowing that her plight was not unique, and perhaps in being aware that destruction was often not the end of the story.” See 1:12b in this regard.

He proposes a chiastic way to picture the structure of 13a-b:

        1. What can I say (of comfort)

                2. or compare you to?

                2'. To what can I liken you

        1'. to comfort you?
verse 20a – Lord, to whom have you done this?

Koptak: “Although there are other laments in the book spoken by a single male exile (Lam 3), it is Daughter Zion who turns lament into accusation, asking God, 'Whom have you ever treated like this?'”

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery notes that a “virgin daughter is considered vulnerable, and any violation of her is a calamity.”

“In the first poem Daughter Zion asked on-lookers this searching question [1:12b]...In this second poem Daughter Zion addresses this to God directly: 'Whom have you ever treated like this?' (Lam 2:20).” (Boda)

verse 20b – Must women eat their children?

This possibility is unfortunately not entirely hypothetical. The sad example of II Kings 6:28-29 demonstrates that this was the extreme measure resorted to by some during times of siege and famine. Other OT passages dealing with the subject of cannibalism include Leviticus 26:29; Lamentations 4:10; and Ezekiel 5:10. So the question of the children in Lamentations 2:12 is really ironic in a horrible way since the very children desperate for food may actually themselves serve as food for their parents.

verse 20c – Shall priests be slain in the sanctuary?

“Also revolting to ordinary human religious feeling is the idea that men of God should be killed right in the sanctuary where they ministered.” (Hillers)

Lamentations 3

verse 36 – Does the Lord not see it?

Oswalt detects a shift in tone at 3:24: “Alongside the continuing lament there is a new emphasis on the positive characteristics of the Lord: his moral rectitude, which will mean that the enemies cannot continue in their ruthlessness forever (Lam 3:36,64)...”

“The translation does the Lord not see it? is conjectural. The words echo the claim expressed elsewhere: 'The LORD does not see' (Ezek 8:12; 9:9; Ps 94:7).” (Dobbs-Allsopp) There appear to be two different ways in which this verse is translated: “Does the Lord not see it?” (JB, TEV, AB, NIV, NRSV) and “The Lord does not approve it” (NEB, RSV).

verse 37 – Who can have done it if the Lord had not ordained it?

verse 38 – Is it not from Him that good and bad come?

We should keep in mind that “bad” or “evil” in this context does not mean moral evil at all, but tribulation instead.

Hillers explains, “While this is true, as it must be since God is the creator..., yet suffering, pain, and evil are not his final intention. He does not act like a tyrant, mistreating prisoners and denying men justice.”

“The narrator has been right...to insist that the suffering which he and his fellows have been enduring comes from God. He has been right, too, to express hope; for what God gives, he can take away.” (Provan)

verse 39 – Why should anyone complain about his sins being punished?

Boda says, “In light of [God's] grace, the poet encourages the people to wait...and be silent...Such actions describe the posture of passively accepting the discipline of God but also awaiting God's deliverance. This all leads to a presentation of the justice of God in Lamentations 3:33-38...in light of this, there is no room for complaint when being punished for one's sins (Lam 3:39).”

Lamentations 4

none – In this chapter there are no questions or addresses to God at all, just a straightforward description of the plight of Jerusalem and the recognition that she has deserved the destruction with which God had visited her. It is only in the last few verses that attention turns instead to Edom with a warning to her that she will soon suffer a similar fate at God's hands.

Lamentations 5

verse 20a – Why have you forgotten us?

verse 20b – Why have you forsaken us?

Boda states that “the questions of Lamentation 5:20...imply that the endurance of the predicament is God's responsibility.” And Dobbs-Allsopp points the reader to Psalm 22:1; 44:24: 74:19.

Belcher says, “The book ends with a 'why' question addressed to God, a plea for God to restore the people, and a reminder of the cause of suffering (Lam 5:20-22). The questions in the lament psalms and Lamentations are not arrogant, challenging questions but rather are questions that arise out of a covenant relationship with God. Not only do they call on God to be faithful to his covenant promises, but also they are a way to express the deep anguish of soul in the midst of suffering.”

Osborne notes that “vv. 20-22 constitute a microcosm of the entire book; hope sandwiched between despair gleams all the brighter.”

TWO ADDITIONAL NEW TESTAMENT CONTRADICTIONS

I am again on the lookout for some new objections to the Bible to surface on the internet and am never disappointed in my search, as far-fetched as some of these objections are. Here are two that I haven't run across before.

Was John the Baptist the Elijah to come? Matthew 11:14, 17:10-13 says yes while John 1:19-21 says no.

Here is how several commentators resolve this apparent problem:

Borchert says, “One problem...that troubles some readers of the Bible arises when they compare the Baptizer's rejection of being Elijah here with what seems to be the opposite in Mark and Matthew. But one has to understand the narrative purpose in each of the Gospels before one draws hasty conclusions. The concern of the other Gospels is to indicate that prophecy has been fulfilled and that the expected forerunner of the Messiah had come..Accordingly, God's timetable for Jesus was right on schedule, and readers could have complete confidence in God...In this Gospel [i.e. John's] the purpose is a little different. The political calculators were at work, and John the Baptist would have nothing to do with their ambitions. He would not be moved by the forces that controlled them...Instead, this witness had been sent...by God (1:6). The point should be obvious. To understand the focus of each Gospel is therefore crucial to understanding the use of statements in each Gospel.”

Morris: “His [John the Baptist's] denial puzzles many, for Jesus explicitly asserted that John was 'Elijah, that is to come' (Matt. 11:14). This is one of the passages which seem to show that this Gospel was written in independence of the Synoptics. It is not in contradiction of them, but had John had their statement before him he would scarcely have left his own account in just this form. The solution to the difficulty is probably that there was a sense in which John was Elijah and a sense in which he was not.”

For example, John was not the literal reincarnation of Elijah (or at least he was not aware that he was) in the sense his questioners meant. However, he certainly filled the expected role of the prophesied forerunner of the Messiah.

Moule: “We have to ask by whom the identification is made, and by whom refused. The Synoptics represent Jesus as identifying, or comparing, the Baptist with Elijah, while John represents the Baptist as rejecting the identification when it is offered him by his interviewers. Now these two, so far from being incompatible, are psychologically complementary. The Baptist humbly rejects the exalted title, but Jesus, on the contrary, bestows it on him. Why should the two not both be correct?”

Raymond Brown: “John the Baptist's repudiation of the role of Elijah in John does present a different picture from that of Mark and Matthew...How do we solve such diverse views about the relationship of John the Baptist in the Elijah expectation?” Brown first rejects the early view of Gregory the Great, i.e. “in person John the Baptist was not Elijah (John), but he exercised toward Jesus the function of Elijah by preparing his way (Mark, Matthew).” Instead he prefers J.A.T. Robinson's thesis that John's account is more historically accurate (John himself did not feel he was Elijah) while the later accounts of Matthew and Mark reflect the view of early Christian theology. Of course, all that depends on the rarely adopted and highly controversial view that John's Gospel was the first to be written.

I would personally go with the ideas of Moule, Morris, and Borchert on this issue.

The Book of Hebrews (9:27) says we die and face judgment while John in Revelation states that there is a gate that never closes. (Rev. 21:25)

The author of this objection doesn't really spell out the exact nature of the supposed contradiction here. But reading between the lines, it appears that his argument goes something like this: “Hebrews states that after we die it will be too late to repent and turn toward God since the judgment will immediately follow. However, Revelation says that the gate leading into heaven (or the heavenly Jerusalem) is always open to those who wish to enter.”

If that is indeed the gist of this “contradiction,” then there are several things we can say in regard to these two verses:

First, I agree the Hebrews passage strongly indicates that individual judgment will be based on our earthly life only and not any subsequent repentance on our part after death. And this holds whether that judgment occurs immediately after death or some time afterward.

As Ellingworth says, “Meta...touto leaves entirely open the question of whether or not the judgment immediately follows death.”

And, Stibbs writes, “For all men live and die once, and according to the deeds done in that one lifetime their eternal judgment is settled (v. 27; cf. Rev. 20:12,13).”

Similarly, Shogren states, “For after we depart from the world, we can no longer make confession nor any longer repent.”

If those points are agreed upon, then it only remains to look at Revelation 21:25 in its overall context to see if the same or different teaching appears there.

Although one certainly cannot always interpret the Book of Revelation as presenting events in a strictly chronological order, it is universally agreed that the last three chapters all occur as the culmination of earthly history as we know it and describe events of the very final eschatological days. And so we are presented with the following facts:

    Revelation 20:12 – First we have a picture of the last judgment talked about in Hebrews 9:27.

    Revelation 20:15 – As a result of that judgment, the unsaved are thrown into the lake of fire, where they will live out an eternity separated from God.

    Revelation 21:8 confirms that these damned will be kept in that lake of fire, also called the second death.

    Revelation 21:25 – This key verse in question next describes the gates into the heavenly city as always open. This is in stark contrast to the earthly cities of biblical times, whose gates were guarded during the daytime and closed shut at night to protect the city from enemies. Such precautions are obviously no longer needed at all since God's enemies have already been disposed of in the lake of fire.

    Revelation 21:27 – And in case anyone has missed the point made earlier, the author reiterates that those whose names were not in the Lamb's book of life will not be entering the city. That is obvious since they are firmly bound in the lake of fire. 

Thus, we have a perfectly consistent picture painted first briefly in Hebrews and then in more detail in Revelation.

QUESTIONS IN GALATIANS

This letter of Paul is unusual in that he advances his arguments to that church in the form of a series of questions, generally rhetorical ones. There is even a pattern of sorts associated with these twenty queries in that (a) they often appear in pairs and (b) they form a roughly symmetrical organization overall.

                                                 Figure 1: Questions in Galatians

A. Am I seeking the favor of men or God? Am I still trying to please men? (1:10)

    B. Why have you not listened to the gospel? (2:14)

        C. Is Christ a servant of sin? Certainly not! (2:17)

            D. Who has bewitched you? (3:1)

                E. Did you receive the Spirit by works or faith? (3:2)

                    F. Are you so foolish? (3:3a)

                E. Starting with the Spirit, are you ending with the flesh? (3:3b)

                    F. Did you experience so much for nothing? (3:4)

                E. Does God give you the Spirit by works or belief? (3:5)

        C. Why the law? Is the law against the promises of God? Certainly not! (3:19,21)

            D. How can you turn back? How can you want to be enslaved? (4:9)

A. What has become of your goodwill to me? Have I become your enemy? (4:15-16)

    B. Do you not hear the law? (4:21)

        C. What does it say? The child of promise will inherit. (4:30ff)

            D. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? (5:7)

A. Why am I still being persecuted? (5:11)

“A” Units

You can see from the above composition that from the first “A” Unit to the second one forms a wholly symmetrical literary structure followed by a recap of units B-D and a return to the major question that began the book. Paul seeks to find out why he himself has been rejected by the Galatian churches.

“B” Units

A related, and even more important, question that Paul asks here is why first Peter and then the Galatians have rejected God's own word. Interestingly, this is posed to Peter in terms of ignoring the Gospel and to the church in terms of doing the same regarding the Old Testament writings.

“C” Units

The first two units labeled “C” ask a purely hypothetical question, which Paul proceeds to deny in no uncertain terms. Then the final “C” unit picks up on the key word “promise” which is found in the second parallel passage.

“D” Units

The first and last of these three questions directed pointedly to the church members turn from the “why” questions in the B units and zeroes in on the “who.” The answer is obviously the Judaizers within the church who were trying to steer the new Gentile believers back to reliance on the OT legal requirements such as circumcision.

The next two types of questions form the heart of the overall symmetrical structure and are heavily theologically loaded.

“E” Units

These ring all the changes on competing concepts such as Spirit vs. flesh and faith vs. works. The second of these questions introduces “the flesh” into the equation and so could be considered the real center of the whole opening chiastic (i.e. exhibiting mirror-image symmetry) structure.

“F” Units

Alternating with the above theological ideas are Paul's direct questions to the Galatians asking them whether they really understand what they are turning to and away from by their decisions.

If you attempt to compare the organization of Figure 1 with that derived in a totally way and defended in the post “Galatians: Introduction to Literary Structure,” you will find virtually no overlap between the two. This demonstrates what is even more obvious in the Book of Revelation, namely, that the books of the Bible are so carefully constructed that it is possible to view them equally well from several completely different angles.

 

REVELATION 21:1

One of the most puzzling statements in an already puzzling book is found in this verse, which describes the New Earth in which “the sea was no more.” Hoekema, for example, states, “There is a difference of opinion on the question of whether the words 'and the sea was no more' should be understood literally or figuratively.” But he fails to point out that even those (majority of scholars) who treat it as figurative do not always agree with one another although they all recognize that the sea must represent something undesirable. . Below are some of the comments that have been made regarding the meaning of this verse. You will note that the figurative explanations really all tend to meld into one another and do not differ in any appreciable degree.

Literal Interpretation

It is generally the dispensationalists who hold to this opinion, and they usually do not even attempt to explain why the sea should be absent in the New Earth. Walvoord states, “In contrast with the present earth which has most of its surface covered by water, no large body of water will be on the new earth...No landmarks whatever are given concerning the new earth, and nothing is known of its characteristics, vegetation, color, or form.” And elsewhere he only comments, “The physical characteristics of it [the New Earth] differ widely from the present earth...”

Forces of Chaos

By contrast, the more liberal writers tend to stress the influences that the the myths of neighboring cultures had on biblical writings. Thus, McGinn states, “The apocalyptic authors used the ancient Near Eastern combat myth, which saw the formation of the world as the result of the victory of the divine warrior over the monsters of the watery chaos, to give meaning to present and future events.”

Ellul: “This mention is curious, simply because, though it was not the power of chaos, it had been its image: even that must disappear from the new creation.”

Symbol of What is Feared

“The Hebrews displayed little interest in, or enthusiasm for, the sea. Probably their fear of the ocean stemmed from the ancient Semitic belief that the deep personified the power that fought against the deity.” (Thomson)

C. John Collins first takes issue with those who treat the sea as an opponent of God: “There is no indication that the 'deep' [in Genesis 1:1] is any kind of opponent to God; indeed, in the rest of the Bible it does his bidding and praises him (compare Gen. 7:11; 8:2; 49:25; Pss. 33:7; 104:6; 135:6; 148:7; Prov. 3:20; 8:28). And since God names the darkness (Gen. 1:5), there is no reason to believe that it opposes his will, either. Waltke appeals to texts such as Rev. 21:1,25, where the new heavens and new earth will have no sea or night...” Collins then turns to what he believes is a better explanation, i.e. “that the seer used these symbols for what fallen man fears rather than as comments on the moral status of sea and night in themselves.”

Separation and Insubordination

“The sea was to the Jews a symbol of separation (not, as to the Greeks, a means of communication); moreover, throughout the Bible it symbolizes restless insubordination (cf. Job 38:8-11; Ps. 89:9; Isa. 57:20), and in Rev. 13:1 it casts up the system which incarnates hostility to God and His people. Naturally, then, there is no room for it in the new creation.” (Bruce)
Barrier to Peace

Hoekema states that “the sea in the rest of the Bible, particularly in the book of Revelation (cf. 13:1; 17:15), often stands for that which threatens the harmony of the universe, the absence of the sea from the new earth means the absence of whatever would interfere with that harmony.”

Satan

Mabie offers the opinion that “the likely relationship between Leviathan [Psalm 104:24-30] and the creatures of the book of Revelation should be noted. These creatures – a 'great red dragon having seven heads' that 'spews water like a river from its mouth' (Rev 12:3,15) and a beast from the sea having 'seven heads' (Rev 13:1 [cf. Rev 17:3]) – function as the personification of rebellion against divine order (i.e. chaos) and as such provide an ideal image for Satan (cf. Rev 12:9; 20:2) in the unfolding of an overarching eschatological schema.”

Turbulence and Unrest

“The sea [is] the primeval force of turbulence and unrest (Gen 1.2; Ps 29.3,10).” (Ruiz)

Evil

Beasley-Murray: “The assertion that the sea is no more has in mind the current personification of the sea as the quintessence of evil; whatever else is meant here, therefore, the main sentiment is the exclusion of evil from the new order of life.”

“The final doom of the dragon, the beast and the false prophet is to be cast alive into the lake of burning sulphur...The sea, the domain of the beast, will finally be destroyed as well – not merely pushed back but dried up (Rev 21:1).” (Beagley)

“The new creation is more than just a restoration of the original creation. In it there will be 'no longer any sea' (Rev 21:1), whereas in the first creation the 'sea,' the primeval source of evil (cf. Rev 13:1), remained as the potential threat to the cosmos (Gen 1:2; 7:11).” (Kim)

And the footnote to this verse in the Jerusalem Bible reads: “The sea symbolises evil because it was the home of the dragon, cf. Jb 7:12+; it will vanish as it did at the Exodus, but this time for ever, before the triumphant advance of the new Israel, cf. Is 51:9-10; Ps 74:13,14; Jb 26:12-13; Is 27:1.”

Demonic Force

Bocher says that “the sea threatens life (e.g. that of a seafarer, Acts 28:4; 2 Cor 11:26) and so belongs on the side of the demonic and that which opposes God. The Revelation of John, in particular, extends traditions of Jewish apocalyptic, in its conception of the sea as a personal power (Rev. 7:2f) which will be overcome in the last days so that it...must surrender its dead (Rev. 20:13) and finally possess no more right to existence (Rev. 21:1).”

Conclusion

Beale feels that the “use here probably summarizes how all these various nuances of 'sea' throughout the book relate to the new creation...While all these meanings of 'sea' are in mind here, the allusion to Isaiah 65 and the immediate context [in conjunction with the absence of mourning and death in 21:4] suggest a focus on the sea as representing the threat of tribulation for God's people, which will no longer exist in the eternal state.”

WHAT IS MISSING IN HEAVEN?

The Littlest Angel by Charles Tazewell is a very popular and sentimental children's book sometimes read on Christmas since it involves a young angel in heaven presenting the Christ child with his precious box filled with “treasures” he had collected while on earth. The box seems like a rather humble offering, but God transforms it into the Star of Bethlehem.

I know that it is only a children's book, but it is usually read to them by adults, who might very well take its portrayal of eternal life with God as really representing what the Bible has to say. The whole premise is based on the faulty idea that those who die turn into angels. That idea appears absolutely nowhere in Scripture, which almost always contrasts angels with human beings, dead or alive. In fact, I believe that the only place in which they are actually compared to one another is in Luke 20:34-35 where Jesus says that those in heaven will not marry or be given in marriage, in commonality with the angels.

But the problems only begin with that point. First we must ignore the fact that what is apparently being pictured in the book is apparently some sort of waiting place, certainly not the new heaven and new earth of Revelation. That distinction is probably overlooked even by those adults reading the book. I do know that even Mark Twain made fun of such a concept of lifeless and joyless eternal existence floating among the clouds while strumming on a harp.

In fact, the heaven pictured by Tazewell would be sheer hell to most people since it is defined not by the few things which are there (lots of clouds, dreary required periods of choir practice and mandatory prayers), but almost exclusively by what is missing. The littlest angel has no friends with whom to play, no streams or mountains or meadows or pets or toys. He isn't even blessed with a decent singing voice. And the only colors in his heaven appear to be gold and perhaps blue. In fact, this angel's fondest wish is to have his little box restored to him containing his reminders of the good times he used to have on earth. And the author even states that Jesus Himself will regret having to leave earth to return to heaven.

In stark contrast, let us turn to the biblical image found in the Revelation 21-22 for a true picture, albeit one presented using images, of the New Jerusalem, the ultimate dwelling place for the chosen. Some critics have zeroed in on the sparseness of details we are given, other than the obvious profusion of gold and precious jewels everywhere, in order to satirize our promised eternal dwelling as a place about as boring as the picture that Tazewell paints.

But what if instead we concentrate on what is lacking in the biblical “heaven” of the last two chapters of the final book of the Bible. If we do, we will see that our life in God's very presence will not include:

    any crying or mourning (Rev. 21:4)

    any death (Rev. 21:4)

    any persistent and unrepentant wrongdoers (21:8,27; 22:15)

    any buildings within which to worship since God and the Lamb are its temple (21:22)

    any moon or sun since the light will be the light of God and the Lamb (21:23; 22:5)

    any night (21:25; 22:5)

    any illness (22:2)

    anything cursed (22:3)

Getting back to The Littlest Angel, note that its imagery is based on the mistaken notion of confusing the “heavens” that we see in the atmosphere and God's present dwelling place in Heaven (also sometimes known as the third heaven or the seventh heaven) and God's eventual place on a renewed earth, as pictured in Revelation. So rather than starting with nothing but clouds and blue sky and then adding a few minor amenities, as Tazewell does, instead we would be much closer to the truth if we started with all the glories of physical earth as we now know it (minus all forms of evil, both material and spiritual) and picturing the heavenly glories that will be added to it when the New Jerusalem descends to earth.

The only hitch that I personally see to such an approach is in having to admit that Revelation 21:1 states that the sea will be no more. I am not alone, I am sure, in enjoying the beach very much. Thus, this does seem like a giant step backward from our present existence. But if we treat the sea as an image of chaotic forces, as do most commentators, then even that makes sense.

"MOONSTRUCK" IN THE BIBLE (PSALM 121:6; MATTHEW 4:24; 17:15)

 The Old Testament contains this interesting promise:

    “The sun shall not strike you by day, nor the moon by night.” (Psalm 121:6)

Technically speaking, this is called an example of incomplete parallelism in which the second line echoes the form and general idea of the first line with, however, the absence of the verb and object, which are understood. Thus, we have:

    The sun shall not strike you by day, nor

    the moon          (strike you) by night.

There are several ways in which this verse can be interpreted:

Literary

You can see in this verse the pairing of opposites in “sun and moon” as well as in “day and night.” Often when this occurs in biblical writings, it is to be understood as a merism, a figure of speech in which the listing of opposite elements includes everything in between as well. Thus, the intended meaning might simply be that God will watch over you all the time. This is the interpretation found in a recent commentary by Nancy de Claisse-Walford.

Similarly, M'Caw and Motyer state, “The Keeper of Israel (v. 4) is 'your keeper,' shading from the sun and moon alike,' i.e. from all adversaries at all times, day and night.”

The Lord's protection “avails against the known and the unknown; perils of day and night; the most overpowering of forces and the most insidious.” (D. Kidner)

Ancient Superstition

But the above explanation is probably not complete in itself because it seemingly fails to draw an adequate parallel between the real danger of sunstroke in the first line (assuming that is what it is being referred to) and some sort of implied danger due to exposure to the moon in the second line. So here is where other commentators chime in.

Anderson says that “sunstroke was a real danger to travelers, and it was common in the ancient Near East (cf. 2 K. 4:19; Jon. 4:8; Jdt. 8:2f.). Equally frightening was the so-called 'moonstroke', and even our word 'lunatic' bears witness to this belief. Certain illnesses (such as epilepsy, fever) were frequently ascribed to the baneful influence of the moon. The parallelism between the sun and the moon is meant to be complementary (as in Jos. 10:12); Yahweh cares for his people both day and night.”

“God offers shade in the Middle Eastern sun; 'moon' is used as a formal poetic parallel to sun although according to some ancient views, exposure to the moon was also harmful (cf. Mt 17:15).” (Kselman)

“The moon has often in man's history been feared for its effect upon the mind and nervous system: cf. The word 'lunacy'. In Mt. 4:21; 17:15 'epileptic' is literally 'moonstruck'.” (L.C. Allen)

“Superstitious people may have believed that the moon had power to harm the person (cf. the English lunatic) but a believer in God needed not fear because the Lord watched over his own (Ps 121:5-6).” (Massouh and Verhoef)

Alter notes that the word 'shade' in v. 5 “is immediately literalized in the next line as a protection against sunstroke and moonstroke (the latter perhaps referring to madness supposedly caused by exposure to the moon). The point of the poem is that the Lord is quite literally a guardian or watchman who never sleeps.”

Medical

Derek Kidner states: “On the effects of 'the moon' on certain people, little is understood; but some kinds of mental disturbances vary with its phases. Not all popular belief on the subject is unfounded.” The following summary of an article put out by Cleveland Healthcare elaborates on that statement.

Preliminary medical research seems to indicate that the moon may have an impact on people with certain types of bipolar disorder. In a limited study (17 patients) by David Avery, he found that his patients cycled rapidly between states of depression and mania, with these cycles synchronized to the lunar cycle. Though the exact mechanism that causes this is unknown, it is believed that those quick changes in mood may be due to a disruption to their circadian rhythm and their sleep-wake cycle due to increased moonlight. Further work by Thomas Wehr seemed to confirm this study, but felt that the cause of the effect may more likely be due to changes in the gravitational pull of the moon. However, later studies have failed so far to duplicate these results.

Turning next to the New Testament, Matthew in 4:24 contains a list of those suffering from various diseases and physical conditions cured by Jesus, including demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics. The Greek word usually translated as “epileptics” (“lunaticks” in the King James Version) is seleniazomai, which literally translated means “moonstruck.”

The reason for the modern feeling that “moonstruck” is more related to epilepsy than to madness comes solely from the only other place in the NT where that same word appears, Matthew 17:15. The symptoms of the man in that case are more completely described in the parallel passage in Mark 9:14-29 and they closely match the description of epilepsy.

Not all commentaries, however, agree with that assessment. For example, France says that “we should note that in the ancient world, which was well acquainted with epilepsy, seleniazomai was not used at this time to mean epilepsy as such...J.M. Ross is more cautious, since 'if we translate it as epileptic we are probably narrowing down the meaning of the original and failing to make the classification clear' though his offered alternative, moonstruck, is even more open to misunderstanding. My translation 'subject to fits' attempts to avoid inappropriate medical precision.” NIV similarly translates it as “has seizures.”

But to confuse the issue even more, Dentan associates the Matthew passage with that in Psalms, concluding, “To be epileptic was attributed to the baleful influences of the moon, a demonic force (compare Ps. 121.6).”

But that “demonic force” cannot be the same sort of demon that Christ exorcized from the man in the Synoptic Gospels unless one wishes to feel that He was casting out the man in the moon. And we are certain that Mark ascribed the son's condition to demon possession.

Hill simply states that the “description of the boy's illness [in Mark's account] gives way to the medical diagnosis 'he is a lunatic' (seleniazetai); cf. 4:24. Epileptic fits were associated with the changes of the moon.” I have issue with two of Hill's statements. First, as mentioned above, “lunatic” is rejected as a valid English translation by most Greek scholars. Secondly, he fails to give any evidence showing that epilepsy and the phases of the moon were ever associated together.

Two more important points need to be made regarding this miraculous healing by Jesus. The first concerns the issue of etymology. Hendricksen wisely says, “The word which, in line with many translators and commentators, I have rendered epileptics, is in etymology [i.e. the subject of word origins] connected with the moon. Accordingly, some prefer the rendering 'moon-struck persons' or 'lunatics.' However, 17:15, where the same word is used and the affliction is graphically described, would seem to make it clear that the reference is to those who suffered from seizures; hence, epileptics. Though word derivation is important, it should not prevail over detailed description of an illness.” We could point to many words in current English which have quite a different meaning from that in the days where they were first coined. A pertinent example would be the use of “lunatic” or “loony,” both derived from the Latin word for moon, luna.

Therefore, the mere fact of a New Testament author such as Matthew using a word such as seleniazetai should not be used to demonstrate that he was mistakenly convinced that exposure to the moon caused or affected epilepsy.

Another caveat involves the supposed contradiction between scientific and spiritual explanations for medical phenomena. Colin Brown notes that several scholars “argue that a diagnosis of epilepsy in the story of Mark 9:14-27, Luke 9:37-43, and Matt. 17:14-18 does not automatically exclude demon possession as the cause. Epilepsy covers an ill-defined group of disorders characterized by fits or seizures. The case in question may have been an instance of idiopathic epilepsy for which modern medicine knows no cure and for which the cause may have been a spiritual malady.”

In the same vein, John Richards explains, “Had the lad in the Gospel suffered from symptomatic epilepsy our Lord could only have cured him by an act of healing rather than exorcism, just as he healed the man with an impediment in his speech (Mark 7:32-7) and a blind man (Mark 8:22-5) by the laying-on of hands, but a dumb and blind demoniac by exorcism (Matthew 12:2ff.).”

The difficulty in determining the difference between a medical and demonic cause is shown by the last two examples above. The same symptom (blindness) was apparently due to a medical cause in the first instance and caused by demonic influence in the second one. Personally, I feel the safest course today is to seek medical advice and assume, in light of passages such as Luke 10:17-18, that the days of widespread demon possession are no longer with us. Certainly I would not counsel anyone to eschew doctors in favor of relying entirely on faith healing.

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).”