HOW MANY PEOPLE RETURNED FROM THE EXILE?

One internet site critical of the biblical accounts poses the following contradictions between statements made in Ezra and Nehemiah:

    “The number in the assembly was said to be 42,360 in Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 but the         individual numbers add up to 29,818 in Ezra and 31,089 in Nehemiah.”

So we are really faced with two problems here rather than just one. First is the issue concerning the fact that in each case the sum of the numbers earlier in chapter do not match up with the grand total. Secondly, we must deal with the fact that added-up numbers in Nehemiah do not give the same total as those in Ezra. We must admit that this appears to be, for once, a valid criticism of the biblical record. Thus,

    Cundall says, “It is not easy to account for the discrepancies.”

    Clines states, “Attempts at harmonization are unconvincing.”

    Myers: “No one has yet come up with a fully satisfactory explanation of the purpose of the list, of the place where it stood originally, or of the discrepancies between the two recensions.”

    Fensham: “The total in v. 64 [of Ezra 2] leaves us with an insoluble problem.”

But before throwing up our hands and giving up, I should also mention that a number of reputable Bible commentators feel that this is so minor an issue that they don't even bother pointing out the differences between the two passages. And others try to put the discrepancies into perspective with the following comments:

    “Despite some minor differences in names and numbers (about 8 percent of the total), it is quite clear that the list in Ezra 2 is identical with the list in Nehemiah 7.” (Yamauchi)

    “The view that the list is fictitious is no longer accepted by scholars.” (Fensham)

    And Cundall notes, “It is interesting to observe that no attempt at harmonization been made [between these two accounts].” If it were such a serious sin as our critic would have us believe, one would have expected that at least one or two scribes over the centuries would have tried to correct such an obvious contradiction.

Finally, we have the remarks from some of those who try to explain the differences we observe. Whether any of these completely satisfy our curiosity regarding this issue (and it is certainly not a matter to destroy anyone's faith), I will leave that up to you:

    Fensham starts with the most obvious scenario: “The divergencies in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah occur mainly in proper names and in numerical information. Such discrepancies might have been due to textual corruption.” As I have explained in several other posts, it is notoriously difficult to recover original information such as numbers and proper names once an accidental mistake in copying by scribes has occurred due to the principle of their low redundancy compared to that of words.

Fensham continues by saying, “H.L. Allrick has shown how the numerals in the Hebrew script could have been misinterpreted by later copyists...In the case of Nehemiah it is mentioned that the list is drawn up from 'the book of genealogy' (Neh. 7:5). This document might have been the original for both authors.”

He then offers another possibility only to refute it: “Some have proposed that women and children are left out of the totals of the families [referring to the 29,818 people mentioned in Ezra 2], but this leaves us with 12,542 women and children, much too low a figure. This total of 42,360, however, occurs also in Neh. 7 and must be regarded as correct. Somehow through textual corruption or by the omission of certain families, this discrepancy happened.”

I guess it is possible to propose that for one reason or another many of the women and young children either decided to forego the arduous journey back to Israel or were prevented from doing so by the Persian authorities, but that is probably only grasping at straws.

    Clines, on the other hand, points to another proposed solution: “By emending three figures (in Ezra 2:12, 16, 31) J. Bewer arrived at a total of 32,360 for which 42,360 would be a simple scribal error involving only one digit.”

Then there are the historical explanations for the various discrepancies. Myers states, regarding the numbers in Ezra, “It may be that the whole summary pertains to the situation aro    und 520 rather than 538 and thus would include the people of Judah who joined the golah [exiles] and the cumulative numbers of all who returned between the above-noted dates.”

    Williamson says, “The initial group, apparently lad by Sheshbazzar, returned around 537 BCE (the total figure, some 50,000 according to Ezra 2:64-65 and Neh 7:66-67, probably reflects various stages of return between the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, and arguably, includes some who had remained in the land).”

    Yamauchi agrees: “The list in Ezra is ostensibly the list of those who returned in response to the decree of Cyrus. But the large total numbers...have inclined most scholars to regard this as a cumulative total of the returnees. Ezra 8:1-20 records additional exiles who returned with Ezra.”

    “Others have suggested that later scribes were less meticulous in their copying of the Writings, the third section of the Hebrew Canon [which includes Ezra-Nehemiah]. Allied to this there is the possibility that the list of those who returned in 538 BC was modified and expanded to include others who returned subsequently, and even some who, though they had never been in exile,were fully in sympathy with the returned exiles. Seven [such] groups may be distinguished...The same total is given in Nehemiah and 1 Esdras [as in Ezra] but in none of the three do the constituent parts add up to this, indicating errors in interpreting numbers or in transmission.”

The same critical source follows this quandary with one dealing with the verses immediately following the above:

“How many singers accompanied the assembly? Ezra 2:65 says 200 while Nehemiah 7:67 says 245.”

Most of the comments above relating to the great difficulty in accurately copying numbers compared with words applies here as well. But in addition, there are at least two other factors applying to this particular situation. In the first place, it has been often noted that many of the numbers cited in the Old Testament historical books are obviously round numbers, not precise ones. We tend to follow the same practice today without anyone calling us liars for using such a type of shorthand. So Ezra may have merely rounded down the actual number of 245 to 200.

But there is another possibility in this particular case. Some manuscripts of Nehemiah 7:68 are missing the first half of the verse, reading “They had 736 horses, 245 mules.” Thus, Hulst in speaking for the United Bible Societies chooses to omit this sentence due to poor textual support while some modern translations such as RSV and NRSV have decided to include it. Obviously, at this point in the text either (a) an early scribe committed an accidental error in transcribing the copy he had and omitted that sentence or (b) a copyist using private information purposely added this tidbit.

Whichever scenario is the correct one, what struck me was the fact that the number of mules given in some manuscripts and the number of singers in the Nehemiah account was identical – 245. Therefore we are faced with the strong possibility that a scribe's eyes accidentally skipped over a line in the manuscript he was copying and attached “245” to the number of singers, taken from the number of mules in the following verse. This sort of error is so common that textual scholars have even given it a technical name, haplography.

WHEN DOES PERSONHOOD BEGIN?

The question of when true personhood begins is a complicated one, and I have to admit from the start that I do not really have any hard-and-fast answers to give or any preconceived (forgive the pun) position to defend. Nevertheless, I recently was asked to respond to a paper written by a knowledgeable Christian (whom I will only refer to as “the author”) who felt that the Bible supports the position that true human existence does not start at conception, but at some later point in the development of the fetus in the womb. The rather piecemeal discussion below addresses passages cited in that paper, basically arranged according to their appearance in the Bible.

Genesis 1:27: The author of that paper rightly discounts the first appearance of all physical features in the womb as having anything to say regarding the point at which a fetus becomes fully human, but then follows that up by stating that at one point sex can be determined by ultrasound. This is supposed to somehow relate to Genesis 1:27, saying that “sex is intrinsic to a person’s identity (notwithstanding intersex anomalies; cf. Gen. 1:27; Matt. 19:12).” He must, however, realize that even if his reasoning (or implication) is correct, that would mean that those with intersex anomalies are not fully human. In addition, scientists have shown that the sex of a baby is determined at the point of fertilization, not when it can be detected by ultrasound.

Genesis 2:7: There is no argument concerning this verse as teaching, in his words, that “formation precedes personhood.” However, this verse alone does not necessarily prove anything concerning subsequent human beings beyond the first human couple. Also, it leaves out that fact that Genesis 7:22 portrays the animals as possessing that same breath of life (ruah) as humans. Instead, Gen. 2:7 may be the Bible's poetic way of expressing the important, and still not entirely explainable in scientific terms, original transition from inorganic matter (clay) into biological material capable of containing and reproducing life after its own kind. Such a one-time, pre-biotic evolution in the history of the world really says nothing concerning the point at which an individual fetus today could be considered as fully human or even having human potential.

The only difference between the two Genesis passages is brought out by D.H. Johnson, who says that Genesis 2:7 has God personally breathing it into human beings, “a sign of great intimacy [which] may indicate an ontological distinction [between humans and animals] as well.”

Genesis 25:22-23 and Luke 1:13-45: The author of the paper first admits that these two examples appear to support the position that full personhood begins before birth, demonstrated by, respectively, Jacob and Esau wrestling while still in the womb (Gen. 25:22-23) and John the Baptist recognizing Jesus while both were still in the wombs of their mothers (Luke 1:13-45). But then he dismisses these two passages by stating, “However, the preponderance of Biblical testimony weighs against pre-existing souls and the personhood of zygotes and unformed embryos.”

1. In the first place, that argument commits the common fallacy, also present in areas such as textual criticism, of counting the evidence instead of weighing it. And the great importance of these two examples is seen in the following points.

2. It is always risky in practicing exegesis to place too much emphasis on poetic or semi-poetic passages in order to attempt to tie down a literal biblical truth or doctrine. And unfortunately almost all of the passages quoted in the paper fall more into the poetic than the prose category or are quotations from such (semi-)poetic passages. Thus, that leaves little unambiguous biblical evidence left on which to hang the case that personhood doesn't begin until sometime later than conception. By contrast, both the Genesis 25 and Luke 1 examples fall squarely in the literal and historical category and thus should be considered as having much greater weight.

3. Those two passages span the historical range from the early Patriarchal Age to the beginning of the Gospel Age.

4. Between the two passages, we can clearly see the presence of both soul and spirit in the developing fetus. The struggle in Genesis 25 demonstrates the three basic soulish properties of intellect, will and emotion, while Luke 1 shows that an unborn child like John the Baptist already possesses the spiritual ability of being able to recognize and relate directly to the Divine Presence.

Exodus 21:22-25: The author states that this legal passage cannot be used to support any position related to the question of the beginning of life due to textual problems (i.e. the different wording in the LXX). To some extent I agree with that conclusion, but for an entirely different reason. After all, if we were to throw out all Old Testament texts in which the Septuagint version happened to disagree with the Hebrew, we would end up having a much smaller book.

It is the ambiguity of the wording in the Hebrew which is more of an issue. As Hamilton puts it, it is not clear “whether what happens to the woman [lit.., 'her children come forth'] refers to a miscarriage, a premature but healthy birth, or term delivery. Possibly the law deals with both a premature but healthy birth (v. 22b), and with miscarriage (vv. 23-25).”

Another argument sometimes adduced is that the penalty for the offending party is far too lenient than that for murder. That may be true, but keep in mind that we are really talking about manslaughter here at most, not a premeditated homicide.

I would also have to agree with Cole, who says, “It has sometimes been claimed by those in favor of abortion that the unborn child is not really considered as an individual here: but that is not the point of this passage, which is primarily concerned with injury to the woman. The destruction of the unborn child was regarded by the Hebrews as an instance of the most barbarous cruelty, calling down God's judgment (2 Ki. 15:16).”

And Knight flatly states regarding the commandment not to kill, “Infanticide...comes under this Word, and by implication, abortion, [Exodus] 21:22.”

Finally, there is the view of Kaiser in his Toward Old Testament Ethics who first says that the case cited in these verses “raises some extremely difficult exegetical questions.” He admits that his view differs from that taken in the Septuagint and by Philo, both of whom treated it as “only a miscarriage of a partially formed fetus.” Then later in his book he also admits that his interpretation is not supported by at least eight prominent English translations as well as six commentaries (as of his writing in 1983). But to support his view that the fetus is a full human being, he cites Jeremiah 1:4-6; Galatians 1:15; Psalm 139:13-16; Job 3:11; and Luke 1:39-44. However, he feels that Exodus 21:22-25 “is even more definitive in its regard for the sanctity of unborn life.” I will refer you to pp. 170-173 for his detailed arguments.

Job 31:15: Similarly, Job only alludes poetically to the “fashioning” by God of each person in order to make the point of the brotherhood of mankind, whatever their economic status on earth might be. Thus, this passage should not be taken as any sort of proof text for personhood coming at some point later than conception.

Psalm 51:5: The author of the paper also states that this verse proves that “it is nonsensical to claim that humans are conceived in sin and yet in that moment bear the image of God.” But if that same reasoning is applied to the parallel thought in the other half of this verse (“I was born guilty”), then one would also have to say that even after humans are born, they do not bear the image of God. Kselman says that this verse is just “an expression of the guilt-prone nature of humanity.” And M'Caw & Motyer feel the Psalmist “expresses the true depth of his sinfulness as being the natural state of man from birth.”

Psalm 139:16: Hooks says that when texts such as Genesis 2:7 “are compared with Jer. 1:5 and Ps. 139:16, it becomes clear that when used to describe Yahweh's people or his agents, the potter motif signifies divine election.” Thus, he associates it only with cases where specific people such as David are chosen by God for a particular task or role. And Konkel says, “The translation of the verse is problematic, but the import is that the psalmist was the special object of God's care and purpose for all the days 'formed' for him.” Note that the only “formation” here refers not to God forming the fetus into a human being, but instead to the plan God had for the Psalmist's future.

“The word translated 'unshaped form' in v. 16 is the Hebrew golmi...To translate the word as 'embryo,' as does the Common English Bible translation, is probably overspecific and misleading. And while this verse cannot be used to solve questions such as 'When does life begin?', the whole of Psalm 139 affirms the sacredness and God-givenness of life.” (deClaisse-Walford)

Isaiah 29:16: The same applies to this poetic passage using the metaphor of the potter and the clay. “As the master potter, God has the unquestionably sovereign right to give each of his creations a specific shape and purpose according to his will (Is. 29:16; 45:9; Rom 9:21).” (The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery) But this passage does not really speak directly to the issue at hand either since it appears to refer more to God's forming and molding people to his will by their development throughout their lifetime. Witness even the example of the Incarnate Jesus, who according to Luke 2:52 after His birth further “increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.” This touches on His subsequent “formation” after birth in all three areas of soul, body and spirit.

“God is depicted not only as imparting life but also as fashioning each human in the womb like a potter molding clay (Job 10:8-11; 31:15; Ps 139:13). God mysteriously creates distinctive forms of life, human or animal. The uniqueness of each human is the result not only of a particular genetic makeup but also of God's spirit and hand distinctively fashioning each human. The supernatural and the natural world are seen as seamlessly woven together.” (Pokrifka) And part of this mystery is the point in the process in which one can consider the developing fetus a human being from God's viewpoint.

Zechariah 12:1: The author also writes, “Humans are distinguished from other creatures by the spirit (rûaḥ) formed within them by God, who is Spirit (cf. Zech. 12:1).” Yet, as previously mentioned, the same ruah is said in Genesis 7:22 to be implanted in all mammals, birds, reptiles, and all animal life.

Also, commentators are in agreement that this verse primarily refers back to the Genesis story of the original shaping of Adam from the dust of the earth, from whom all inherited this same spirit of life. Thus, Boda says, “The reference to Yahweh shaping 'the spirit of the human' most likely has in view that principle of life which Yahweh placed within humanity in Gen. 2:7, after shaping (yasar) humanity from the dust of the ground.”

Myers and Myers write, “Although this verse draws upon the Eden tale, however, it also diverges significantly...The Zechariah author perhaps includes it [i.e. 'within him'] to emphasize the individuality of God's relationship with people...'Within' emphasizes that God breathed the first breath into the very corporeal existence of the first individual, who is the archetypal representative of all subsequent human beings.” Just how far one can push this “archetypal representation” is problematic.

Thus, I think it is unfair to prematurely deduce from this, as does the author, that “Scripture thus refutes the claim that 'all changes [a human embryo] will undergo are within its internal programming (its nature).'”

I Corinthians 15:4: Paul quotes the above verse, not to state anything regarding the process by which even the first human became a living being, but strictly to contrast it with the life-giving power of Christ.

I Thessalonians 5:23; I Corinthians 15:12-46: I agree for the most part with the author's contention that body, soul and spirit are all necessary for personhood in the likeness of God except to point out that biblical nomenclature at this point is notoriously ambiguous as to the meaning of the three terms. Thus, as the author says, “soul” often stands for the whole person in the Old Testament. But there are passages such as Matthew 10:28 in which “soul” is used to describe the non-material aspects of humanity or Hebrews 4:12 and I Thessalonians 5:23 which allude to a tripartite anthropology. And none of these passages indicates when all three become present.

What I am a little confused about is the author's conclusion that “quickening and delayed ‘ensoulment’ are not biblical criteria of personhood.” If that is true then it certainly does not support the thesis that full personhood appears at some point later than conception and could actually be used as proof, or at least a strong indication, of the reverse idea.

Early Church Writings: Several commentators I consulted pointed out that the actual concept of abortion does not really appear in the Bible. But the author quotes Thomas Aquinus' opinion that only the killing of a “quickened” fetus could be considered as murder as typical of the early Church. I would prefer to look at a much earlier document for guidance as to the view of the early Church, namely The Didache. It was a widely accepted writing dating to roughly AD 150, even if it obviously did not come from the hands of the Twelve Apostles as stated. In Didache 2.2 it roundly condemns those who would kill a newborn child or abort a fetus. And the Greek does not specify that it has to be to a quickened fetus.

Conclusion

It is perhaps best that I conclude this brief review with this thought from Gorman after he canvassed early Jewish and Christian writings on the subject: “The historical witness demonstrates that Scripture can have a key role in the abortion debate even if exegesis alone, still less prooftexting, is insufficient. A hermeneutic is needed that recognizes the difficulty of the issue, expresses pastoral sensitivity, and preserves the basic requirements of covenant faithfulness.”

WHEN WAS THE ARK MOVED TO JERUSALEM?

One internet Bible critic asks the above question in light of the fact that II Samuel 5-6 indicates it happened after defeating the Philistines while I Chronicles 13-14 says it happened before that time.

This is one of those occasions where fundamentalists and agnostics often find themselves as strange bedfellows on an issue. Both insist that the biblical accounts be 100% factually accurate, including issues involving chronology and specific numbers, otherwise they are nothing but bald-faced lies.

Such a hard-and-fact position betrays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Bible since its preoccupations are not primarily concerned with such matters that seem so important to us.

These are generally the same class of people I have met who brag that they have never read a short story or novel unless it was required reading at school. Instead, they rely wholly on history books and biographies to get the “real truth,” ignoring the fact that (a) the authors of such books are quite free in the selective way they use the facts at hand to convey their preconceived notions and (b) there is more than one way in which the truth can be presented, and non-fiction writings may not even be the best tool with which to accomplish that. With that said, let me quote the opinions of some prominent Bible scholars on the specific subject at hand, starting with comments on the II Samuel account.

McCarter: “As in the case of the relationship between the passages describing David's capture of Jerusalem (5:6-10) and his victories over the Philistines (5:17-25),...the editorial concerns governing the position of the present passage [II Samuel 6:1-19] are not chronological but thematic. We may not assume out of hand that the transfer of the ark succeeded the battles recounted in the previous section. In this case, however, the judgment of most modern historians vindicates the received arrangement.”

Davis: “2 Samuel 5 is a collage. It is not a single flowing narrative but a collection of 'chunks,' episodes or pieces of information placed side-by-side, all of which, however, relate to the establishing of David's kingdom...chronology enthusiasts may be delighted to note that the defeats of the Philistines in verses 17-25 may have preceded David's capture of Jerusalem in verses 6-8...Most of us, however, do not live and breathe chronology...My point is that biblical writers are not chained to chronological order – and in 2 Samuel 5 the chains have certainly fallen off. The chapter is orderly but not sequential. It is a collage; it is a collection of fragments intending to give us a proper view of the kingdom.” And Davis' point applies just as well to the quandary at hand.

Next, moving to the parallel episode in I Chronicles, consider the following:

Williamson: “From the establishment of David as king over all Israel, the Chronicler moves directly to the other of his great concerns, care for the Ark, which was eventually to be housed in the temple. This involves a rearrangement of the ordering of his Vorlage [i.e. source] (cf. 2 Sam. 5-6), showing once again that his material is presented on the basis of theme and theology rather than strict chronology. In the earlier listing, the whole account is given in one continuous chapter (2 Sam. 6)...The Chronicler, however, has divided this account between chs 13 and 15-16, using the indication in 2 Sam. 6:11 of a three month gap in the narrative to go back over the material previously omitted from 2 Sam. 5; by its new position, however, as well as some light editorial touches, this itself now contributes in a fresh way to the development of the Chronicler's main concerns.”

Myers: “The most striking feature of the story [in Chronicles] is that the attempted removal of the ark to the place where David was was a religious matter and not a semimilitary ceremony as in Samuel...Because it seemed right in the sight of all, the venture was made so as to remedy the defect in Saul's attitude toward the ark. Ostensibly this had to be the first move of the new king to prevent the same debacle befalling him as had befallen Saul. That is why the passage stands before the Philistine raids here whereas it follows them in Samuel. It must be remembered that the Chronicler's story is primarily religious and he arranges his material accordingly.”

Eskenazi: “Even when Samuel was still venerated as unbiased history, Chronicles was already read as if its particular literary constructs express its own theological and historical preoccupations...It is probably no longer necessary to reiterate that a literary approach does not demote the text from truth to fiction...” For one thing, “Placing the battles with the Philistines after the initial attempts to bring the ark toward its destination allows Chronicles to link the ark more firmly to the dialogue between David and God.”

My own literary analysis of both these passages (in bold in the figures below) in their overall context establishes that their respective ways of ordering events each make sense from a point of view of presenting a completely symmetrical organization. I am indebted to Dale Ralph Davis for much of the II Samuel organization seen below.

                                                        I Chronicles 11-20 Structure

    1. Warriors and Battles (chs.11-12)

            2. The Ark is Moved (ch.13)

        3. David's House Established (ch.14)

            2'. The Ark is Moved (chs.15-16)

                    3'. David's House Established (ch.17)

    1'. Warriors and Battles (chs.18-20)

                                                       II Samuel 5-8 Structure

    1. Various battles (II Sam. 5)

        2. God's House (II Sam. 6)

            3. The ark carried in (6:1-4)

                a. Joyful response (6:5)  

                    b. Inappropriate response (6:6-10a)

                        c. Obededom’s house blessed (6:9-11)

        3'. The ark carried in (6:12-13)

            a. Joyful response (6:14-15a) 

                b. Inappropriate response (6:15b)

                    c. David's house not blessed (6:20-23)

        2'. David's House (II Sam. 7)

    1'. Various battles (II Sam. 8)

 

REVELATION 2:4 ("FIRST LOVE")

In the first letter of Christ to the seven churches, he accuses the Ephesians of abandoning their first love. I have always thought that this referred to the fact that their initial fervor for following Christ and spreading His love to others had been lost. In other words, the honeymoon period was over. In an analogy to the Church representing the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-27), one might say that the Ephesian congregation still kept their initial vow to honor and obey her Husband, but no longer felt the same love for Him.

But this last week I heard a sermon on Revelation 2:1-7 which was excellent in many ways, but which vaguely bothered both my wife and me. As she said when the talk was through, “If the church was that far gone, how could Christ commend them in any way at all?” The reason for that comment was that the speaker seemed to strongly imply without actually stating it that the “first love” in verse 4 referred to the love that God showed through Christ toward us, citing passages such as the well-known John 3:16 and I John 4:10 (“This is love: not that we loved God, but that He first loved us”). Thus, his deduction was that they had lost, or lost sight of, the fact that God sent Christ to save us from our sins.

I decided to see what reputable scholars had to say concerning this verse and came up with the following, all of which seem to confirm and flesh out my initial thoughts on the subject:

J. Phillips: “It is possible to serve the Lord for a variety of motives – for the praise of men, for prestige or position for the sake of reputation, because it is simply the thing to do, because of a sense of duty. If service for God is not born of a devoted passion for the Lord Jesus it is worthless.”

Morris: “There is a problem in the words to the church in Ephesus..., where 'love' might mean love for Christ or 'love for one another' (Moffatt) or even love for people in general. Perhaps all three are included.”

Beale: “The point is not primarily that they had lost their love for one another, as argued by most commentators...Nor is the point merely that they had lost their love for Christ in general (as some commentators also think; cf. Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 1:18). The idea is that they no longer expressed their former zealous love for Jesus by witnessing to him in the world.”

Ellul: “At issue here is not faith and its content, but love. Which is to say that, perhaps, she has fallen from the spontaneity of the relationship with God, from the attempt to please the Lord in everything...All has become cold, flat. In short, we find a Church become institutional, theological, exact, rigorous, moral, ceasing to live by the impulsion of a force ever new.”

Verhey: “Patient endurance required fidelity in their devotion to God (Rev 2:4; 3:15,16) and in their love of and service to one another (Rev 2:19)...”

Mounce: “Every virtue carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It seems probable that desire for sound teaching and the resulting forthright action taken to exclude all imposters had created a climate of suspicion in which brotherly love could no longer exist...Good works and pure doctrine are not adequate substitutes for that rich relationship of mutual love shared by persons who have just experienced the redemptive love of God...Without love the congregation ceases to be the church.”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “First indicates the one coming or ranking at the beginning of a series; the first precedes all others in time (the earliest), order (in contrast to second) or importance...As a condition of uncorrupted beginning, this first state is sometimes presented as a norm of superior spirituality (Jer 7:12). Returning to it is either a restoration of God's favor and blessing (Is 1:26; Jer 33:7,11) or a spiritual revival (Rev 2:4-5)....Although humans can express noble emotions..., their love often diminishes (Rev 2:4)...”

Barclay feels it refers to “the most important kind of love, namely, love of the brethren.”

Walvoord: “Most of the Ephesian Christians were now second-generation believers, and though they had retained purity of doctrine and life and had maintained a high level service, they were lacking in deep devotion to Christ. How the church today needs to heed this same warning that orthodoxy and service are not enough. Christ wants believers' hearts as well as their hands and heads.”

Bruce: “For all their commendable endurance, the fervor of their original love – their 'love toward all the saints', as the longer text of Eph. 1:15 puts it – had waned. And nothing – no amount of good works or sound doctrine – can take the place of agape in a Christian community.”

Beasley-Murray: “The failure of the Ephesians is perhaps the perversion of their chief virtue; opposition to false brethren led to censoriousness and divisiveness in the church, so causing them to leave their first love. This would interpret the love referred to as brotherly love. It may, however, related to love towards God; cf. Je. 2:2,8. Since the one manifestation of love is impossible without the other, we may perhaps include both in our text (cf. Mk. 12:30,31 with I Jn. 4:20).”

Conclusion

I was gratified to see from the above that my initial feeling about this verse was not that far off-base even though there remain valid questions concerning the scope of the “love” referred to here.

But I must admit that I was rather horrified to read in these quotes what sounded like personal observations of some of the various congregations and congregational leaders with which I have had close experience over the years. These included examples of:

    an elder who bragged that at work he was widely considered to be an s-o-b,

    a senior pastor who refused to visit his long-time church secretary when she was gravely ill in the hospital,

    another elder who referred to those in the congregation as “giving units,”

    a congregation who fired an associate pastor and did away with his position of pastoral care as not being cost-effective,

    a senior pastor who fired an associate pastor for coming back from a training session required by the church itself with new theological suggestions that the pastor felt did not meet the rigorous doctrinal standards of the congregation.

In short, I have had lots of experience with Christians and church leaders who fit the old definition of “the frozen chosen,” a description applied to a number of denominational congregations over the years. I believe that was the heart problem at Ephesus.

NUMERICAL CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

In any listing of contradictions in the Bible, one is sure to run across those where a difference in numbers is involved. These are often stated as being especially egregious since if we can't trust the Bible to even get the numbers correct, how can we trust anything at all that it says. In fact, that sort of reasoning is way off base and only reflects our modern preoccupation with scientific and mathematical truth, things far removed from the more important emphases of the authors of the Bible.

In addition, as I have stated in several earlier posts (“How Old Was Saul When He Became King?”, “Mathematical Objections to the Bible”, “I Samuel 13:1”, “How Many Years of Famine was David Threatened With?”, etc.), in the transmission of the manuscript of the Bible over the years, numerical errors are much more likely to be perpetuated from one scribe to the next than errors involving words since the latter possess much more redundancy.

Thus, to take a hypothetical example in English, what would you with a garbled text that read: “On Sudnay mourning wnt I to store and bot 7 oranges”? Obviously most of us would easily correct the misspellings and strange word order and reconstruct it as, “On Sunday morning I went to the store and bought 7 oranges.” But what if I had another handwritten copy of that same sentence that read, “On Sunday morning I went to the store and bought 17 oranges”? Which version would be correct, 7 or 17? Without any additional information such as knowledge of how many people would be eating oranges, it is impossible to tell which scribe made a mistake, or perhaps both did.

In addition, Fouts explains, “In most of the cases of differing numbers the disagreements can be resolved by textual analysis...It is because of problems such as these that the veracity of the accounts sometimes have been called into question. Instead of seeking to understand the numbers as figures of speech or as symbolic, some have derided the passages as unhistorical folktales, thereby claiming to invalidate the historical accuracy of the text...others have sought to understand the processes by which these numbers arose, thereby seeking both to maintain the historical credibility of the texts and to understand the original significance of the numbers themselves.”

With that brief background, here are four “contradictions” I found on an internet site called wardoons:

How many people did David's chief kill? II Samuel 23:8 says 800 while I Chronicles 11:11 says 300.

Girdlestone says, “The readings in this verse evidently varied before the time of the LXX [Greek Septuagint] and there is no means of accounting for them.” However, he then makes the telling comment that the numbers eight and three are interchanged in other passages as well. The reason might well be that the two Hebrew words look somewhat the same as well as sounding somewhat alike (shemonah and sheloshah, respectively). Thus, it might be quite easy for a scribe working alone to confuse the appearance of the two words. Or, alternatively, if two scribes were working together with one reading out loud from an original while the other produced a copy, the similarity in sounds could have also easily led to an error.

Williamson goes elsewhere in the Old Testament to determine which version is likely to be correct: “2 Sam. 23:8 has 'eight hundred', which is undoubtedly original since Ishbaal's exploit surpassed that of Abishai's (vv. 20-21 [of I Chron. 11]). Rudolph suggests that v. 20 was used to correct the unintelligible 2 Sam. 23:8 in connection with 'his spear,' and that this opened the way for the smaller number which immediately follows there [in v. 3] to be accidentally substituted here.”
How many horsemen did David capture from the King of Zoliah: 1,700 (2 Samuel 8:4) or 7,000 (I Chronicles 18:4)?

The Septuagint happens to agree with Chronicles at this point. Therefore Davies says, “It may be that the '1,700 horsemen/charioteers' of v. 4 should read '1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen/charioteers' as in LXX and the parallel in 1 Chron 18:4.”

McCarter: “I assume that MT [the Hebrew text] lost rkb wsb't 'lp by haplography [accidental elision] and that the present text arose from an imperfect attempt to correct the damage.”

Tsumura takes a slightly different approach in saying “the combination of 1,000 chariots and 7,000 charioteers seems rather unbalanced. The view of Ap-Thomas that the original figures were 1,000 chariots, 700 cavalrymen, and 20,000 foot soldiers sounds more reasonable [than McCarter's view]. It may be, however, that the term parasim, which can mean either '(military) horses' or 'horsemen' (see Hab. 1:8) and is parallel here with the foot soldiers, and refers to a horse and rider as a pair. On the other hand, the Hebrew term harekeb, which is literally 'the chariot,' here clearly means chariot horses since most were hamstrung.”

Thus, there are several chains of reasoning one can use in order to work backward to determine which version is more likely to be original.

How many work supervisors did Solomon appoint: 3,600 (II Chronicles 2:2) or 3,300 (I Kings 5:16)?

I must admit that my first reactions to this problem were, “Who cares, and what possible difference does it make?” But responsible Bible commentators go to the trouble to take each problem like this one seriously. Thus, we have the two representative responses given below.

Williamson: “This verse [II Chronicles 2:2] is repeated from v. 18 below. It is usually thought to have been added here as a preparation for the reference in v. 7 to the 'skilled workers'. Since this latter, however, clearly refers back to I Chr. 22:15, the present verse has to be regarded as secondary.” Then concerning v. 18 referred to above, Williamson points out the discrepancy in numbers with I Kings 5:16 and states that “it may well be this latter figure that is confused.” He refers the reader to a fuller discussion in a work by Gooding on the subject.

Michaelis alternatively explains the discrepancy as due to different methods of classifying the foremen. Thus, Chronicles distinguishes those from Canaan from the Israelite overseers. But Kings distinguishes the higher from the lower overseers. Thus Solomon had 3,300 lower level overseers and 550 upper level supervisors, of whom 20 were Israelites and 300 Canaanites.

How many baths were in the facility: 2,000 (I Kings 7:26) or greater than 3,000 (II Chronicles 4:5)?

From the way this question was worded, I am not convinced that the internet critic really understands the passage at all. He seems to treat a “bath” as a place to bathe in rather than what it really meant at the time – a Hebrew unit of liquid measure. So at most, we are talking about a difference in the volume of water held by one particular ceremonial basin, not the number of individual bathing places in the building.

The second point involves the word “greater than” or “over.” in the II Chronicles passage. Modern translations such as NRSV, JB, NEB, and AB delete this Hebrew word since it does not have strong textual support in the early manuscripts.

That still leaves us with a problem concerning the liquid capacity of the giant basin. G.H. Jones indicates that the volume of a “bath” appears to have varied during biblical times from as low as 22 liters to as high as 45 liters. This was determined by measuring the capacity of labeled jars found at different sites in the Holy Land.

And Howard points out, “The description [in the Bible] is not easy to follow...The variation in capacity from I Kings may be due to different shapes being envisaged.” Thus, another approach has been taken by C.C.Wylie, who demonstrated that the figure in Kings is a calculation based on the assumption that the large “sea” being described is hemispherical in shape. Alternatively, the volume given in Chronicles appears to have assumed that the large “sea” was cylindrical. Both figures then were calculated from the dimensions given in the biblical text rather than the volume being measured directly.

TODAY, TOMORROW OR DAILY IN THE BIBLE

Such designations of times appear hundreds of times in the Bible, usually in a mundane application. But a few such passages, discussed below, are of special interest.

Exodus 8:9-10

I find this to be the most intriguing conversation in the whole section on the plagues of Egypt. Moses lets Pharaoh chose when he would like the frogs to be removed from the land, and Pharaoh replies, “Tomorrow.” As Durham understatedly says, “Why Pharaoh specified 'tomorrow' instead of 'right now' is unclear. It cannot be that Pharaoh was 'hoping' the frogs would leave by themselves within that period (Knight) or that 'tomorrow' was 'the earliest possible time' (Cassuto). Perhaps the specification of such a time is intended to show Pharaoh's skepticism.”

 Since I have run into my share of “pharaohs” in school and at work, I think I have another explanation. At one point in time, our company president was one who had been promoted way past his level of competence. So he compensated for that lack by throwing his weight around and humiliating his employees whenever he had a chance. One time I was giving him a presentation of our lab research and I noted that he began fidgeting and looking at his watch since it was way past lunch time. To give him a break, I suggested that I cut my presentation short. At that suggestion, he suddenly came to life and said in no uncertain terms: “I WANT TO HEAR EVERY BIT OF YOUR TALK.”

Knowing him well from previous unpleasant encounters, I realized that he sensed a weakness in me and was not about to get me off so easily. So I went through the whole talk while he squirmed even more and realized that all he had accomplished was to delay his lunch even more.

I personally think that Pharaoh realized full well that a group of slaves and their god had outmaneuvered and overpowered him. However, he wasn't going to go down without somehow reasserting his power, so when Moses gave him the chance to choose his own timing for the miracle, he was casually replying in essence that there was absolutely no hurry regarding the removal of what was after all only a minor nuisance to him and his people, but how about tomorrow? So Pharaoh condemned himself and his people to one more day of misery just in order to save face.

Exodus 16:19-20

The second interesting example also comes from the book of Exodus, this time in the context of God sending manna every day for the people to gather in and eat. In order to “prove the people,” the manna spoiled if not eaten on the same day, except for the day before Sabbath when it lasted for two days before going bad. “The fact that it bred worms every day except the sabbath was to prove that trust for each day's needs and obedience regarding the sabbath would be rewarded.” (H.R. Jones)

Similarly, Cole says, “'That I may prove them' is presumably either to do with the need for daily dependence on God for food, or with the command not to gather food on the sabbath day.”

Lamentations 3:22-23a

NRSV translates the Hebrew as follows: “The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases, his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning.” And Dobbs-Allsopp comments: “Steadfast love, mercies, faithfulness, the LORD's covenant loyalties, as in the divine promises to David (2 Sam 7:15; I Kings 8:23; Ps 89:2-4).”

The Living Bible offers this translation: “His lovingkindness begins afresh every day.”

And the Jerusalem Bible commentary on this verse reads, “The favors of Yahweh are not all past; his kindnesses are not exhausted; every morning they are renewed.” Because this is true, there is no need for the believer to worry about tomorrow, as we will see in the New Testament.

Matthew 5:24

In this passage, Jesus counsels his followers to make sure that there is no friction between them and anyone else before laying their gifts on the altar. France says, “It puts in the form of a vivid practical example the principle which Paul lays down in Eph 4:26: 'Do not let the sun go down on your anger.'” There are some actions which must be done at once and not put off until a more convenient time.

Matthew 6:11 // Luke 11:3

These are the familiar words found in the Lord's Prayer: “Give us this day our daily bread.” Hendricksen asks, “What did Jesus mean by 'daily'?...As I see it , a good argument can be made in favor of: a. 'Give us this day our bread for (or: belonging to) the current day (the day in being),' and of b. 'Give us this day our needful bread,' that is, 'our bread necessary for existence'...In any case we must make sure that our interpretation does not run counter to the teaching of Jesus in this very chapter (verses 31-34), the warning against worry about food...Whatever is necessary to sustain physical life is meant.”

Matthew 6:34

That brings us up to this conclusion to Jesus' teaching here: “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”

Hill states that “the point is that anxiety about food, drink and clothes is pagan, as well as being an affront to God, who will not overlook the legitimate needs of his people...a man's individual loyalty and obedience to God shows his purposeful desire to make the divine will and reign (already present in Jesus) his real objective. If this is man's dominant concern, then all other necessary requirements will be satisfied in the generosity of God.”

Luke 9:23

“What are our crosses to be borne? Luke alone has the modifier 'daily' (v. 23) which shifts the emphasis from martyrdom to sacrificial living. A way of life that could be called cross bearing would have to be a life one had 'taken up'; that is, it would be voluntarily chosen..., even though...other difficulties are sometimes called 'crosses we have to bear'...A way of life that could be called cross bearing would have to involve denial of self in the service of God...We are not speaking of a death wish here but obedience to the reign of God.” (Craddock)

Acts 17:11

We learn here that the Bereans studied the Scriptures every day to see if Paul's words were true. Stott says, “Luke obviously admires their enthusiasm for Paul's preaching, together with their industry and unprejudiced openness in studying the Scriptures. They combined receptivity with critical questioning...What is impressive is that neither speaker nor hearers used Scripture in a superficial, unintelligent or proof-texting way.”

I attended a church for some time which prided itself on its diligent study of the Bible, but I am afraid that they mainly read it through the prism of a detailed statement of necessary doctrines to which the congregation, or at least the leadership, adhered. Therefore they were always on the lookout for any ideas which might conceivably cast doubts on their prior interpretation. The Bereans appear to have been much more open-minded in their approach, wanting to know the truth of God at all cost rather than just a confirmation of their prior ideas.

Hebrews 3:13

Buchanan: “They should exhort 'every day' to be sure that there was no sin among any of the brothers. This was the same kind of advice offered in Matt 18:15-17. The urgency of the situation was emphasized on the basis of the word 'today' quoted from the Psalm [95:7]. The time was short. They were obliged to act properly while they still had the chance not utilized by their fathers.”

“Let them be vigilant therefore, and encourage one another while might and main lasted to be steadfast in their faith, during the present time of probation. While this time lasts, each succeeding day's a fresh 'To-day' in which they may heed the psalmist's warning to hear the voice of God and render Him heart obedience.” (Bruce)

DID JOSHUA'S TROOPS CONQUER JERUSALEM? (JOSHUA 10:23,40 vs. 15:63)

In Joshua 10:23, the king of Jerusalem is killed by the Israelites and in v. 40 of that chapter it states that they conquered all the Canaanite land mentioned in the previous verses until there was no breath of life left. But as one Bible critic on the internet states, “If that is so, why are they still not able to oust the Jebusites from Jerusalem in Joshua 15:63?”

I must say at the beginning that one must be very dubious regarding any supposed contradictions found within the same book of the Bible. For them to have persisted for centuries without being taken out or rewritten by subsequent editors is inconceivable and also throws grave doubts regarding the collective intelligence of the myriad of believers over that time period who were apparently too dense to catch on to the contradiction.

With that said, the issue here is certainly a good one to delve into further, and scholars have offered several approaches to resolving the differences between these passages in Joshua, and some of these approaches are overlapping.

Textual Point

Butler notes that the Greek Septuagint lacks the word 'all' in 10:40 “which has been added by tradition [to the Hebrew text] to underline the completeness of the conquest.”

Hyperbolic Language

One possible reason why modern readers sometimes have trouble properly understanding the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is that they don't comprehend some of the literary commonalities used in those days which appear to be untruths in our eyes. Thus, Younger characterizes the summary statement in Joshua 10:40 in the following words: “This typical ancient Near Eastern war account was hyperbole to emphasize the success of Israel and its God.” Ortiz similarly attaches the same term, hyperbole, to verses 40-41.

Qualifications to Joshua 10:40

Various caveats have been mentioned by scholars against taking this verse at its literal face value.

For one thing, it is interesting that the account of the deaths of the kings, including the king of Jerusalem, is followed by a detailed list of the Canaanite areas and specific cities which were destroyed. However, Jerusalem itself is not found in that listing. Thus, the summary statement of conquest in v. 40 may possibly be taken to apply only to the many specific regions conquered, as numerous as they are, but not to the entirety of the enemy territory, some of which remained to be taken at a later date.

That is the general approach of Mabie, who adds that “it should be pointed out that the Israelites return to the camp at Gilgal (Josh 10:43), illustrating the reality that battles might be won over various cities without those cities being subsequently occupied by the Israelites.” This would open the door for devastated cities (including Jerusalem?) to be subsequently reoccupied later by scattered Canaanites such as the Jebusites.

The above scenario would fit well with Lilley's observation: “It is interesting that the Jebusites are not linked to Jerusalem at this stage [i.e. Joshua 11:3].” And on Joshua 15:63, he states, “The Jebusite connection with Jerusalem reflects the [later] times of the judges; see Jg. 19:10f, 2 Sam 5:6...”

Blair says, “There is...no ground for doubting that Joshua did launch a series of devastating attacks of key Canaanite strongholds, that these attacks demoralized the Canaanites and gave the Israelites a firm foothold, though the land was not entirely subdued at this time; later passages (e.g. 11:13; 13:2-13; 15:68) show clearly that much remained to be done.” For that reason, Blair feels that the statement in Joshua 15:63 “has to be qualified as in v. 20: 'the remnant which remained of them had entered into fortified cities; the only survivors were those who managed to make their escape.”

A Theological Reading

Another point is often missed by modern readers, such as our critic here. That is that all historical accounts, whether ancient or recent, are written with something in mind in addition to merely conveying dry factual matter. These authors all have a philosophical or theological thesis that they wish to demonstrate using history. Thus, we read the following opinions by other commentators on Joshua:

    Williamson says that “the book of Joshua...presents the reader with a compressed account, foreshortening a lengthy process into a single event in the interest of demonstrating the might and the goodness of God in providing his people with land...without denying that it has historical material within it, we should read it in this theological light rather than as a historical source pure and simple.”

    And Woudstra comments on Joshua 10:40 as follows: “As appears from other parts of the book (11:22; 13:2-3; 15:63), the conquest of this territory and of the cities in it was not final in all respects. Nevertheless the author of this section is at pains to draw a provisional conclusion which indicates that enough had been accomplished to pause and reflect on the very substantial progress that had been made toward subjugation of the land.”

HOW WAS CHRIST RAISED ROM THE DEAD?

 

The subject of Christ's resurrection is obviously of vital importance to the writers of the New Testament, appearing in over 80 passages, evenly divided between those which employ the word “resurrection” and those who use synonyms translated by the verb “to raise.”

 In terms of Greek nomenclature, Coenen says that egeiro ['raise up'], especially in the pass[ive] is used predominantly for what happened at Easter, i.e. the wakening of the Crucified to life, while anhistemi ['rise, arise'] and anastasis ['resurrection'] refer more especially to the recall to life of people during the earthly ministry of Jesus and to the eschatological and universal resurrection...the action of God on and through Christ is expressed by egeiro, while anhistemi expresses, as it were, that which happens in the realm of human experience.”

And Wanamaker states, “The apostle [Paul] normally employs egeirein (37 times) for the resurrection, whether Christ's or his followers. This verb is almost always found with an indication that it was God who raised Jesus and will raise his followers.”

There are plenty of prophecies given ahead of time concerning the coming resurrection and a lot more reflection afterward about the fact that it did happen, but virtually no details are given regarding the actual resurrection itself and “how” it was accomplished. One specific question in that regard is whether Christ rose from the dead by his own power or was raised by God the Father.

If one's only exposure to that question came from the old Easter hymn “He Arose,” then one would clearly think that Christ did it all on his own in order to emerge triumphant over death. But there are a number of places in the Bible indicating that is not the whole story. Thus, I would like to briefly canvass some of the key scriptures relating to the question.

And in a rather strange way I am reminded of the example of Pharaoh when confronted by the plagues of Egypt (Exodus 7-10) since there appear to be places where he hardens his own heart, others where God does the hardening, and yet others which are neutral and only state that Pharaoh's heart was hardened. We have the same sort of ambiguity here regarding the active party in Christ's resurrection.

God raised Jesus from the dead

First we have a number of NT passages in which this statement is taught in no uncertain terms:

Acts 2:24 – “But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it...:

Acts 2:27,31 – For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption...He foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ...”

Acts 3:26 – “God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you...”

Acts 4:10b – “...by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead...”

Acts 10:39b-40 – “They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest.”

Acts 13:32-34 – “And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus.”

Romans 4:24-25 – “It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.”

Romans 8:11 – “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also...”

Romans 10:9 – “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

I Corinthians 6:14 – “And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.”

I Corinthians 15:15 – “...we testified of God that he raised Christ...”

In fact, Strachan makes the blanket statement: “In the New Testament Jesus is never represented as rising again by His own power.” But is that really true?

Jesus was or will be raised

In this category of passages, the passive is used to indicate someone else acting on Christ to bring about the resurrection. However, that agent is not actually named.

Without quoting these verses, they include: Matthew 14:2,28; 17:9; 20:19; 26:32; 28:6-7; Mark 8:31; 17:9 10:34; 14:28; I Corinthians 15:20; and I Peter 3:18. Here is how commentators respond to these passages:

Pannenberg states that “the raising up of Jesus implies a confirmation by God himself of his pre-Easter appearances that the pre-Easter Jesus remained dependent on this confirmation...”

Colin Brown: “In raising Jesus, God was active by the Spirit of holiness (Rom 1:4).”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “The most frequently used image [for resurrection] is supplied by the word raised (approximately three dozen references), accentuating two aspects of Christ's resurrection – its dynamic nature and the idea that power came from a source beyond Christ himself...As a mighty act of God it evokes memories of the exodus, the biblical archetype of God's powerful saving acts.”

Knoppers points out that “the passive 'was raised' is a divine passive denoting an act of God...Jesus was raised by God as the first and determinative instance of the resurrection of the elect people of God and the renewal of the whole cosmos (I Cor. 15:20,23).”

R.E. Brown: “It was the sovereign action of God glorifying Jesus of Nazareth.”

N. Clark says that “the Empty Tomb stands as the massive sign that the eschatological deed of God is not outside this world of time and space or in despair of it, but has laid hold on it, penetrated deep into it, shattered it, and began its transformation.”

“Through an act of God, the dead and buried Lord had been awakened to life again...The resurrection of Jesus thus became the sign of God's triumph over the power of sin and death.” (Coenen)

The agent of the resurrection is not specified or is ambiguous

Matthew 27:63-64 – “...the impostor said when he was still alive, 'After three days, I will rise again.' Therefore...his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, 'He has been raised from the dead.'”

This is an unusual passage in that it appears to equate the verb forms “rise” and “be raised.”

John 3:14 – “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up.”

Superficially, this appears to refer to the resurrection, but all commentators agree that it refers to Jesus' crucifixion instead.

Romans 6:4 – “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father; we too might walk in newness of life”

“Already the apostle had represented the Father as the active agent in Christ's resurrection (4:24,25). But here we have a unique expression. It is possible that 'the glory' refers to the glory in which Christ was raised from the dead. But it is more in accord with usage to think of the glory through which Christ was raised. The glory is the majesty of God, the sum of his perfections.” (Murray)

Romans 8:34b – “...Jesus Christ who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God...”

“Egertheis ['having been raised'] is aorist passive and may thus reflect upon the action of the Father in raising up Jesus (cf 4:25; 6:4; 8:11). But the rising of Jesus from the dead may be in view and thus be coordinate with 'apothanon ['having died'] and 'entugchanei ['supplicates'].” (Murray)

Romans 14:9 – “For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.”'

Murray: “The aorist is adapted to express his becoming alive from the dead. It is inceptive aorist. Most frequently the resurrection of Christ is represented as the action of God the Father. This instance could be taken as referring to the action of Jesus himself after the analogy of John 2:19; 10:17,18. But it is more likely that there is no reflection on agency. The thought is focused on the fact of his having lived again.”

I Thessalonians 4:14 – “For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.”

However, Wanamaker translates it as “Jesus died and was raised,” indicating that God did the raising.

I Peter 1:3a – “Blessed be the God and Father...By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...”

“The perspective is first toward the past event of God's act in raising 'our Lord Jesus Christ' from the dead (1:3)...” (Boring)

As Coenen concludes: “The resurrection of Jesus is not described only with God as subject and Jesus as object; the vb. may be taken intrans. in the middle voice with Jesus as subject, i.e. 'he arose from the dead' (e.g. Rom. 6:4,9; 8:34, and especially in the Synoptics, Mk. 14:28; 16:6; Matt. 27:63). This change in usage shows that while the resurrecting power always issued from God, it belongs to the Son also, who is of one being with the Father.”

Jesus will raise himself from the dead

John 2:19 – “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Because of the ambiguity regarding the form of the original saying and whether it referred to the Jerusalem Temple, Christ's physical body, or the church body, I could find no commentator willing to go out on a limb and state categorically that Christ was expressing the fact that He had the power to raise himself from the dead.

John 10:17b-18 – “...because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”

“It is undoubtedly the case that the New Testament prefers to speak of God as raising up Jesus, but Jesus several times predicted that he would rise...We ought not to put any opposition between the Father and Son in this manner, nor should we doubt that the habitual New Testament expression is that the Father raised the Son. But we should not overlook the fact that there is also a strand of New Testament teaching which says that the Son 'rose'. The present passage fits in with this strand.”

II Timothy 1:10 – “...which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel...” (Hoskyns)

Mitchell refers the reader to I Corinthians 5:26,54-57 for an explanation of the phrase “abolished death.' Those passages specifically state that God raised up Jesus.

Towner says, “Elsewhere in the New Testament, his death is distinguished from his resurrection as the event that canceled the power of death...this bringing to light of life from death occurred in Christ's experience of resurrection.” This appears to indicate that Towner feels this passage is neutral regarding the actual agent of the resurrection.

And on the other end of the spectrum is Knight, who states, “The combination of 'brought to light' with the prepositional phrase 'through the gospel' joins the once-for-all historical redemptive deed of Jesus (his life, death, and resurrection) with the message about it and one's response (implied) to it.”

Revelation 1:18 – “I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.”

Mounce: “The emphasis is not on the resurrection but on the reality of Christ's continuing life.”

Ford: “Because he is the Living One, Christ has full power over the resurrection. He passed through death at a definite moment of history, but he lives forever. Hence he has the keys of death and Sheol...”

Bruce says that “since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.”

Revelation 3:21 – “He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.”

Morris: “Christ overcame by the way of the cross and this act sets the pattern for His followers.”

Bruce: “Their [i.e. 'those who stood by with Him in His trials'] conquest, like His, is won by way of suffering and death.”

Conclusion – Perhaps the best tack here is to follow the lead of Hoskyns, quoted above, and remember that Christ and God are One in a manner which we have trouble comprehending. Therefore we should be cautious about drawing any hard-and-fast distinctions between the actions of the two.

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS INVOLVING REPENTANCE

I recently came across the website faithrethink which contained two sets of conflicting Old Testament passages, both involving the concept of repentance.

Jonah and Nahum

One “contradiction” found on this site reads simply, “Jonah says God loves the Assyrians, Nahum says God hates them.” Actually neither one of these contentions can be found in these prophetic books.

However, it is true that both these short books have been often set alongside one another since they both deal with the actions and fate of the Assyrians and their capital city of Nineveh.

For example, Mobley says, “The book [i.e. Nahum] and its sentiments toward Nineveh are often contrasted with those in the book of Jonah (contrast Nah 3.11 with Jon 4.11; Nah 1.2-3 with Jon 4.1-2).”

However, the two books are actually not that far apart in attitude and teaching. For example, both quote the same doctrinal statement: “The Lord is slow to anger” (Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3). In addition, God's initial feelings toward Nineveh (“their wickedness has come up before me” – Jonah 1:2) is identical with the way the Assyrians are described in Nahum 1:11 (“From you one has gone out who plots evil against the LORD, one who counsels wickedness”); Nahum 3:19 (“For who has ever escaped your endless cruelty?”); etc.

One could possibly make the point that Nahum's anger is directed more toward the ruthless leadership of Assyria while the concern shown by God in Jonah is more for “the helplessly ignorant inhabitants of Nineveh,” in Leith's words (see Jonah 4:11). But a close reading of both books fails to support such a distinction. And the same is true of any attempts to say that Jonah is concerned only with the capital city while Nahum is dealing with the whole nation of Assyria instead.

Another potential approach is to deny that the book of Jonah reflects any historical event at all, but is really a humorous parable of sorts designed solely to expose the rabidly and hatefully nationalistic attitude some of the Jews exhibited toward all outsiders. But even if that were true, it would not eliminate any of the sentiments expressed in the book.

The best solution is simply to go back to the statement Jonah makes in 4:2, which stresses both God's wrath and his forgiveness toward those who repent. And Nineveh certainly does repent, from the king himself right down to (a bit hyperbolically) the cattle. The problem is that the second chance God gave the nation after their repentance apparently did not last since the later book of Nahum describes His judgment coming upon them at last.

As Phillip Cary says that “it is possible to emphasize justice and wrath, especially when thinking of Nineveh. The prophet Nahum is the most prominent example...Hence it is with gladness that the book of Nahum opens by speaking of the wrath of God [Nahum 1:2-3]...Even here we have both sides: the LORD is slow to anger but does not let the guilty get off with impunity. Yet the direction is not toward a mercy that remembers justice, but rather toward a justice that is slow to anger but once kindled will not forbear to take vengeance for the good of all who have suffered from the cruelty of that 'city of blood' (3:1). Jonah would like to preach the same glad tidings of wrath as Nahum, but under the circumstances he can't. Nahum, prophesying a century or more after Jonah, does get the last word on Nineveh, as the LORD indeed destroys it forever...But Jonah is faced with a Nineveh that lives, at least for a while, under the mercy and abundant lovingkindness of the LORD, still slow to anger.”

II Kings 21 vs. II Chronicles 33

These parallel passages both deal with the reign of King Manasseh. My critical source on the internet sees a definite contradiction between the two accounts:

“2 K 21 says Manasseh was an evil king in every way, which is why all of Judah was sent into the Babylonian exile. In contrast, 2 Chron 33 says that only Manasseh was exiled to Babylon and recounts his total repentance (not in 2 K).”

The first thing to point out is that II Kings 21:1-9 and II Chronicles 33:1-9 read practically word-for-word the same, indicating that both accounts are relying for the most part on the identical tradition. Therefore any differences we detect later in the chapters between the two accounts are likely to be purposeful on the part of the respective authors in order to emphasize or de-emphasize a particular theological point. And since the Kings account was almost surely the earliest, any changes in wording or emphasis are also likely to be due to the author of Chronicles.

The two parallel passages begin to depart from one another starting with v. 10 of each. Chronicles merely states in one verse that both Manasseh and the people refused to listen to God. That very same information is found in verses 10-15 of II Chronicles, but given in more detail. One interesting omission on the part of II Chronicles is that whereas Kings states God's word came to Manasseh via the prophets, Chronicles says God spoke directly to the king. This is quite in keeping with the Chronicler's overall emphasis on the official Jewish leadership (king and priesthood), downplaying considerably the role of the independent prophets given more prominence in Samuel-Kings.

Williamson also sees strong signs of the preoccupations of the Chronicler in the account of Manasseh's Babylonian “exile.” “In the present commentary, several examples have been suggested of the Chronicler taking up a relatively local or trivial incident and magnifying it by way of his own ideological presuppositions into an account of major and significant proportions. It would thus not be surprising if he had followed the same method here.” Thus, he feels that the so-called exile of the king was in fact nothing more nor less than the temporary summoning of Manasseh to Babylon to explain some of his dubious political actions, after which he was dismissed and allow to return to Judah. Jacob Myers provides the same explanation. If they are correct, then it provides a good reason why the author of Kings did not even bother to mention the incident.

And as to Manasseh's repentance, not mentioned in Kings, House says, “Oppression by Assyria initiates prayer and contrition on Manasseh's part, which leads to release from his immediate problem and a removal of idols he has erected. These reforms are portrayed as limited and short-lived, however, so the results of his reign remain the same. His support of idolatry leads to corruption that Josiah will have to combat later, a point the Chronicler makes clear in the survey of Josiah's life (cf. Chr 34:1-35:27). In both histories [i.e. Kings and Chronicles] then, Manasseh's long period of rule is portrayed as an ultimately damaging era in Israel's history at a moment when such leadership could not be afforded.”

So returning to the basic issue as our critic states it: Why does Kings say that Judah will be exiled but not mention Manasseh's “exile” while Chronicles mentions Manasseh's “exile” but not say anything regarding Judah's exile? The answer is rather simple. In the first place, commentators are in agreement that Manesseh was not exiled at all. At most it was a case of summoning him to Babylon in order to chew him out and then send him back with his promise to act more loyally to Assyria in the future. Historians note that this scenario was quite in keeping with the way the Assyrians dealt with their vassal kings. Manasseh's temporary absence from Israel was hardly an important enough event for the author of Kings to even mention.

Secondly, there was no particular need for the Chronicler to mention the prophecy of Judah's exile, which after all would not take place for another 100 years, by which time the Babylonians had kicked out the Assyrians. It is not considered to be any sort of contradiction at all for two historians to stress different aspects of the same events, and that is what we have in this case. And the same principle applies in comparing the four Gospel accounts of Jesus' life with one another.

Commentators are, of course, quite free to speculate as to the reasons behind the selective nature of both OT accounts. Thus, many liberal commentators have a great deal of trouble getting their mind around the concept of future events being prophesied accurately. For that reason, some of them deny that exile is even hinted at in Kings, and others feel that verses 10-15 of II Kings must not have been added to the original narrative until the later period of Babylonian Exile.

Also, it seems obvious that the Chronicler goes out of his way to paint a more rosy history of Israel and her kings. So he grasps at the fact that Manasseh at least temporarily and partially repented of his evil deeds. This was perhaps also done in an attempt to explain the theological problem of why God would have left him in power (albeit as an Assyrian vassal for much of his reign) for so many years.

Or we could go with Howard's explanation that “The Chronicler may have used the episode [of Manasseh's temporary exile and return] as a allegory of Israel in exile. Because of its sin it had been taken to Babylon but now it has returned to the land.”

And for those who feel that both books were written much later than the events themselves (and we really don't know exactly when that occurred), there is another perspective. Thus, Pratt writes, “These variations are not contradictory; they simply resulted from the different purposes of each writer. The writer of Kings wrote during the exile and focused on Manasseh's sin to explain why Judah had been taken to Babylon...The Chronicler wrote after the return from exile to demonstrate the importance of repentance and prayer for the full restoration of the post-exilic community...The similarities between this series of events and the post-exilic experience are striking. The Israelites had sinned against God, gone to Babylon, sought the favor of God, returned to the land, and were in the process of restoring worship and rebuilding the city of Jerusalem. Why did the Chronicler present Manasseh's reign in this manner? To encourage his readers in their efforts. Their exile had been God's response to sin; their deliverance had been an act of grace based on their repentance. If the wicked King Manasseh demonstrated his repentance by establishing the cult and city, how much more must they do the same?”