LUKE 19:41-44

 

There are several causes for weeping recorded in the New Testament. Matthew's Gospel records six times in Jesus' teaching in which he warned about the people who, when finding themselves separated from God eternally, would wail and gnash their teeth in anger or despair (Matt. 8:12-13; 13:42,50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30).

Then there is the case of Peter, when realizing that he had denied his Lord as Jesus predicted, cried with bitter regret for what he had done. Or on the other end of the spectrum were the more or less professional mourners at the respective death beds of Jairus' daughter (Luke 8:52-53) and Lazarus (Mark 5:39-40) who somehow managed to instantly turn their crocodile tears to derisive sneers at Jesus when he told them that there was nothing to mourn about. Altogether there are approximately 35 verses in the Gospels in which people cry.

But then we come to the specific case of Jesus himself weeping. I have already discussed one of the two instances in which we are told that this happened (see the post titled “Jesus Wept.” [John 11:35]). On that occasion it was the death of his friend Lazarus which triggered that emotional response. But in Luke 19:41, it was the city of Jerusalem which Jesus was weeping over as he anticipated the fate she would soon experience.

Tilden cites Luke 13:33-34 in conjunction with this verse. In this parallel passage Jesus bewails the fact that He had wished to gather its inhabitants under His wing but instead they rejected Him. This same reason is given for his sadness in chapter 19, which goes on to say that they would be experiencing grief “because you did not know the time of your visitation” (v. 44).

This may be an allusion to an earlier episode in Luke's Gospel, as Porter states: “Zechariah the priest (1:67-68) had praised God who had visited His people; You, says Jesus to the people of Jerusalem, you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.”

Vine defines the particular Greek verb for “cry” in these verses: “klaio is used of any loud expression of grief, especially in mourning for the dead.” Of course, that definition also fits in Luke 13, even if the ones mourned for are not yet dead, but doomed to die not only physically but also spiritually and eternally.

The anonymous footnote in the Jerusalem Bible points out: “This whole prophecy is made up of O.T. references (especially noticeable in the Greek text for v. 43, cf. Is 29:3; 37:33; Jr 52:4-5; Ezk 4:1-3; 21:27; for v. 44, cf. Ho 10:14; 14:1; Na 3:10; Ps 137:9)...” That commentator feels that it applies to the destruction of Jerusalem back in 587 B.C. even more than the Roman destruction of 70 A.D.

Others scholars are suspicious of Jesus' words as an actual prophecy, as Fitzmyer explains. He first notes that “the unusual syntax reveals that Luke is making use of an inherited piece of tradition, which he has only slightly redacted...This passage has been classed by R. Bultmann as a biographical apophthegm, i.e. a pronouncement-story, not an 'imaginary scene,' even though the pronouncement itself is regarded by him as a vaticinium ex eventu [i.e. prophecy after the event], fitted out with an introductory setting in v. 41...Others have ascribed the predictions to early Christian prophets and claimed that they were eventually attributed to Jesus in the pre-Lucan tradition...the interest in the episode lies not in Jesus' weeping, but in the pronouncement that he utters...Is the utterance to be simply dismissed as vaticinium ex eventu? The question is complicated because it is involved in the dating of the Lucan Gospel and because vv. 43-44 are echoes of OT minatory [expressing a threat] predictions. Yet a number of commentators are reluctant to deny that the utterance goes back to Jesus himself in some form...There is, indeed, reason to think that Jesus did actually say something similar to this prophetic pronouncement about the fate of Jerusalem or at least of its Temple.” In addition, Fitzmyer asks the good question: “Would not a vaticinium ex eventu have been more specific in its terminology?”

He also notes, “Another opinion is held by C. H. Dodd who maintains that this oracle of the Lucan Jesus is 'composed entirely from the language of the Old Testament...So far as any historical event has colored the picture, it is not Titus's capture of Jerusalem A.D. 70, but Nebuchadrezzar's capture in 586 B.C.'...Fitzmyer concludes that “the best solution to this problems is the recognition that the Lucan oracle may well go back to Jesus in some form, but that the reformulation of it in the pre-Lucan tradition was affected both by the destruction of the city itself in A.D. 70 and by allusions to that under Nebuchadnezzar in the OT.” As you will see in the following description of the events by more conservative scholars, they are not nearly as skeptical regarding the true prophetic nature of Jesus' pronouncement but take it for granted that Luke's words reflect an accurate historical recollection of the facts.

Ellis says, “It is sometimes argued that the prophecy could not have originated in the pre-resurrection mission because Jesus anticipated the destruction of Jerusalem only as an eschatological, i.e., end of the world, event.” But he concludes, 'there are no good grounds to disallow the oracle to the pre-resurrection mission...”

“There is a sudden change of tone as Jesus turns to look at the city spread before Him and utters a sorrowful prophecy about its fate. He longed that even at this late stage it might repent and seek what would be for its welfare: how little did the conduct of Jerusalem, the city of peace (Heb. 7:2), resemble its name.” (Marshall)

“Jesus' death is both consequence of of the city's rejection of him and foretaste of what the city itself will face.” (Walton)

“In another tradition unique to Luke Jesus pauses to weep over Jerusalem as he anticipates its siege and destruction (Lk 19:42-44).” (Olmstead)

“Luke makes explicit both that certain of Jesus' prophecies refer to the imminent siege and destruction of Jerusalem (Lk 19:41-44; 21:20-24) and that there must be an interim period of 'the times of the Gentiles' before the ultimate end (Lk 21:24).” (Pitre)

Luke omits Mark's materials linking prayer and discipleship where Jesus exhorts the disciples about prayer and exorcism...and curses the fig tree..., replacing this symbol of judgment with Jesus' prophetic lament over Jerusalem (Lk 19:41-44).” (Crump)

Oakes notes that “astonishingly, in the midst of all this celebration Jesus starts weeping. He weeps that Jerusalem will not share in the peace that is coming because the people have not understood the way to peace (Lk 19:41-42). Instead, the city's enemies will encircle it, lay siege to it and tear it down (19:43-45). E. Franklin argues that this 'suggests knowledge of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Rejection of Jesus and his way of peace leads them into confrontation with Rome with its inevitable disastrous results...The specific language here [i.e. Luke 21:20] and in Luke 19:41-44 has a strong OT background in a range of prophetic versions of God's judgment on various cities (e.g. cf. Lk 19:44 with Is 3:26; Nah 3:10). J. Noland argues that 'All of God's acts of judgment and threats of judgment, as recorded in Scripture, come to their culmination in the prospect of judgment held forth here.'”

Schellenberg states that “the good news of peace that Luke attributes to Jesus cannot be relegated to the spiritual realm. Indeed, for Luke, Jerusalem's failure to recognize 'the things that make for peace' results in concrete violence: a brutal and destructive siege (Lk 19:41-44). So, although the proclamation of God's kingdom includes no summons to revolution, the enactment of the kingdom has profound social and political implications that do indeed challenge the existing political order.”

At Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, 'the objection of 'some of the Pharisees' (not all) as the representative voice of all those who reject Jesus' kingship (Lk 19:39-40) leads directly into its outcome: Jesus' sorrowful lament over Jerusalem's failure to recognize the visitation of the one (i.e. God [cf. Jer 6:15]) who could bring it peace (cf. Zech 9:10), and hence its coming coming destruction (Lk 19:41-44; cf. Lk 13:34-35).” (Watts)

Lastly, below are three opinions from three anonymous scholars writing in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery:

We should not “overlook that Jesus is arrested, tried and sentenced to execution in a city that he had characterized as 'killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you.' Yet even in uttering that accusation, Jesus is pictured as weeping over this wicked city...”

“Christ's tears of compassion for this people are foreshadowed in the OT by those of Jeremiah, both in his prophecy (Jer 9:1; 13:17; 14:17) and in the Book of Lamentations ascribed to him (Lam 2:11; 3:48-49). Paul is a follower of Christ in this respect, moved to tears by the strength of his caring for his converts, whether in person (Acts 20:31) or in writing (2 Cor 2:4).”

“Weeping is an expression of sorrow, a reaction to being wronged or to having committed a wrong, or to the experience of loss...Weeping is regularly associated with the plight of Israel or Jerusalem (judgment and exile). Thus Jesus' weeping in Luke 19:41 (cf. Lk 23:28, also probably referring to the coming judgment on Jerusalem) is all the more poignant as the christological culmination of this motif. The city did not recognize the time of God's visitation (in Jesus) and now faces certain and irrevocable judgment.”

AROUND THE THRONE (REVELATION 4-5)

 

          Around the Throne (2010, collage on canvas)

One point is abundantly clear in these two chapters – they center in every way around God's throne in heaven. This is reinforced by the observation that the word “throne” appears exactly 17 times in these chapters (omitting the two references to other “thrones”). That may not seem to be important to you except for the fact that John is the only author in the Bible who seems to attach a symbolic meaning to that particular number – the sum of two other numbers, ten and seven, which each convey the figurative meaning of perfection or completion. Reinforcing this contention is the appearance of “throne” another 17 times in Revelation outside of these two chapters.

The next thing to look at is the contexts in which these references in Rev. 4-5 appear. Thus, after the introduction of God's throne in 4:2, we have the following distribution:

“the one seated on (epi) the throne” – Revelation 4:2b, 9, 10a; 5:1, 7, 13

The Jerusalem Bible notes that “John is careful not to describe God anthropomorphically; he prefers to given an impression of light. The whole scene draws heavily on Ezk 1 and 10; cf. also Is 6.”

If these six mentions of God's throne are supplemented by the one reference to the elders seated on their thrones, then that equals seven times overall, perhaps symbolically indicating that the throne scene is incomplete without the presence of the 24 elders. These are generally understood as denoting the representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel plus the twelve apostles, in other words, all the saved of the Old and New Testament, respectively.

The fact that representatives of the saved of humanity are actually allowed to sit in God's presence is indeed amazing. This may be the fulfillment of Christ's words to the Twelve recorded in the Gospels (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30), telling them that they “will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” And even more amazing is Paul's pronouncement to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 6:2): “Do you not know that we [i.e. followers of Christ] are to judge angels?”

I should mention for the sake of completeness that not all commentators feel the 24 elders are human beings. Stonehouse, for example, treats them as a higher class of angels.

“around (kuklos) the throne” – Revelation 4:3, 4a, 6c; 5:11

Those things so positioned include a rainbow, the thrones of the elders, the four living creatures, and the angels. Since elsewhere in the Bible the number four represents God's creation, that may also be the meaning of these four passages with accompanying groups here. If so, then the rainbow might equal the physical universe, the elders (as explained above) those specially chosen of God, the four living creatures would stand for the epitome of animate creatures on earth, and the angels would naturally comprise all the heavenly creation.

“around (en meso) the throne” – Revelation 4:6b; 5:6

Designated by this slightly different Greek preposition are the position of the four living creatures and the Lamb. It is interesting that Christ is pictured as being close to the throne of God but not on it since at the conclusion of Revelation (v. 22:3) we are told of “the throne of God and of the Lamb” as if they jointly share it, or perhaps indicating that Father and Son will completely merge into one indistinguishable Unity at this time.

“from (ek) the throne” – Revelation 4:5a

Issuing from, or out of, the heavenly throne are flashes of lightning, peals of thunder, and a voice. Ford says, “This recalls the Sinai motif. The voice may refer to the voice of God which was said to be heard in several different languages...However, these phenomena are traditional accompaniments to theophany [i.e. an appearance of God to man].”

“in front of (enopion) the throne” – Revelation 4:5b, 6a; 10b

Finally, this prepositional phrase is used to indicate where the seven spirits of God and the sea of glass are located as well as where the elders cast their crowns. For an explanation of these, I will first rely on the comments of Beale: “The second half of v. 5 is clearly patterned after Zech. 4:2-3, 10, a vision of seven lamps followed by their interpretation (so also Rev. 1:12, 20), which associates the lamps with the Spirit of Yahweh (Zech. 4:6). Part of the wording from Ezek. 1:13 in v. 5a has given rise to the thought of Zechariah 4, since both have visionary imagery of 'lamps'. The meaning of the seven lamps' is developed in 5:6.”

As for the meaning of the sea of glass, Beale offers a number of possible interpretations with accompanying rationales for each, and he notes, “These are not incompatible options.” They include:

1. The laver in Solomon's temple (II Chronicles 4:2)

2. God's holy separateness and splendor in heaven (Metzger thus says, “A sea of glass suggests the distance between God and his creatures, even in heaven.”)

3. The heavenly analogue of the Red Sea (see Revelation 15:2-4)

4. God's taming of the chaotic forces and cosmic evil represented by the sea (see Revelation 15:2)

Finally, we have the somewhat unusual vision of the elders being given golden crowns but then turning around and casting these crowns at God's throne. Mounce says, “In casting down their crowns before the throne the elders acknowledge that their authority is a delegated authority. The honor given them is freely returned to the One who alone is worthy of universal honor.”

And Beasley-Murray helpfully clarifies one point by stating, “The thanksgiving of the living creatures, inspiring the renunciation by the twenty-four elders of their crowns is not the continual worship of v. 8 but adoration given in special crises.”

MATTHEW 27:52-53 A ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE?

One critic on the internet used the above label to refer to the strange account given to us by Matthew, and Matthew alone, concerning many of the dead leaving their tombs and walking into the holy city. The questions that arise from this unusual incident are many, as I will demonstrate below. However, let us begin with what we can say, at least from a conservative viewpoint. And for that I will rely on the comments from Hendricksen, given in his words:

1. “This was a real resurrection, not an appearance of corpses.” So much for the zombie idea!

2. “It occurred at the very moment of Christ's death and, together with the other signs, pointed to the significance of that death.”

3. “It is true that the original can be constructed in one of two ways.” (More of that below.)

4. “Everything points to the fact that these saints did not again die. It must be that after they appeared to many for some small period of time, God took them – now body and soul – to himself in heaven, where their souls had been previously.”

5. This sign, too, like those described in verse 51, 52a, is prophetic. It shows that Christ's death guarantees our glorious resurrection at Christ's return.”

Given that broad overview, we can now look at some controversial and dissenting opinions centered around the many uncertainties concerning Matthew's words.

Did this event actually occur?

“Questions concerning the historicity of this event are perennial in modern research. Some reject it out of hand as unhistorical...Wright leaves open the question of historicity suggesting that Matthew might have known a tradition about such strange occurrences.” (K.L. Anderson)

Davids admits, “It sounds like a fantastic detail, a legend which has slipped into the text.”

“The resurrection of dead people has no parallel in the other gospel accounts, and leaves plenty of unanswered questions for the historically minded interpreter...Most interpreters simply dismiss it as fiction...Wright concludes: 'Some stories are so odd that they may have just happened. This may be one of them, but in historical terms there is no way of finding out.' Hagner helpfully discusses the historical status of the report, concluding that it is 'a piece of realized and historicized apocalyptic.' Much more radical is the bold proposal of K.L. Waters that Matthew does not even intend the scene to be read as past history but, despite the 'historical' form of the narration, saw this as 'an event of the apocalyptic future,' set in the 'new Jerusalem' at the end of time.” (France)

Blomberg also says: “All kinds of historical questions remain unanswered about [these] events, but their significance clearly lies in the theology Matthew wishes to convey [see the final section below].”

Albright and Mann wisely state: “It is certainly no service to scholarship to find in these verses an imaginative piece of fiction on the part of the evangelist. Or simply an attempt to garnish the account of the passion with improbable details.”

Are any Old Testament passages relevant here?

“The resurrection of the saints draws on OT and Jewish eschatological expectation (cf. Dan 12:2; Ezek 37:12-13), especially Ezekiel 37:12-13. Ezekiel's prophecy, linked with the eschatological reign of the Davidic Messiah (Ezek 37:24-25), promises to Israel, dead in 'exile,' that one day 'you will come out of your graves' (Ezk 37:12) and experience final restoration from the judgment of exile (Ezek 37:14,21-22; Is 26:14; Dan 12:23).” (Dennis)

“Walvoord suggests that this event was 'a fulfillment of the Feast of the Firstfruits of harvest mentioned in Leviticus 23:10-14. On that occasion, as a token of the coming harvest, the people would bring a handful of grain to the priest. The resurrection of these saints occurring after Jesus Himself was raised is a token of the coming harvest when the saints will be raised.” (Barbieri)

“The whole complex of these verses is reminiscent of the triumph of the saints described in Dan vii 18,21,22,25, and 27.” (Albright and Mann)

France states, “Matthew's wording here especially calls to mind Ezek 37:13, 'when I open your graves and bring you up out of your graves, my people' (note also the earthquake-like imagery in Ezek 37:7), though there resurrection is a metaphor for national restoration rather than a promise of personal life after death.”

“Matt's insistence in the next verse (27:53) that they entered the holy city (of Jerusalem) may have been influenced by Zechariah's locale for the judgment [see Zech. 14:4]...Earlier and contemporary with the writings of Matt there is testimony to the importance that Ezek 37 had for the just who died for their convictions about God. At Masada, where Jewish zealots made their last stand against the Roman armies in AD 73, in the floor of the synagogue were found fragments of a scroll on which was written Ezekiel's account of his vision of the raising of the dead bones.” (Brown)

Allison is another scholar who feels that “Matthew 27:51-53 may also draw on Zechariah 14:4-5 (interpreted, as in the Targum and Did. 16:6-7, as a prophecy of the resurrection). In both texts there is a resurrection of the dead immediately outside Jerusalem, an earthquake occurs, the same verb is used (schizo ['to split'] in the passive), and the resurrected ones are called hoi hagioi ('the holy ones'). Even today, the western rise to the Mount of Olives is covered with Jewish graves because of the belief, inspired by Zechariah 14:4-5, that on the last day the Messiah will return to that place, where the resurrection will commence.”

Who are the 'holy ones”?

“Elsewhere in the NT the 'holy ones' or 'saints' are believers in Jesus (I Cor 14:23; Rom 1:7; Acts 9:13; Heb 13:24), even as sometimes in the OT they are the people of Israel (Isa 4:3; Dan 7:21; 8:25). In this passage they must be Jews who died after a saintly life...Although some commentators have proposed that Matt is describing the deliverance of the great known figures of OT history..., relatively few of them were supposed to be buried in the Jerusalem area.” (R.E. Brown)

“The 'holy people who had died' are presumably to be understood as pious Jews, but we do not know whether Matthew is thinking of recent contemporaries or of well-known people from the OT period buried around Jerusalem.” (France)

“'Holy people' (often translated saints) apparently refer to selected Old Testament believers.” (Blomberg)

What is the 'holy city'?

Brown mentions that a number of commentators treat the holy city as the heavenly Jerusalem. That would explain away the lack of historical references to resurrected bodies waling about the earth. However, he points to the one 'fatal flaw' in this interpretation. It does not fit in with the statement that they were seen by many people.

Exactly when did these holy ones rise from the dead?

Many readers of these verses may not realize it, but this is actually the most controversial point regarding the whole episode. Brown says, “'After his raising' is the most difficult phrase in Matt 27:51-53.” He notes that here is the only place in the New Testament where egersis ('raising') appears. It opens the possibility that what is being referred to is the raising of the bodies of the dead holy ones, not to Jesus' own raising (generally expressed by egeirein). And a related problem is the apparent contradiction of Matthew with Paul's understanding in I Corinthians 15:20 that it was Christ who was the firstborn from the dead, not the holy ones.

In an attempt to resolve this difficulty, France points out: “The Greek word order allows 'after Jesus' resurrection' to be read either with 'coming out of their tombs',...or with 'they came into the holy city'. Gundry regards the latter as more in keeping with Matthean idiom.”

Nixon: “It is most natural to take the Greek as meaning that they were raised at this time [i.e. at Christ's death] but did not come out of the tombs until after his resurrection. Christ is 'the first-born from the dead' (Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 15:20), and there is some difficulty about an anticipation of His resurrection unless it is intended to be something like the raising of Lazarus.”

“As the NIV stands, Matthew's account contradicts Paul, inasmuch as the saints actually precede Christ out of the tomb. But the text should probably be punctuated with a period after the 'tombs broke open.'” (Blomberg)

Hill says that the resurrection of the holy ones “takes place after the Resurrection. This view of eschatology...did not fit into what became the commonly accepted teaching that Christ was 'the first fruits of those who had fallen asleep' (I C. 15.20), and that all others await the general resurrection; therefore it did not survive in the main stream of tradition.”

“His [Jesus'] resurrection is the first, theirs the consequence (cf. 1 Cor 15:20-23; 1 Thess 4:14)...That he [Matthew]...records it here, despite the difficulty of postponing the resurrection and or appearance for two days after the earthquake, suggests that he sees Jesus' death, not just his resurrection, as the key to the new life which is now made available to God's people.” (France)

The problem alluded to by France above is explained by Hendricksen, who asks, “But is it reasonable to believe that these saints, with glorious resurrection bodies, remained in the darkness and corruption of the tombs from Friday afternoon until Sunday morning? The meaning is, in all probability, that these saints were raised and left their tombs at the moment of Christ's death.” That scenario, however, brings us right back to the contradiction with Paul's insistence that Christ was the first fruit from the dead. This issue will probably never be successfully resolved this side of the grave.

What subsequently happened to this resurrected “holy ones”?

“The answer is 'We do not know.' Since this appears to be the firstfruits of the eventual general resurrection of the righteous, it is unlikely that Matthew thought for a minute that they later returned to their tombs. It is possible that he believed they were waiting around on earth for the return of Jesus, but it is far more likely that he believed that they went to heaven with Jesus.” (Davids)

At this point we should heed Ellison's words: “This section of Mt. stands unique in the NT and we have no other Scripture to help us understand it...Mt's own reticence suggests that he himself had no clear understanding of what happened.”

“If these saints were genuinely resurrected rather than simply revivified or reanimated like Jairus's daughter or Lazarus, then presumably, like Jesus himself, they appeared to others only for a short time and were eventually taken to heaven. But the text refuses to satisfy our curiosity about these points.” (Blomberg)

What is the theological significance of this event?

Here, at least, there is some general agreement among scholars. Anderson says, “The resurrection of saints has a twofold significance. First, the apocalyptic nature of the event signals Jesus' resurrection as the inauguration of the age to come and precursor to the final resurrection (cf. Acts 3:15; 26:23; 1 Cor 15:20,23; Col 1:18). Second, the saint's resurrection amplifies Jesus' vindication. The self-curse of the people for shedding Jesus' innocent blood (Mt 27:4,19, 24-25) has already gone into effect. According to Jesus' prediction, the 'righteous blood' of all the prophets is testifying against the people, as the saints come out of the very tombs that their murderers built for them (cf. Mt 23:29-31)...All of the resurrection miracles in the Gospels assume this eschatological declaration. They are signposts pointing to Jesus' resurrection, which is the beginning of the age to come and the final resurrection.”

Pitre notes that “in the Gospel of Matthew the death of Jesus is so efficaciously eschatological that it actually triggers the bodily resurrection of 'the holy ones,' who come forth from their 'tombs' after his individual resurrection.”

David Hill says, “The point being made in this verse is clear: with Christ the general resurrection has begun; the power of death is now vanquished.”

Blomberg: “The resurrections illustrate the teaching of 1 Cor 15:20-22. Christ is the firstfruits of the new age, guaranteeing the bodily resurrection of all his people.”

“Matthew's report of the saints' opened graves (Mt 27:52-53) interprets Jesus' resurrection as an eschatological event associated with the widely expected general resurrection.” (Schellenberg)

Brown states that “this raising of 'many bodies' as Jesus dies is not the universal final resurrection but an inbreaking of God's power signifying that the last times have begun and the judgment has been inaugurated...their appearance both attested that Jesus had conquered death and promised that eventually all the holy ones would be raised.”

WHAT IS THE DIVIDING WALL OF EPHESIANS 2:14-18?

RSV renders these verses as follows: “For he is our peace who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end.”

This passage has been much discussed, especially the exact nature of the dividing wall of hostility. Here is how several Bible scholars have dealt with one or both of the two issues involved: the metaphoric allusion to the wall and its exact meaning. And the two are intertwined with one another, as you will see below.

The reference is to the wall within the temple

“Here the immediate allusion seems to be the barrier placed in the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple to prevent them from penetrating further within...Two copies of the actual inscription forbidding any foreigner.., on pain of death , to 'enter within the barricade which surrounds the temple and enclosure' have been found in the neighborhood – one in 1871 and the other in 1935.” (Simpson)

Comfort: “Commentators frequently identify the 'wall' with the barrier in the Temple dividing the Court of the Gentiles from the Court of the Women. This barrier, beyond which no Gentile was to venture on pain of death, has been figuratively torn down in Christ.”

A dissenting voice comes from Hoehner, who cites four reasons why this is an unlikely reference:

                        “1. There is no reference to the Jerusalem wall in this context;

2. the Jerusalem wall is never called by the designation in the present context...;

3. the wall in Jerusalem was still standing when Paul wrote this letter; and

4. it was probably unfamiliar to the average person in the churches around Ephesus.”

Some scholars take issue with this last reason since they feel that the problem Paul had when he was accused of sneaking Gentiles into the Temple would have been well known to the Ephesian church.

The wall inside the temple represents the Law

This is the theory favored by Hoehner, who explains: “Some rabbis thought of the wall as the 'fence' around the law. However, that spoke more about the protection around the law than the hostility mentioned in this context. Nevertheless, in later rabbinics, rather than the law itself which protected Israel from pagan practices...the law, which many have included many minute scribal additions, was to be strictly observed by the Jews, and was at the same time offensive to the Gentiles, thus causing hostility between Jews and Gentiles. Consequently, it makes good sense to consider that the 'wall of partition' was not a literal wall but a metaphorical wall that divided Jews and Gentiles.”

“Ephesians 2:14-15 is the one other place [besides Galatians] in the Pauline corpus where the Law is cast as an enemy, and it is the only place where Christ is said to have 'destroyed' (katargeo) the Law or rendered it powerless (cf. Rom 3:31). The Law is here likened to a 'barrier' or 'dividing wall of hostility,' a reference to the role of the Law in forming a barrier of racial and ethnic hostility (Eph 2:14,16) between Jews and Gentiles...Commentators frequently find an allusion here to the balustrade in the Jerusalem Temple, a wall that separated the court of the Gentiles from the inner courts of Israel. But this Temple wall, part of a microcosmic representation of Israel's view of the world...was a Torah-inspired spatial representation of the distinction between Israel and the nations...This dividing wall, the 'law of commandments and regulations,' Christ 'destroyed' (Eph 2:15)...” (Reid)

The wall is the Mosaic Law

The following commentators identify the law as what Paul is talking about, without connecting it to the barrier in the temple:

Beale and Gladd say, “Though many have debated the precise identification of Paul's metaphor, it is likely that he is referring to the Old Testament law. For in Ephesians 2:15 he expands on the previous verse by explaining how Christ made both groups into one body...”

Witherington says, “For Paul the removal of the Mosaic Law as a means of right-standing with God, as a way of being saved or working out one's salvation, had broken down the barrier between Jew and Gentile.”

J.B. Green concurs by saying that “the Law appears as a barrier separating Jew and Gentile; there the death of Christ abolished this 'dividing wall.”

The wall represents several kinds of barriers

“(kata)lyo means to break down. It also occurs several times in the New Testament of the destruction of the temple or the law. A dividing wall “is a wall that prevents certain persons from entering a house or a city (cf. 2:19).., a mark of hostility (2:14,16)...Each of these terms [wall, enmity, law] throws light on the others; the author wants them to be considered as synonyms.” (M. Barth)

“Paul's quarrel is with the imposition of old and temporary structures upon the new eschatological age of reconciliation – structures who purpose was to condemn sin and to sequester the Jews from the Gentiles (cf. Eph 2:14-18).” (Thielman)

“Paul employs a metaphor probably drawn from the wall in the Jerusalem Temple, or the Temple itself, which prevented Gentiles from proceeding into the inner courts. This was reinforced by the Law of commandments, condemning in its requirements.” (Porter)

The wall represents two kinds of separation

Hillyer explains, “The wording of Eph. 2:14 presupposes a conception of phragmos [barrier] which calls for the image of the cross as its counterpart. Paul's text in fact assumes a double phragmos, one that separates Jew from Gentile, and the other that separates the world below from the world above...Christ restores unity, therefore, in a double sense. He destroys both the vertical wall separating Jew from Gentile, and the horizontal wall separating man from God. He does this by the cross, representing the double work of Christ extending both vertically and horizontally.”

Metzger: “Christ has not only broken down the...hostility between Jew and Gentile (made us both one), but has reconciled both to God in one body, the church.”

Marcus Barth says, “Christ is praised here not primarily for the peace he brings to individual souls; rather the peace he brings is a social and political event...While the 'enmity' mentioned at the end of vs. 16 is the one-sided enmity of man against God, the 'enmity' of vs. 14 is mutual among men.”

“Christ's work of reconciliation also [i.e. in addition to bringing peace between man and God] included putting an end to the age-old hostility between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14-16). This was accomplished by nullifying the Mosaic Law, which historically, set Jews apart from their pagan neighbors ('the dividing wall of hostility [echthra].),' Eph 2:14], thus 'making peace' (Eph 2:15) between Jew and Gentile.” (Belleville)

The wall refers to the barrier between ascending souls and God

Yamauchi refutes this idea in saying, “Some scholars have interpreted the 'dividing wall' of Ephesians 2:14-16 as the opposition of the hostile powers to the ascent of the souls in the divine pleroma [i.e. fullness] of Gnosticism. But the simplest explanation would be a reference to the barrier keeping out Gentiles from the inner precincts of the Jerusalem Temple.”

Hoehner provides two specific reasons for rejecting this interpretation: “This is unlikely because the separation is not between the celestial and the terrestrial but between Jews and Gentiles. Furthermore, [the] sources for his [Schlier's] theory are too late and postdate Paul (second or third century A.D.)...”

The wall refers to the curtain in the Temple between the holy place and the holy of holies.

Hoehner rejects this proposal, saying that “this is untenable because it was a curtain and not a wall, and because the curtain separated all men, including the Jews, except the high priest who entered once a year into the holy of holies. The wall in the present context separated Jews and Gentiles.”

The probable reason for this suggestion in the first place is that upon Christ's death, that curtain was ripped in two. Thus, it serves as another powerful supporting argument for those who, rightly in my mind, state that Christ's death simultaneously broke down the barriers separating Jews from Gentiles and mankind from God.

Conclusion

One final piece of evidence has yet to be taken into account – the literary structure of the passage. Although these verses appear in a mainly prose composition, that may not apply to this particular passage, as several commentators have noted.

Arnold, for example, says that “a possible hymnic fragment appears in Ephesians 2:14-18...The formal characteristics of the passage – the unique words, the use of participles, the intensely christological content, the parallelism of the lines, the 'we' style that interrupts the 'you' style – lead most scholars to conclude that it is indeed hymnic.”

Wu seconds this proposal: “In the Pauline corpus, passages such as Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20; Ephesians 2:14-16, 5:14 and 1 Timothy 3:16 are generally acknowledged as hymnic materials.”

Concentrating on just one of these factors, parallelism of the lines, yields the following graphical representation:

                                           Literary Structure of Ephesians 2:14-18

    A. For he is our peace (14a)

            B. who has made us both one (14b)

                    C. and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility (14c)

                            D. in his flesh (14d)

                    C'. the law of commandments and ordinances having abolished (15a)

                            D'. that he might in himself (15b)

            B'. create one new man in place of two (15c)

    A'. so making peace (15d)

            B''. and might reconcile us both to God (16a)

                            D''. through the cross (16b)

                    C''. thereby bringing the hostility to an end (16c)

                            D''''. in himself (16d)

    A''. and coming preached peace (17a)

            B'''. to those far and near (17b)

                            D'''''. because through him (18a)

            B''''. we both by one Spirit have access to the Father (18b)

From this poetic organization, one can see that verses 14-15c clearly refer to the law as the wall of hostility dividing Jew and Gentile while 16a-18 introduce the subject of mankind's reconciliation to God. Verse 15d thus serves two functions, as conclusion to 14-15 as well as beginning the verses ending with v. 18. And the means by which both of these were accomplished is emphasized in the five “D” sections as Christ's atoning death on the cross.

ISAIAH 41:21-29

 

Isaiah 41:21-29

In comparing English translations of the Bible with one another, one factor is often ignored by readers: the line spacing used to denote where new paragraphs end and begin. These simple indications can often have a great effect on how Scripture should be interpreted. As a random example, consider the above prophetic passage in the writings of Isaiah.

The first thing to note is that almost all translations or Bible commentators consider these nine verses to constitute a discrete section. However, half of them subdivide it into two smaller literary units: verses 21-24 and 25-29. This division of opinion is reflected below:

    Isaiah 41:21-29: NEB, TEV, AB, Whybray, Oswalt, Payne, Kidner

    Isaiah 41:21-24 + 41:25-29: RSV, NRSV, NIV, JB, The Message, The Living Bible, Wolf

The way in which the meaning is impacted by which of these two schemes one chooses is demonstrated by the following:

Representative of the first method of division is the analysis of Osborne, who first states: “The way the message [from God] was communicated to the prophet differed greatly depending on the situation.” One such form was the legal or trial oracles which “contain a summons to the divine trial court, a trial setting in which witnesses are called, leading to a stress on both the guilt of Israel or the nations and the judgment or sentence due.” As one such example, he cites the passage in question here, which “begins with the call of the pagan gods to trial, challenging them to assemble their evidence (vv. 21-23), followed by the charge that they are nothing (v. 24) and the witnesses who prove their guilt (vv. 25-28). Finally, the verdict is pronounced: 'they all are false...amount to nothing...wind and confusion' (v. 29).”

You can see from the above that Osborne treats the whole passage in a chronological manner. But this approach leads to several problems as he attempts to fit all of the received text into one “logical” package because of his preconceived, and often mistaken, notion that the Bible is largely written as we would compose a piece of writing today.

But if instead, one takes the second approach above, adopted by the majority of modern translations and paraphrases, then one looks at these verses in a whole new light. This group also feels that all of verses 21-29 constitute a unity, however a unity that is somehow also divided into two parts. The way in which that generally arises is that the two halves are parallel to one another in some literary manner.

With this new understanding, we can now look to see whether that is also the case here.

                                          The Literary Structure of Isaiah 41:21-29

    A. Set forth your case (v. 21)

            B. Tell us the future and former things (vv. 22-23a)

                    C. Do good or do harm (v. 23b)

                            D. Your work is nothing (v. 24)

    A'. I have summoned one (v. 25a)

                    C'. He shall trample on rulers (25b)

            B'. Who else predicted it? (vv. 26-28)

                            D'. Their works are nothing (v. 29)

Sections A and A'

In both these parallel sections, God summons another party. In A, that party consists of the false idols whereas it is Cyrus in A'. The correspondence is made more clear by translations such as The Message, which adds the word “God” (not in the Hebrew text) to A' to match the appearance of that word already in A. This is done in order make it abundantly clear that it is the LORD who is acting in both cases.

Another loose translation, Today's English Version, makes the same move.

Sections B and B'

These parallel units deal with the divine property of omniscience, possessing the knowledge of all past and future occurrences. O'Connell says, “As part of Yahweh's claim to incomparability among the gods (Isa 41:21-24, 26-29), he taunts other gods to do what only a true god could do, namely, reveal future events (41:22)” While I might take issue with O'Connell's identification of the particular verses expressing that idea, he does accurately capture the fact that omniscience is stressed twice in the text, not just once.

McKenzie says, “The gods are challenged either to relate the past or to disclose the future; they can do neither. In the collection of Israelite traditions available to Second Isaiah both history and prophecy were contained. No other nation had such a collection of historical memories, all centered upon the saving acts of God. No such recital existed. Nor could the gods produce documents to demonstrate their prophecy.”

Naude explains that the Hebrew root s'h in Isaiah 41:23 “expresses the feeling of loss of strength and courage. The vb. is used to substantiate the charge that the gods are incompetent: they cannot even interpret and predict events. As a result they do not have an effect on people and can dismay them or fill them with fear.”

Sections C and C'

These twinned sections zero in on another prime characteristic of the Deity: omnipotence. In C, God challenges the idols to do something outstanding that will get our attention, a challenge they are totally unable to meet. In stark contrast, God reveals that Cyrus, His “servant,” will truly do something outstanding in the future, something that will be bad for Babylon but good for Israel.

As Southwell puts it, “Like Isaiah (cf. 41:2,25), Habakkuk becomes sure that God is at work on the stage of international history, even in events that are not self-evidently desirable.”

Foulkes: “The root rms in 41:25 is “used to speak of human aggression, the trampling of enemies, but also of the powerful action of God in judgment.” Both concepts are combined here so that this verse, as its twin in 23b, relate ultimately to divine actions, not just human ones.

The challenge in Unit C for the gods to do good or evil may seem to be a strange one, but it is actually a Hebrew figure of speech called a merism. In a merism, opposites are cited to include everything in between as well. Thus, we might express the thought as “Don't just stand there. Do something, anything at all!”

Sections D and D'

But, the strongest clue that Osborne's linear analysis is faulty is seen in the fact that he labels v. 29 as the verdict on the false idols when, in fact, the practically same language is applied to them back in v. 24. Thus, there are two almost identical conclusions to the section, not just one.

And in a second example of how The Message strengthens the similarities between two verses, it renders both endings using identical wording: “sham gods, no-gods, fool-making gods.” This is a good demonstration of how a free paraphrase can sometimes depart considerably from a literal translation, but at the same time bring out the hidden meanings in the text better than a word-for-word equivalence.

But a paraphrase can also go way too far in departing from a literal translation. For example, The Living Bible renders v. 24 as “Anyone who chooses you needs to have his head examined.”

It is also interesting that a fairly literal translation such as the King James Version is occasionally more helpful than modern translations. Thus, it begins both verses here with the word “Behold!” to indicate the parallel nature of the two conclusions.

“Pagan gods also claimed to have performed great works, but their deeds are considered less than nothing (Isa 41:24)...” (Carpenter)

Summary

In conclusion, Wakely states, “The nominative somot (lit. powerful things or strengths), which is used of strong words or arguments, i.e. convincing proofs, occurs once (Isa 41.21)...The inability of the gods of the nations to show insights into past events or to indicate the course of future history or to intervene actively in history (vv. 22-24) exposes their nothingness.”

A Modest Proposal

In light of Figure 1, if I were to translate this passage into English so that the literary structure stands out even better, there is one very minor change I would make without departing from the literal text. There are several subordinate “so that” clauses in these verses, with the conjunction translated (or not translated at all) in various ways depending on the version in question. Thus, we have:

Translation      v. 22              v. 23a              v. 23b                 v. 26

KJV                 that, -----       that                 that                     that, that

RSV                that, that        that                 that                     that, that

NRSV             so that, that   that                 that                     so that, so that

JB                    -----, and       and so             so that                 so, so

NEB                that, that        then                ----                     that, so that

The Message   so that, ---     ------               ----                      so, ----

Of the above renderings, only RSV clearly shows the parallel relationship between the two appearances each of this conjunction in sections B and B'. But in addition, I would change the translation of the two words in v. 23 to something like “so that” and “so,” respectively, in order to make it clear that these two occurrences do not indicate a parallel relationship with each other or with any of the other four appearances of the word found in this section.

ISAIAH 41:21-29

In comparing English translations of the Bible with one another, one factor is often ignored by readers: the line  spacing used to denote where new paragraphs end and begin. These simple indications can often have a great effect on how Scripture should be interpreted. As a random example, consider the above prophetic passage in the writings of Isaiah.

The first thing to note is that almost all translations or Bible commentators consider these nine verses to constitute a discrete section. However, half of them subdivide it into two smaller literary units: verses 21-24 and 25-29. This division of opinion is reflected below:

Isaiah 41:21-29: NEB, TEV, AB, Whybray, Oswalt, Payne, Kidner

Isaiah 41:21-24 + 41:25-29: RSV, NRSV, NIV, JB, The Message, The Living Bible, Wolf

The way in which the meaning is impacted by which of these two schemes one chooses is demonstrated by the following:

Representative of the first method of division is the analysis of Osborne, who first states: “The way the message [from God] was communicated to the prophet differed greatly depending on the situation.” One such form was the legal or trial oracles which “contain a summons to the divine trial court, a trial setting in which witnesses are called, leading to a stress on both the guilt of Israel or the nations and the judgment or sentence due.” As one such example, he cites the passage in question here, which “begins with the call of the pagan gods to trial, challenging them to assemble their evidence (vv. 21-23), followed by the charge that they are nothing (v. 24) and the witnesses who prove their guilt (vv. 25-28). Finally, the verdict is pronounced: 'they all are false...amount to nothing...wind and confusion' (v. 29).”

You can see from the above that Osborne treats the whole passage in a chronological manner. But this approach leads to several problems as he attempts to fit all of the received text into one “logical” package because of his preconceived, and often mistaken, notion that the Bible is largely written as we would compose a piece of writing today.

But if instead, one takes the second approach above, adopted by the majority of modern translations and paraphrases, then one looks at these verses in a whole new light. This group also feels that all of verses 21-29 constitute a unity, however a unity that is somehow also divided into two parts. The way in which that generally arises is that the two halves are parallel to one another in some literary manner.

With this new understanding, we can now look to see whether that is also the case here.

                                               The Literary Structure of Isaiah 41:21-29

    A. Set forth your case (v. 21)

                B. Tell us the future and former things (vv. 22-23a)

                            C. Do good or do harm (v. 23b)

                                        D. Your work is nothing (v. 24)

    A'. I have summoned one (v. 25a)

                           C'. He shall trample on rulers (25b)

                B'. Who else predicted it? (vv. 26-28)

                                        D'. Their works are nothing (v. 29)

Sections A and A'

In both these parallel sections, God summons another party. In A, that party consists of the false idols whereas it is Cyrus in A'. The correspondence is made more clear by translations such as The Message, which adds the word “God” (not in the Hebrew text) to A' to match the appearance of that word already in A. This is done in order make it abundantly clear that it is the LORD who is acting in both cases.

Another loose translation, Today's English Version, makes the same move.

Sections B and B'

These parallel units deal with the divine property of omniscience, possessing the knowledge of all past and future occurrences. O'Connell says, “As part of Yahweh's claim to incomparability among the gods (Isa 41:21-24, 26-29), he taunts other gods to do what only a true god could do, namely, reveal future events (41:22)” While I might take issue with O'Connell's identification of the particular verses expressing that idea, he does accurately capture the fact that omniscience is stressed twice in the text, not just once.

McKenzie says, “The gods are challenged either to relate the past or to disclose the future; they can do neither. In the collection of Israelite traditions available to Second Isaiah both history and prophecy were contained. No other nation had such a collection of historical memories, all centered upon the saving acts of God. No such recital existed. Nor could the gods produce documents to demonstrate their prophecy.”

Naude explains that the Hebrew root s'h in Isaiah 41:23 “expresses the feeling of loss of strength and courage. The vb. is used to substantiate the charge that the gods are incompetent: they cannot even interpret and predict events. As a result they do not have an effect on people and can dismay them or fill them with fear.”

Sections C and C'

These twinned sections zero in on another prime characteristic of the Deity: omnipotence. In C, God challenges the idols to do something outstanding that will get our attention, a challenge they are totally unable to meet. In stark contrast, God reveals that Cyrus, His “servant,” will truly do something outstanding in the future, something that will be bad for Babylon but good for Israel.

As Southwell puts it, “Like Isaiah (cf. 41:2,25), Habakkuk becomes sure that God is at work on the stage of international history, even in events that are not self-evidently desirable.”

Foulkes: “The root rms in 41:25 is “used to speak of human aggression, the trampling of enemies, but also of the powerful action of God in judgment.” Both concepts are combined here so that this verse, as its twin in 23b, relate ultimately to divine actions, not just human ones.

The challenge in Unit C for the gods to do good or evil may seem to be a strange one, but it is actually a Hebrew figure of speech called a merism. In a merism, opposites are cited to include everything in between as well. Thus, we might express the thought as “Don't just stand there. Do something, anything at all!”

Sections D and D'

But, the strongest clue that Osborne's linear analysis is faulty is seen in the fact that he labels v. 29 as the verdict on the false idols when, in fact, the practically same language is applied to them back in v. 24. Thus, there are two almost identical conclusions to the section, not just one.

And in a second example of how The Message strengthens the similarities between two verses, it renders both endings using identical wording: “sham gods, no-gods, fool-making gods.” This is a good demonstration of how a free paraphrase can sometimes depart considerably from a literal translation, but at the same time bring out the hidden meanings in the text better than a word-for-word equivalence.

But a paraphrase can also go way too far in departing from a literal translation. For example, The Living Bible renders v. 24 as “Anyone who chooses you needs to have his head examined.”

It is also interesting that a fairly literal translation such as the King James Version is occasionally more helpful than modern translations. Thus, it begins both verses here with the word “Behold!” to indicate the parallel nature of the two conclusions.

“Pagan gods also claimed to have performed great works, but their deeds are considered less than nothing (Isa 41:24)...” (Carpenter)

Summary

In conclusion, Wakely states, “The nominative somot (lit. powerful things or strengths), which is used of strong words or arguments, i.e. convincing proofs, occurs once (Isa 41.21)...The inability of the gods of the nations to show insights into past events or to indicate the course of future history or to intervene actively in history (vv. 22-24) exposes their nothingness.”

A Modest Proposal

In light of Figure 1, if I were to translate this passage into English so that the literary structure stands out even better, there is one very minor change I would make without departing from the literal text. There are several subordinate “so that” clauses in these verses, with the conjunction translated (or not translated at all) in various ways depending on the version in question. Thus, we have:

Translation      v. 22                  v. 23a                  v. 23b                  v. 26

KJV                 that, -----          that                      that                      that, that

RSV                that, that           that                      that                      that, that

NRSV             so that, that      that                       that                      so that

JB                    -----, and         and so                   so that                  so, so

NEB                that, that          then                      ----                       that, so that

The Message   so that, ---       ------                     ----                        so, ----

Of the above renderings, only RSV clearly shows the parallel relationship between the two appearances each of this conjunction in sections B and B'. But in addition, I would have changed the translation of the two words in v. 23 to something like “so that” and “so,” respectively, in order to make it clear that these two occurrences do not indicate

WAS LOT A RIGHTEOUS MAN? (II PETER 2:7-8)

Among the many flawed human beings in the Old Testament, Abraham's nephew Lot stands out. Perhaps that is why most of the biblical references to him outside of his appearances in Genesis are simply to his descendants (Deuteronomy 2:9,19; Psalms 83:8) and to his times (Luke 17:28-32). The one strange exception is found in II Peter 2:7-8, where he is called righteous. It seems unusual because the Genesis portrait of him is by no means flattering.

As Grogan points out, “Flaws in his character first appear when he selfishly chose the well-watered Jordan valley (Gn. xiii. 8-13).” That left the less desirable land to his uncle Abraham.

In addition, Coogan notes: “Throughout these stories, Lot is portrayed as a less that heroic figure, who has no respect for his own family (Gen 19.14), is hesitant (19.16), and is tricked by his daughters.”

“In Gen. 19:7 Lot calls the Sodomites brothers...Here we see the transference of brothers from a physical to spiritual relationship.” (Gunther)

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery says, “Although Lot is judged by God to be the only righteous man there, his misguided desire for the security of the city is again reflected in his appeal to the angels as they lead him away...Within the context of the story and as evidence of the ironic attachment of Lot to a wicked and civilized lifestyle in which he lives with a bad conscience, Lot whimpers that he cannot conceive of life without at least a little 'sin city' [Zoar] as his residence.... Also, his drunken behavior after the escape demonstrates that what The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery says concerning his daughters applies just as well to Lot himself, namely, “although one can take one's children out of Sodom, one cannot take Sodom out of one's children.”

Green: “He appears simply as a man of the world (Gn. 13:10-14; 19:16) who had strayed a long way from the God of his fathers. Though hospitable (19:1f.), he was weak (19:6), morally depraved (19:8), and drunken (19:33, 35). His heart was so deeply embedded in Sodom that he had to be positively dragged out (19:16, 19). Time and again it is emphasized that his rescue was entirely due to the unmerited favor of God, which he shows to men because of what he is, not because of what they are (e.g. 19:16, 19).”

“Twice the angels command him to flee the imminent destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:17), but Lot negotiates escape to an nearby city rather than over the hills (vv. 19-20, 22).” (Hubbard)

Carson rightly critiques Morschauser's attempt to characterize Lot 'as a righteous man who acts honorably throughout' the episode in Sodom. Carson instead says, “At the very least he is living a terribly compromised existence even before the events of Gen 19...even if in consequence Lot appears more righteous than he otherwise would, he remains a flawed figure.”

But despite this overwhelmingly negative portrait given of Lot in the OT, here is what we read in the NT: “And if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds)...” (II Peter 2:7-8, RSV)

Obviously, the author believed that Lot was a righteous man, in light of the three-fold repetition of that word in these two verses. But how can that statement be justified in light of what the OT says about him? Below are several explanations given by scholarly commentators:

    1. “2 Pet. ii. 7f emphatically asserts his righteousness. It is probable that Peter is here deliberately alluding to Abraham's prayer for the 'righteous' in Sodom.” (Grogan)

This is also one of the factors that R. Harvey feels points to Lot's righteousness, “indicated by the fact that Abraham pleads for Sodom not on the grounds of having a relative there but on the grounds of the presence of righteous persons there, suggesting that in Abraham's mind Lot is one of those righteous persons to be discovered by the Lord.”

Green notes that “Jewish tradition saw Abraham's prayer for the righteous in Sodom as particularly applying to Lot, which says much for the power of intercessory prayer.”

    2. A second factor in Lot's favor includes the righteous deeds done by Lot while in Sodom. Regarding the coming of the angels to town, Ellul says, “Not only does he take them in as such, not only does he protect them with his own life and by offering his daughters' virginity, but he also blindly believes everything they say. He recognizes them (but not distinctly or explicitly) as messengers from God. He senses in them Yahweh's power on the march, and he treats and defends them as such...He was not particularly virtuous by nature – the rest of the story leaves no doubt to this effect – but he recognized the angel of the Lord, and accepted his judgment and the risks that were included in such a decision against the world, against the city.”

Reicke comments that “Christians ought likewise to stand up against the tendencies of the seducers toward ungodly, violent, and lawless living.” In a similar vein, Green adds, “It is customary for Christians today, living in a secularized society, no longer to be shocked by sinful things which they see and hear. They will, for example, without protest sit through a television program presenting material which a generation ago they would never have contemplated watching at a theater or cinema. But when a man's conscience becomes dulled to sin, and apathetic about moral standards, he is no longer willing to look to the Lord for deliverance.”

    3. Various English translations realize the inherent problem with calling Lot righteous and take refuge by translating at least one of of the appearances of dikalon (“righteous”) in Peter's letter with a somewhat weaker word such as “good” or “just” instead. See The Living Bible, KJV, Phillips, NEB, and The Message. The Jerusalem Bible's rendering of this word as “holy” conveys totally the wrong impression for most readers.

    4. Closely related to the above approaches is that of those who reason that Lot's behavior at least stood out starkly in contrast to that of the Sodomites around him. We might say that if God grades on a curve rather than using an absolute basis, Lot would have been given an A. Thus, Neyrey says that when Peter “defends Lot's just judgment, which includes rewards to the righteous, he contrasts Lot with Sodom and Gomorrah.”

“It may be partly a matter of comparison with the men of Sodom, in which case NEB's 'a good man' (a decent fellow) may be near the mark.” (Green)

“In contrast to the other inhabitants of Sodom Lot's righteousness is revealed by his hospitality to the strangers who come to his town, and his attempts to protect them, an action cynically described by his neighbors as wanting to 'play the judge' (a jibe more and more frequently aimed at Christians today (Gen 19:1-29) and indeed his actions do judge the wickedness of the townspeople.”

    5. “Why then is he called righteous here? The answer may partly lie in extra-canonical tradition; thus he is called 'the just one' in Wisdom x. 6; xix. 17 [The Wisdom of Solomon is a book in the Apocrypha].” (Green)

    6. Finally, Green also notes that some of the best manuscripts omit the article “the” in verse 8 so that, with the Latin Vulgate, the meaning would then be that Lot was “upright in what he looked at and listened to.”

Conclusion

Carson provides some apt closing remarks touching on all the above factors, beginning with a comparison of Lot with other notable OT figures: “Abraham is a man of faith, beloved by God, but he is also a liar, and the latter does not undo the former. Despite his faith, he sleeps with Hagar because he cannot at that point see how God will provide him with the promised progeny by any other means.” A similar thing can be said regarding David, a man after Gods own heart. “Also Lot: he is sufficiently a man of faith, a righteous man, that he joins his uncle Abraham in following the Lord, leaving Ur to travel they known not where. Although he makes the flawed decision to settle in the cities of the plains despite their reputation, there is no evidence that he becomes morally indistinguishable from them, and two important pieces of evidence suggest that he maintains some God-centered and righteous distinctions: (1) he listens to the angelic visitors when he is told to flee; (2) when Abraham pleads for the cities (Gen 18) by appealing to the number of 'righteous' people who may still be there, clearly he is including Lot in their number.

THOU SHALL NOT COVET? (EXODUS 20:17; DEUTERONOMY 5:21)

 An internet site critical of the Bible says, “The tenth commandment, for example, has been erroneously translated as 'thou shalt not covet'. In this case, the structure and etymology of the phrase are misleading, as the words 'covet' and 'take' in Hebrew come from the same root. It is the second word, 'take', that was originally written in the Ten Commandments.”

When one comes across such a definite statement from an anonymous online source without any justification or supporting evidence, it is prudent to investigate the issue in more detail before taking it as Gospel truth. So here are the steps I took myself:

1. The first thing I did after reading the above was to go to modern English translations and paraphrases to see how they translated the two Hebrew words in question (hmd and 'wh). The vast majority translated both words as “covet,” but the following synonyms were also found in these sources: be envious, desire, lust after, set your heart on. Not one modern version chose a synonym for “take.” Keep in mind that most translations are prepared by whole committees of experts in biblical history, theology and languages.

2. Next I decided to go to an exhaustive analytical concordance to see if the internet author was correct in stating that “covet” and “take” come from the same Hebrew root. There are a great number of words for “take” or “steal” listed there, but not one has the remotest similarity to hmd or 'wh.

3. Since the issue is one of word meanings, the next convenient sources I consulted were the multi-volume sets of the New International dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek words published by Zondervan. Many of the comments below come from articles in these valuable resources, and not one even hinted that either of the two Hebrew words in question were related to “take.”

4. Then a good thing to ask is whether the internet critic's comments even make logical sense in the first place. In looking at the Ten Commandments, one can see that there are already commands against stealing from anyone and from committing adultery with another man's wife. Since that is so, why would there be any need to add a tenth command which simply repeats those restrictions, assuming that the original word was “take” instead of “covet?”

5, Lastly, I turned to scholarly commentaries on Exodus and Deuteronomy to see what they might have to add, and it was there that I found the only hint as to the source of the internet comment.

With that general background in view, here are the detailed comments from various scholarly sources, beginning with those who generally confirm “covet” or its equivalent as the proper translation:

“Note...that in the Exodus version of the commandment about coveting (20:17), the order is house and wife (and the vb. for coveting a house and wife is hmd). By contrast, in Deut 5:21 the order is wife and house (and the vb. for coveting a wife is hmd, while that for coveting a house is 'wh).” (Hamilton)

“The root 'wh is found only in the West Semitic languages and has as its basis the notion of 'desire,' whether that be good (as in the will of Yahweh expressed by the vb. In Ps 132:13,14), bad (as in Prov 21:10), acquiring the sense of 'lust, covet' (as in Deut 5:21) or neutral (as in Deut 14:20)...In the hitp.[a particular verb form], however, a reflexive or middle voice is apparent, and the vb. itself is nuanced toward one's own person. In context it accordingly acquires the meaning 'desire selfishly, covet [lustfully]' as in Deut 5:21, where 'wh is paralleled by hmd, covet, the vb. used for both clauses of Exodus 20:17.” (W.C. Williams)

Talley comments on the Hebrew root hmd: “This vb. is also used in the form of a command, lo tnhmod (Exod 20:17 [2x]; Deut 5:21; 7:25)...These passages also point to the desire to obtain the object, rather than simply to describe or enjoy it.”

Since the condemnation of a mere thought seems to be more of a New Testament concept than one belonging in the Old Testament, that might add ammunition to the critic's comments. However, G.H. Hall notes: “On rare occasions even the desire for another woman is condemned...(Job 31:1,7-8; cf. Exod 20:17; Prov 6:25-26; Matt 5:28).”

“If the tenth commandment (Exod. 20:17) forbids such [evil] desire, it is because God desires from men not merely obedience in acts, but also in their words, thoughts, looks, efforts and wishes. He desires love from the whole heart (Deut. 6:5).” (Schoenweiss)

“You are not to 'lust for, desire obsessively.' The clear implication of this...is desire for one's own possession or use.” (Durham)

Harman: “The final word [i.e. command] is different from the others in that it is directed against inward motives rather than outward actions...It may well be that this final commandment is a summarizing one, pointing attention to the fact that desire is the root of all other sins, as all coveting comes from the heart (Prov 6:25).”

Cole disagrees with Harman's opinion and states, “It is sometimes claimed that this is the only one of the ten commandments which prohibits an attitude of mind rather than an outward act: but to make this distinction is probably to misunderstand Hebrew thought. As in the case of 'loving' and 'hating', 'desiring' is an activity, almost equivalent to 'seeking' to acquire.”

This last statement attempts to bridge the gap between those holding objective and subjective stances regarding this verse. It prepares us for a discussion with the internet comment that started out this post and deals with the probable source of that comment. The two sources quoted below in some detail come from scholars who represent very different theological backgrounds, and yet they both agree that there is no reason that “covet” should be replaced by “take.”

Durham: “An array of attempts has been made to 'reconstruct' the original form of the commandments...All such attempts are of course speculation; even though the assumption of an original list of very brief commands is probably a correct one, any precise recovery of such an Ur-[i.e. original]-form is not possible, given the information available to us...The question whether the verb may also suggest action as well as desire, particularly since the other nine commandments appear to command specific actions, has complicated the understanding of the tenth commandment...In every OT passage in which 'desire' leads to actual possession, a second verb is supplied to make that additional meaning clear...Just as the first commandment 'You are not to have other gods,' provides the foundation for covenantal relationship, so this tenth commandment 'You are not to desire for yourself..,' describes the foundation for the severance of covenantal relationship...The tenth commandment thus functions as a kind of summary commandment, the violation of which is a first step that can lead to a violation of any one or all the rest of the commandments. As such, it is necessarily all-embracing and descriptive of an attitude rather than a deed.”

Childs reviews in detail the arguments pro and con regarding whether the prohibition in Exodus and Deuteronomy refers to a subjective attitude or an objective action. He concludes: “The Deuteronomic substitution of the verb hit 'awweh did not mark a qualitative difference of approach which had the effect of internalizing a previous action-oriented commandment. Here a false interpretation of Israel's religious development is also at work. Rather, the Deuteronomic recension simply made more explicit the subjective side of the prohibition which was already contained in the original command. Moran has provided a good check against basing an interpretation of an commandment too much upon a reconstructed historical transformation, the different stages of which have been exaggerated.”

 

ABRAHAM, FRIEND OF GOD (II CHRONICLES 20:7)

 

Abraham, Friend of God (II Chronicles 20:7)

After working for many years in in the corporate world, I have learned the great importance of having friends in high places. Below are some of the scriptural references concerning those who had such high friends, lost such friends, or aspired to have them.

II Chronicles 20:7

This is where the phrase “friend of God” first appears in the Bible, and in this case it refers to Abraham. As important as this verse is, there are still different understandings regarding the reason Abraham was given that distinction, as witnessed below:

“Because of Abraham's faithful obedience, he was known not only as God's 'servant' (Gen 26:24; Ps 105:6,42), but also as his 'friend' (2 Chron 20:7; Isa 41:8).” (Verhoef) This understanding seems to link being chosen with Abraham's prior act of obedience.

“Abraham played a role as intercessor for the nations, and this was traced in Genesis 18 to his status as confidante of God. This status, afforded to only one other individual in the history of Israel (Moses, in Ex 33:11), may be reflected in two instances outside of Genesis in which Abraham is called 'the friend of God' (2 Chron 20:7; Is 41:8).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery) Here the primary cause of the choice of Abraham is left unsaid.

Isaiah 4:8

Finally, regarding this repetition of the choosing, Oswalt states, “Here we are introduced for the first time to the concept of God's 'servant,' which is especially frequent in this part of the book...It is evident that servant is intended to be an encouraging term here by its connection with the vocabulary of election. Israel, like Abraham, Moses, and David has been especially chosen to serve God. That chosen servanthood extends in a straight line back through their ancestors to Abraham, himself, the prototype of election (see Chr. 16:13 and Ps. 105:6). my friend (lit. 'my lover' or 'my beloved') suggests that election is not an austere, judicial act but is rooted and grounded in love, both the love of God for the chosen and the love of the chosen for God. Thus, as those particularly chosen to serve God, offspring of his unique friend (2 Chr. 20:7; Jas. 2:23), they have nothing to fear (John 15:14-15).”

Here we have the cooperative nature of being chosen or saved – it involves actions on the part of both God and man. To attempt to assign a priority of importance to one or the other of these actions while excluding the other entirely is not really justified by Scripture.

Exodus 33:11

The next person in the Bible to claim such a high status is Moses. This verse states: “The LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.” The phrase 'face to face' should probably not be taken literally since soon after this statement, we read in v. 18 that Moses requests to actually see God's presence. This close relationship between these two parties is reemphasized in Numbers 12:7-8 and Deuteronomy 34:10-12 where the phrase 'face to face' is repeated.

Thus, we have the following comments from scholars:

Ramm: “A commentary on this is found in Numbers 12:8...These passages reveal a directness of communication not experienced by any other prophet in the history of Israel. Moses was in no trance, nor ecstatic state but the communication was a direct as possible.”

Cole: “God will speak to Moses 'mouth to mouth', that is to say, not in dreams or visions, but clearly and directly. Moses had the gift of clarity of spiritual insight: he shared the very counsels of God.”

Matthew 26:50

This is perhaps the most confusing usage of “friend” in the Bible since it is the term Jesus uses to address Judas just after He has been given the infamous kill of betrayal. France best explains the situation by saying, “This form of address is peculiar to Matthew in the NT; cf 20:13; 22:12. In each case there is an element of reproach and of distance, which is hard to reproduce in any accepted English idiom. 'My friend,' taken in its lexical sense, is too warm and welcoming, but we do sometimes us it in this rather formal way to address someone who is not in fact a friend at all. In all three Matthean uses it 'denotes a mutually binding relation between the speaker and the hearer which the latter has disregarded and scorned' (K. H. Rengstorf). The comment of Davies and Allison that 'Jesus remains friendly to his betrayer' depends more on the lexical meaning of hetairos than on the idiom as it is used in Matthew. R. E. Brown stresses the ironic function of the term here and in its other Matthean uses.”

John 11:11

Jesus tells his disciples, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep,” referring to his death. Culpepper notes, “Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are identified as those whom Jesus loved (11:3,5). The only other individual in John of whom it is said that Jesus loved him is the Beloved Disciple. Lazarus is also a 'friend' (11:11; cf. 15:13-15; 3:29). Since the raising of Lazarus is the final offense which sets in motion the plot to kill Jesus – and he was well aware that it would be (11:7, 8, 16) – Jesus actually lays down his life for a friend by returning to bring life to Lazarus (cf. 15:13).”

John 15:14-15

In this address of Jesus to his apostles, He says that they are now friends, not servants of his, since He has made known to them all that He received from the Father.

“Having introduced in the previous verse the subject of genuine friendship...John now employs the noun philoi to spell out the implications or basic requirements of such friendship. They are exactly the same obedience requirements as those (15:10) for abiding in his love (agape). It is therefore imperative to avoid the frequent mistake of highlighting differences between agapan and philein in John. The point of the verse is that obedience to the commands of Jesus defines what it means to be his friends...But neither in the Old Testament nor the New Testament is God or Jesus referred to as the friend of humans in the manner of the gospel song 'What a Friend We Have in Jesus.' Such a thought probably would be regarded by the biblical writers as too debasing of God or Jesus.” (Borchert)

John 19:12

Those wishing to have Jesus crucified attempt, successfully, frighten Pontius Pilate by saying that he is no friend of Caesar if he acquits Him. The exact import of this comment is somewhat ambiguous and has given rise to the following diverse opinions. It is not necessary, however, to choose between them since they both have good ideas to share.

Keener: “One of the most common political uses of 'friendship' in our literary sources refers to political dependence on a royal patron...In the Roman period it applies especially to friendship with Caesar..., although of Jewish tetrarchs and rulers, apparently only King Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-2) felt secure enough to adopt this title on his coins. John 19:12 probably refers to this position of honor.”

Morris: “Some hold that 'Caesar's friend' is used in a technical sense, but this seems unlikely. It is a general term for a loyal supporter of Rome. The Jews are maintaining that there is an antagonism between Jesus and Caesar. Again we have John's irony, for there is a sense in which this is true, though not in the sense in which the Jews meant it.”

James 2:23

As an apt conclusion to this subject, Tasker brings together several of these passages as he discusses this NT verse:

“The words here quoted from Gn xv. 6, Abraham believed,and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, though they referred specifically to something that happened thirty years before the incident narrated in Gn. xxii, are nevertheless regarded as being fulfilled in Abraham's readiness to sacrifice Isaac, for there is a sense in which they were prophetic of that event.

“James also draws upon further Scripture proof in his desire to underline the reality of the righteousness imputed to Abraham. He was called the Friend of God. In 2 Ch. xx. 7 Abraham is called God's 'friend for ever'; and in Is xli. 8 God calls Israel 'the seed of Abraham my friend'. The meaning of the expression 'friend of God' seems to be that God did not hide from Abraham what He proposed to do (see Gn. xviii. 17). Abraham was privileged to see something of the great plan which God was working out in history. He rejoiced to see the day of the Messiah (see Jn. viii. 56). Similarly, because Jesus unfolded to His apostles, particularly in the discourses in the Upper Room at Jerusalem, the divine secrets entrusted to Him, He was able to call them His friends. 'Henceforth', He said, 'I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you' (Jn. xv. 15).

“The meaning is certainly not that Abraham 'earned the title of God's friend' because of his readiness to sacrifice Isaac, as R. A. Knox's translation states; any more than we should infer that the apostles of Jesus earned by their obedience the right to be initiated into the secrets of the divine will, and so be styled Jesus' 'friends'. Both in the case of Abraham and of the apostles it was entirely due to divine grace that they were able to receive a title of such honor and dignity.”