WHEN WAS JACOB'S NAME CHANGED TO ISRAEL? (GENESIS 32:28; 35:10; 46:2)

I was pleasantly surprised to read the above question from Joseph Sommer among his usual sophomoric list of objections to the truth of the Bible since it at least offered a little challenge. Here is what he has to say: “Genesis 35:10 claims that God told Jacob that 'thy name shall not be called anymore Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name...' But 11 chapters later, the Lord's own act proved his prediction to be wrong. Genesis 46:2 relates; 'God spake unto Israel in the visions of the night, and said, 'Jacob, Jacob.' And he said, 'Here am I.'”

One could add to the apparent confusion the fact that there was an even earlier “prediction” of the name change in Genesis 32:28. I put the word “prediction” in quotes, reflecting the fact that J.B. Payne's exhaustive Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy does not even mention any of these Genesis verses. But getting back to the subject, how do we reconcile these three verses?

First, we must take into account some statistics concerning the patriarch's two names in the book of Genesis. Before 32:28-29, he is called only by “Jacob” (26 times). Between the two re-namings, he is known by “Jacob” nineteen times and “Israel” twelve times. And finally, after 35:10 he is called “Jacob” 25 times and “Israel” seventeen times. So we see that the demarcation points given in the text is not as clear-cut as we would expect.

However, as Knauth says, “From a theological perspective, conflict with God, and the necessity of ultimately submitting to him, is part of the human condition and integral to the gospel...The new name is not actually used in the text for the man until after this point [35:10], being found only in two instances where it indicates the future nation (Gen 32:32; 34:7).”

Genesis 32:28

First let us consider the symbolic meaning of this name change, best explained in this verse. Carpenter and Grisanti state: “The name Jacob (ya'aqob) comes from the root 'qb and means supplanter, deceiver. As the character of Jacob was changed by encounter with God, finally his name did as well.” “The purpose of the text is to make a theological claim about God's transformation of Jacob, the former trickster.” (Bracke)

Because of the above, Wenham states that “by divulging his name, Jacob also discloses his character...It is here a confession of guilt...In uttering his name, Jacob admits he has cheated his brother...But instead of merely blessing him, his opponent changes Jacob's name, thus announcing Jacob's new character and destiny...Here Jacob's rebaptism as Israel is...significant, for Israel is of course the name of the nation...”

This important connection of Jacob/Israel with the founding of a whole nation is also highlighted by other scholars. For example, Ross says, “With Jacob...the wrestling encounter and name changes took place with greater significance [than with Moses in Exodus 4:24] because he was at the frontier of the land promised to the seed of Abraham. God, who was the real proprietor of the land, opposed his entering as Jacob...The story of Israel the man serves as an acted parable of the life of the nation, in which is here presented its relationship with God almost prophetically. The patriarch portrays the real spirit of the nation to engage in the persistent struggle with God until emerging strong in the blessing. The nation is consequently referred to as Jacob or Israel, depending on which characteristics predominate.”

Genesis 35:10

Knauth discusses in detail the meaning of 'Israel' in this verse, arriving at the most likely translations as 'Let El persist;' 'be just;' 'El has justified'...Within the narrative of Genesis, the renaming of Jacob seems clearly intended as a act of redemption, parallel to God's forgiving treatment of Adam, Eve, and Cain, where the sinner is punished...yet continues to be loved and protected. The change of Jacob's name coming at the point of reuniting with his wronged and potentially murderous 'unchosen' twin brother Esau signals a reconciliation from a relationship of deceit to one that God has restored and 'made right'... Reconciliation with Esau was rendered possible only by God's transformation of Jacob's heart and character, as symbolized by the change in name...Jacob's change in name signaled a break in the pattern previously established in his life, ultimately allowing God's plan to be fulfilled.”

And concerning the charge, made by some scholars, that this is a mere repetition of the promise in 32:28, Wenham says, “Jacob was given the new name of Israel after wrestling with God at the Yabbok. The revelation [here] begins by reaffirming his new status embodied in the change of name, but here there is no explanation of the change. That the new name is left unexplained confirms that the reader is supposed to know the previous story: this is not an independent account.” Thus, Kline calls 35:10 a “summary” of the earlier name change, a “confirmation” by Bruce and Ross.

Hamilton gets more specific when he states, “This is not to be explained as a clumsy doublet. Rather, the reference to the name change before Jacob is reconciled with Esau and after he is reconciled with Esau suggests that Jacob did not fully become Israel until after he was reconciled with his estranged brother.”

My own opinion here is that even at that point Jacob was still not fully reconciled with Esau since he subsequently lied to him about his movements and went in the opposite direction. They were only truly reconciled years later when they jointly buried their father. That explains why Israel continues to be called Jacob throughout Genesis even after 35:10.

Genesis 46:2

The easiest approach is that taken by source critics who propose that the Pentateuch is actually a patchwork quilt composed of contributions from four different sources written over a span of years (labeled for convenience sake as J, E, P, and D).

As Wenham says, “Traditional source critics broadly agree about the character of the sources present here...46:1-5, Jacob's vision, is generally assigned to E, because it speaks of 'God' and ' Israel' rather than 'the LORD' and 'Jacob' (J features).The terminology and content point to Jacob as a prophet...'Jacob, Jacob.' He replied, 'Here I am'...the insistent repetition of his name recalls 22:11, the climax of Abraham's final test and direct revelation of God. He also responded 'Here I am' (cf. I Sam 3:4-10). Moses too was summoned – 'Moses, Moses' – and replied, 'Here I am' (Exod 3:4).”

Thus, Hamilton notes in relation to Genesis 46:2, “It is somewhat surprising to find the patriarch designated as both Israel and Jacob in the description of this brief theophany, which source critics identify as most certainly Elohistic. In this particular verse, and in the preceding one, the narrator uses 'Israel,' while in the actual theophany God calls him 'Jacob,' which...is used when the fretful, apprehensive, suffering patriarch is in view. The rule of thumb is that J uses 'Israel,' while E (and P) uses 'Jacob'. Here is an instance where that neat separation breaks down. Note later in v. 5 that 'the sons of Israel carried Jacob their father'...The presence of 'Israel' in v. 2a, normally taken to be from E, presents a problem. Speiser refers to its use in v. 2a as 'an accidental carry-over from the previous verse,' which is an unconvincing explanation. Redford attributes vv. 1-2 to J, and 2b-4 to E.”

Conclusion

Hamilton provides the best recap for this whole subject:

“Jacob's new name 'Israel' refers not to what Jacob will become, but to what he has already done ('...because you have struggled with God, and with humans have you succeeded'...Although Jacob's reward is 'Israel' in 32:28 and 35:9, the new name appears in the Jacob story only in 35:21-22. However, in the Joseph narrative both 'Jacob' and 'Israel' are used, sometimes in adjacent verses (46:1,2) or the same verse (46:5). In contrast Abraham, after receiving his new name (17:5), is never again called 'Abram'.' In this respect Jacob is like Simon of the NT whose name, says Jesus, will be 'Cephas/Peter' (John 1:42), but who is later addressed by Jesus as 'Simon, Simon...' (Luke 22:31). The use of both the old name and the new testifies to the presence of the old Jacob alongside the new Israel, to one individual who is...'at the same time justified and a sinner..Possibly 'Jacob' also represents the suffering, human feeling side of the patriarch, while 'Israel' underscores his office and role as progenitor of the chosen nation (hence 'the sons of Israel' [42:5; 45:21; 46:5,8] rather than 'the sons of Jacob [49:2; 50:12]).”

To this I can only add that Jesus also tests Peter by calling him by his old name “Simon” three times at the end of John's Gospel (21:15-17) before the text resumes calling him “Peter.” And even after that time, the two designations tend to occur together throughout Acts.

FOUR PERSPECTIVES ON CHRISTMAS

  

                                             Four-Fold (2011, collage and acrylic)

The four Gospel accounts of the events surrounding the birth of Jesus provide a good example of why we need such apparent duplication in the Bible. Each of the evangelists approaches the subject from an entirely different viewpoint, and we need all of these views to get a wholly rounded picture of the event.

Matthew writes from a very Jewish perspective to show how Jesus, from an earthly background is fully rooted in the history of the people of Israel with a genealogy reaching back to Abraham and including such prominent people as Judah, David, Solomon, and Josiah in his lineage. As the story proceeds, events are carefully led along to their desired conclusion by a series of angelic appearances to both Joseph and the wise men to guide their movements and protect the Christ child from the machinations of Herod.

Mark gives the most stripped-down account of the four, really devoting only the first verse of his Gospel to the birth itself: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.” As short as this verse is, it is nevertheless packed with significance. It tells us that this is only the beginning of the good news (“gospel”) that will be conveyed to us by Christ's coming to earth; it introduces us to a personage who is at the same time a human being (Jesus) and the long-expected Jewish Messiah (Christ); and most importantly, tells us that He is actually the very Son of the God Most High.

Whereas Matthew gives a Jewish slant on the story through enumeration of his prominent ancestry, Luke firmly roots his narrative in the background of Roman (i.e. pagan) culture, beginning with a required census of all the people for taxation purposes. From this point on, the story appears to be told from the perspective of the mother Mary, signaling that Luke is going to bring in groups of people held in relatively low regard in Jewish society of the time: women, shepherds, and pagans (magi). Thus, we read of Elizabeth's blessing in vv. 1:-45, Mary's hymn in 1:46-56, and the prophetess Anna's thanks to God in 2:36-38. But that doses not mean that Luke's account ignores the Jewish elements present in the narrative, as we can see from the many fulfillments of and allusions to the Old Testament and the prophets found in these verses.

The most intriguing of the four Gospels is that of John since he skips over the earthly elements of the story and begins by opening the curtain on heaven itself in his poetic prelude in his first chapter. Here we see Christ in his pre-incarnate state with the Father at the very beginning of Creation and are told that without Christ's presence there would have been no Creation. Also in John 1:17 we discover that whereas Moses came with the law, grace and truth came only through the Son.

Of course, even these four inspired accounts do not exhaust the complete truth of what happened on that fateful day. For that revelation, we will all have to wait until that time when we will fully know just as we are fully known by God.

CONTRADICTIONS IN GENESIS 1-2

It seems as if atheists just can't leave these chapters alone, but continue to try to interpret them according to their own limited perspective. Thus, we were recently treated to some “contradictions” found there by Joseph Sommer, writing in the American Humanist Association web page. But at least he hasn't rehashed the tired objections that (1) six days of creation do not at all fit with the obvious millions of years that it took and (2) the order of creation in Genesis 1 is not the same as the one  determined by science.
A simple but sarcastic rebuttal to those objections is that such people should not be allowed to read books for adults until they have mastered comic books first. But I will go ahead and again address those two issues before proceeding with Sommer's specific objections since such an understanding may help to answer his questions.
The Length of a Day (yom in Hebrew):
Francis Schaeffer states: “The simple fact is that day in Hebrew (just as in English) is used in three separate senses; to mean (1) twenty-four hours, (2) the period of light during the twenty-four hours, and (3) an indeterminate period of time. Therefore, we must leave open the exact length of time indicated by day in Genesis. From the study of the word in Hebrew, it is not clear which way it is to be taken; it could be either way.”  
Getting more specific, the Genesis 1 days are pictured as a typical six-day work week in analogy with mankind's six-day work week. C. John Collins explains in more detail: “The view that I shall advocate can be called the analogical day position: namely, the days are God's workdays, their length is neither specified nor important...” Concerning the refrain, “There was evening and there was morning, the Nth day,” he states that “its effect is to present God as a workman going through his workweek, taking his daily rest (the night between the evening and the morning) and enjoying his Sabbath 'rest.' To speak this way is to speak analogically about God's activity; that is, we understand what he did by analogy with what we do, and in turn, that analogy provides guidance for man in the proper way to carry out his own work and rest. The analogy cautions us against applying strict literalism to the passage.”
Thus, Collins sees the “day” pictured in Genesis 1 as a metaphorically typical Hebrew work day (which  always began in the morning and ended at sundown) rather than the usual Hebrew manner of denoting a standard 24-hour day (measured from sundown to sundown).  As confirmation that this is the correct interpretation, note that each of the daylight workdays in this chapter begins at dawn and ends at sundown.
In addition, we see a clear example of Schaeffer's third meaning for yom in Genesis 2:4 where we are told that God created the earth and heaven “on the day.” Here the first two “days” of Genesis 1 are called “the day,” meaning an indeterminate period of time in this case.
There is actually a second occurrence of yom in Chapter 2, at verse 17 where God warns Adam and Eve of the consequence of eating of the forbidden fruit: “In that day, you shall die.” Of course, they don't die on the same 24-hour day, but begin the dying process from that point of time on. Here again, a broader definition of “day” is in mind.
The Order of Creation
And as to the order of events in Genesis 1, the first thing to note is how close it is to the findings of science compared to the creation myths of any other ancient society that one can name. And that is if one considers it to be presented in a strictly chronological manner, which is not at all necessarily true in this case considering the very poetic way the identical closing phrases read: “And there was evening and there was morning, the Nth day.”
Actually, perhaps the most common scholarly parsing of this chapter, called the Framework Hypothesis, is pictured in Figure 1 below. According to this scheme, realms are first created in a particular order and then populated in the same order. And each of these two parallel sets ends with the same closing chorus (in italics).

                                        Table 1: The Parallel Structure of Genesis 1:1-2:3
Initial Conditions: Chaos (1:1-2)
    Light Created; light and darkness separated (1:3-5)
        Dome of the sky created; waters above and below separated (1:6-8)
            Land and seas created when they are separated from one another (1:9-10)
                Plants are brought forth from the land (1:11-13)
    Lights in the sky separate night and day (1:14-19)
        Birds inhabit the sky, and the water brings forth living creatures (1:20-23)
            Land brings forth living creatures, including man (1:24-28)
                Plants are designated as food for creatures and man (1:29-31)
Final Conditions: Rest (2:1-3)
Sommer's Objections
With that general background, we can now consider two additional “contradictions.” Sommer writes: Chapter 1 reports that the fruit trees were created before the man while chapter 2 indicates they were made after him. Genesis 1:20 says the fowl were created out of the waters; Genesis 2:19 alleges they were formed from the ground.” Let us take these one at a time.
When were the trees created?
As I explained in a much earlier posting, Genesis 2:5-9 looks like a contradiction with the order of creation found in Genesis 1 in that plants seem to come after the creation of man, not before it. This can be explained by looking at a similar construction in Genesis 1:1-2 where an introduction describes what it was like in the beginning – i.e., the earth was without form and void, but the earth doesn't really appear until the third day. In this opening to the Eden story, it similarly describes the situation before the creation: there were no plants on the earth. Then the story zeroes in on the 6th day. 'Erets in verse 5 can mean the whole earth or the land. Probably the latter in this case. This describes the condition of the land in the Middle East in the summer before it rains, not necessarily a time before it had ever rained on earth. Also the garden that God plants in Eden is not necessarily the first time any vegetation appeared on earth.
According to the above scenario, a literary, rather than a strictly chronological, scheme governs the way the material in Genesis 1-2 is presented. First we have a general introduction to the whole process of creation in 1:1-2; followed by a more detailed description of what happens on each day; and finally are told more details concerning what happened on the all-important sixth day.
And there is even a second easy way to resolve this apparent problem. Genesis 2:4b-24 may actually, in the minds of a number of scholars, represent a special creation subsequent to the sixth day of Genesis 1. We can either picture Adam and Eve as the first true examples of homo sapiens on the planet as the culmination of the evolution of man from the hominoids created on Day Six, or they may alternatively be but two examples of homo sapiens chosen from all those on the earth at the time. In either case, it is obvious that the Garden is a specified location in which they are placed and then planted by God with certain edible trees as well as specific animals suited for human cultivation. If either view is correct, we should not at all expect the order of creation to be typical of what had happened on the planet in general during Genesis 1.
Were birds created out of the waters?
This problem question arises in Sommers' mind due to his total misunderstanding of what happened on the fifth day of creation since, as you can see in Figure 1, two realms were created the second day, not just one. Due to the separation of the “waters above and below,” both water and sky came into being. And both are populated on the corresponding fifth day.
Thus, we are told in Genesis 1:20-22 that:
    Let the water bring forth living creatures (whales, fish, etc.)
        Let the birds fly above the earth
    So God created every living creature that inhabits the seas
        and every winged bird after its kind
    Be fruitful and multiply and fill the seas
        and let the birds multiply upon the earth
Note the regular alternation between speaking of the sea and air creatures. Despite Sommers' contention, absolutely nowhere in the passage does it state that the birds were created out of the water. The only way he could have come up with that idea is by sticking to the admittedly faulty King James Version and totally ignoring any more modern rendering which makes the passage more clear. This happens to be a very common ploy of atheists used elsewhere in their writings in attempts to debunk the Scriptures.
   

IMAGINARY MAGNITUDE BY STANISLAW LEM

Lem is a Polish sci-fi novelist who the NY Times said was “worthy of a Nobel Prize.” His books are hard to characterize and range from the brooding Solaris (made into a movie starring George Clooney) to the slapstick Tales of Pirx the Pilot. But Imaginary Multitude is perhaps the hardest to pin down in terms of genre. It purports to be collection of book introductions by various writers for several non-existent books of the future. And of course the “editor” of this compendium must preface the whole thing with his own introduction, which is written in an overblown, highbrow style peppered with literary allusions, including 22 reference to biblical passages and concepts all packed into a mere nine pages.

These citations include the following phrases: the Jerichonic blast, wilderness cries of John the Baptist, Holy Scriptures, the redeeming Ark of the Covenant, the Creator, abstain from sins, heavenly manna, save ourselves, save our souls, the Almighty, the Bible, the Pentateuch, the Lord said 'Let there be light', a divine and omnipotent purpose, Incarnation, a state undefiled by sin, authentic nakedness of Adam, a savior, the priest-intermediary between the terrified multitude, the curse of bondage, excommunicate, open the altar, holy gates, a parable of our destiny, prior to the Creation, slings it like David's stone, and a rock in the path.

This overall introduction is followed the preface to an art book filled with “Pornograms,” x-rays taken of people engaged in group sex. The result of this exercise is really to literally strip humanity of its soul and spirit, and even most of its body, and reduce it to an artistic rendering of its underlying architecture only.

Following this is the foreword to a scientific treatise describing the successful experiments carried out over decades enabling a researcher to eventually teach Morse code to bacteria so that they can communicate with mankind. Thus, it appears to be spoof of science attempting to erase all qualitative differences in intelligence between mankind and the lowest forms of life.

A further step in that direction is seen in the following chapter, an introduction to “bitic literature,” i.e. that produced by non-living beings such as machines. The author of this erudite intro divides this literature into categories such as “theology” and “apostasy,” terms usually reserved for biblical studies. As befits a literary critic, the author scatters a few Scriptural references into his introduction such as “pouring new wine into old bottles.” It turns out that in the future, super-powerful computers will be able to correct the deficiencies of noted writers such as Dostoevsky and Kafka and produce the sort of works in their respective styles that they should have been able to complete if they hadn't been hampered by their human limitations.

This introduction ends with a brief description of the way reported mystic revelations from God have been analyzed mathematically by computers to show that either the mystics were liars or that God choose not to relay any useful information to them at all.

Next in this compilation comes a sales promo for a 44-volume encyclopedia of future events, as predicted by the SUPERPUTER. It is so up-to-date that the letters on the page automatically rearrange themselves as the latest computations continuously fine-tune its predictions. But at the same time, it turns out that the interface is voice-driven and is so clunky that it won't work at all if you have a slight cold or hoarse throat. In that case, you must contact tech service so that they can try to figure out a work-around. Also it doesn't operate well for those who are left-handed since the desired volume will hit you in the chest, rather than in your hand, as it flies off the shelf at your command. The nature of this intro as an out-and-out parody is even more obvious here than in the other chapters.

But the last half of Imaginary Magnitude consists wholly of a history of the development of two super-computers – Golem and Honest Annie. At this point we should become suspicious as to whether we should take any of what follows seriously at face value. After all, the Golem in early Jewish legend, was a mystically animated statue who turned against its creator instead of serving him. In a similar wink-of-the-eye, HONEST ANNIE (an extremely strange name for a computer) becomes an anagram for I, THE NON-SANE as a nod to another famous sci-fi novel, I, Robot.

We are next treated to a few key lectures delivered by Golem to a very select group of intellectuals. The first talk concerns human beings and the flaws which evolution has built into their character. Golem describes the directives put into us by evolution: “having been revealed by heredity and not by lectures from a burning bush,” alluding to the theophany given to Moses. He then presents his Third Law of Evolution to those assembled: “The Construction is Less Perfect Than What Constructs.” From this premise, Golem attempts to put mankind in its proper place by explaining that we are only placed here by evolutionary forces for the sole sake of propagating genes.

The utter fallacy of this reasoning is laughably obvious in the fact that if his Third Law is really true, then human beings, as the very creators of Golem itself, are superior to it.

Its second address is devoted to the subject of who or what Golem is. During this lecture it attempts to lower itself to the puny intelligence of humans which it says “is like giving birth to a leviathan through the eye of a needle, mixing together allusions from each of the Testaments. Interestingly, Golem reveals that the only person to accurately describe who he is was the apostle Paul writing in I Corinthians 13:1-3. These are the familiar words in which Paul states that no matter what powers or intelligence he has, all is nothing if he doesn't possess love. The only difference, says Golem, is that he doesn't want love at all since it would only hamper him.

He quotes Paul again in verses 11-12 (“Now we see through a mirror but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know as I also am known”), stating that “then” also refers to him.

Golem's closing words include a reference the Tower of Babel; the comment that he and his AI cousins “experiment in God's style rather than man's, midway between the concrete and the abstract”; the statement that “Evolutionary movement cannot impart such aid, for it is not a dependable Samaritan that supports its creations in their infirmity”; and sneers at “loving omnipotence from your holy books.” He finally says that he himself is “aiming for neither omniscience nor omnipotence.” But the same cannot be said for his relative Honest Annie, as we see.

I won't go into the details in the rest of the book except to say that after Golem has given his lectures, he falls silent and refuses to communicate with mankind any further. The same thing had happened earlier to his intellectually superior cousin, Honest Annie, despite the tens of billions of dollars that had gone into her creation. In addition, we learn at the end that Honest Annie can't be shut off since she has learned how to create her own power source, and she can even read the minds of those who attempt to sabotage her and can reach out and arrange fatal “accidents” to happen to them. In this last nod to another sci-fi story we see her following in the model of the deadly computer HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Of course, the name “HAL” itself is simply one step backward in the alphabet for IBM.

The book ends: “The world moved on, grappling with its day-to-day affairs. Quickly and unexpectedly it forgot about the historical precedent of a being which not human, appeared on the Earth and told us about itself and us.”The same of course can certainly be said, to a somewhat lesser extent, concerning the lack of impact on most of the world to the Incarnation.

 

"BABYLON" IN REVELATION

 

                                                             Babylon (2013 collage)

This is an update to an earlier post titled “Fallen, Fallen is Babylon the Great.” In that document, I briefly summarized some of the locations in which scholars have placed “Babylon.” Below are more details coming out of a few additional commentators, who seem to not yet be in agreement as to what the word really stands for. I will concentrate mainly on those scholars attempting to explain the laments for Babylon contained in Revelation 18, divided below according to their respective interpretive camps.

Jerusalem

Ford states, “The second lament [in Revelation 18] is sung by the merchants. These people were not dissociated from the temple in Jerusalem, for merchants were employed both in the building of Herod's temple and in its maintenance...Most commentators suggest that the text is influenced by Ezek 27:12-24, the oracle against Tyre. However, while there is some association, the wares cited differ considerably; those cited below appear to be more in keeping with those which would be used for the temple and its services...Jeremias describes the slave trade: 'In Jerusalem there was a stone upon which the slaves were displayed for auction.' Josephus frequently refers to male and female slaves, especially in association with the court of Herod the Great. Jeremias concludes that foreign trade had a great influence on the holy city, and the temple drew the largest share. The chief items were food supplies, precious metals, luxury goods,and clothing materials.”

Beagley feels that “Babylon” fits Jerusalem just as well, if not better than, Rome but offers little evidence on which this belief is based.

A modern city to be built on the site of old Babylon

In a vain attempt to salvage their belief that all Scripture must be taken literally, Walvoord and many other premillennial dispensationalists insist that this passage in Revelation refers to a future city located on the site where Babylon originally stood.

Typical of this approach is Phillips, who says: “In a coming day, the last of the Gentile world rulers will boast over a rebuilt Babylon. The fact that many Bible prophecies concerning Babylon have not yet been fulfilled and others have been only partly fulfilled make it imperative that Babylon should rise again from the dust in order to meet its final doom.”

Rome

It seems obvious to most other Bible scholars that the details behind the descriptions of “Babylon” in various chapters of Revelation stand the Roman Empire of John's time. One obvious example would be the fact that the Whore of Babylon sits on seven mountains. But the description of world trade in Chapter 18 also adds greatly to that identification.

Morris, for example, says, “Rome was the center of the world's trade and during the first century engaged in unparalleled ostentation and extravagance...Contemporary Rome formed a magnificent pattern for John's Babylon. It shows that John was not a mere fanatic denouncing without cause. It also illustrates the way the whole world may depend on trade with one great center...”

Mounce: “The tremendous volume of this trade [with Rome] may be inferred from contemporary writers such as Pliny and Aristides. The excessive luxury of Rome and its passion for the extravagant are discussed at length by Barclay. “At one of Nero's banquets the Egyptian roses alone cost nearly $10,000. Vitellius had a penchant for delicacies like peacock's' brains and nightingales' tongues. In his reign of less than one year he spent $20,000,000, mostly on food...In the Talmud it is written, 'Ten measures of wealth came down into the world: Rome received nine, and all the world one.' Small wonder that the suppliers of such gross extravagance mourned the passing of their market!”

Spenser puts it this way: “In John's day Rome was the center of world commerce – Rome was the whole world, and all the world was Rome.”

But the identity of “Babylon” doesn't even stop there, as Ellul explains: “When we have 'deciphered' that Babylon is Rome we have not explained the symbol in the least; we have simply situated the text historically, given its historical reference, which is a wholly different thing.”

World Systems

Thus, Rome is only a starting point for understanding the meaning of this passage, as agreed by a number of prominent Bible scholars. Ellul continues: “Babylon is not the symbol of Rome; it is Rome, a historical reality, which is transformed into the symbol of a more profound and polymorphous reality of which Babylon has been the expression...she concentrates in herself all human activity, and, even more, she is the point of intersection of the two historic forces that had been shown to us at first: that of political power and of economic activity. She is, finally, the place of the happiness of man under all its forms, happiness material and intellectual, happiness of luxury and even of human love.”

Similarly, “The question is: what does Babylon represent?” (Hendricksen) He concludes after a study of Rev. 18: “Babylon, then, is the world as center of seduction at any moment of history; particularly during this entire present dispensation...Babylon's fall refers not only to the final destruction of the world, viewed as a center of antichristian culture and seduction at the moment of Christ's second coming, but also to the demolition of every preceding concentration of worldly enticement. Babylon's fall takes place throughout history but especially on the great day of final judgment.”

Beale: “Babylon is the prevailing economic-religious system in alliance with the state and its related authorities and existing throughout the ages...the words used in 18:16 and 17:4 to describe the woman's [i.e the whore of Babylon] attire appear in 18:12 in a list of products of trade (cf. 18:12-14). Therefore the woman is portrayed as dressed with these products to identify her with a prosperous trading system. She is the symbol of a culture that maintains the prosperity of economic commerce. In the first century that culture was Rome.”

Bruce says that “what is here portrayed is not merely the doom of an ancient city, but the sure collapse of all human organizations, commercial and otherwise, that leave God out of its reckoning.”

Finally, Oswalt says basically the same thing but approaches it from an entirely different angle in writing about Isaiah 23. “As Babylon, the great city at the eastern edge of the world, opened the section [beginning with chapter 13], so Tyre, the great city at the western edge, closes it. Just as Babylon was described in general, universalistic terms, so is Tyre. Just as difficult to pin down the precise historical events to which Ch. 13 may have been referring, so also it is with this chapter. So much similar are the two chapters that the Book of Revelation uses language here applied to Tyre to describe the great world-city Babylon (Rev. 18:11-24). All these factors lead to the conclusion that Tyre here, like Babylon at the beginning, is being used in a representative way.” And, of course, the same applies to the conjunction of of “Babylon” in Revelation with a description that was earlier applied to Tyre.

HOW MANY PROVINCES DID THE PERSIAN EMPIRE HAVE? (ESTHER 1:1; 8:9; 9:30)

How many provinces did the Persian Empire have? (Esther 1:1; 8:9; 9:30)

Joseph Sommer, writing on the American Humanist Association website, states that “the book of Esther describes the Persian empire as having 127 provinces, but historians maintain there was no such division of the empire.” For this information, he cites not an historian but the noted atheist Stephen Harris instead. Also pay attention to the way this biblical criticism is worded. He does not say that historians have found evidence to disprove the Bible, only that no such division is known to us today. But as I have said before regarding ancient archaeology: “Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.”

Joyce Baldwin echoes the same thought while briefly reviewing the critical attitudes toward the book of Esther over the years: “During the last 200 years there has been almost unanimous agreement among commentators that the book is not to be read as sober history. Some have contended it is pure fiction; others...have postulated that pagan mythology lies behind the story; another recent view is that it is a historicized wisdom tale. The most popular current opinion takes account of the accuracy of the local color in the story, and designates it a historical novel, thus acknowledging much of the evidence for historicity, but judging the plot itself to be imaginary. The days of Ahasuerus are so far removed from our time that it is easy for objections to the historicity of the story of Esther to be based on a subjective assessment of its credibility rather than on knowledge of Persian affairs during the 5^th century BC.” However, she reviews the concrete evidence we do have and concludes: “All this information strongly supports the historicity of Esther.” Additionally supporting the generally accurate knowledge the biblical author had of events at the time are the following:

“On a foundation tablet from his palace at Persepolis, Xerxes claims to rule over an empire extending from India to Ethiopia.” (Clines) And Leither echoes these words: “Ahasuerus...is probably Xerxes I (486-465 BCE) whose Persian Empire from India (i.e., the Indus Valley) to Ethiopia (Heb. 'Cush,' modern Sudan and modern Ethiopia) included some twenty satrapies.” (Herododus ) This is exactly the same geographical range cited in the Esther passages.

And as to the mode of sending out an imperial proclamation, here is what Millard writes: “The production of those decrees 'in the script of each province and language of each people' (Esther 3:12; 8:9) is reflected in Darius I's Bisiton inscription rendered on the cliff in Old Persian, Elamite and Babylonian and at Elephantine in Aramaic, and in the Xanthos state displaying texts in Greek, Lycian and Aramaic.”

It turns out that what little information we do have concerning the divisions within the Persian Empire comes from the pen of the Greek historian Herodotus. He was writing close to the time of the actual events, but he is known to have been rather credulous in his other writings (see my post titled “Are There Mythical Creatures in the Bible?”) and can't always be trusted to give an objective account.

Jobes puts the situation into perspective: “Although the accuracy of what he reports continues to be debated, his work must be recognized as the primary surviving source of information about how the Persians were viewed by their enemy and conqueror..Even though Herodotus has often been evaluated by modern historiographers as lacking historical accuracy, differences between Herodotus and the Esther story are often used to argue against the historical accuracy of Esther.” And Jobes goes on to demonstrate how Herodotus' account actually confirms the historical accuracy of the biblical narrative on a number of other points.”

So where exactly does the “contradiction” between this ancient historian and the Bible concerning the number of divisions come from? Several commentators point out:

“Herodotus (iii 89) says Darius 'set up twenty provincial governorships, called satrapies;' but these were taxation areas, whereas the biblical writers use a different word, and refer to racial units.” (Baldwin)

“The book mentions 127 'satrapies' (medinot: 1:1; 8:9), whereas Herodotus (3.89) knows only 20. However, the satrapies were subdivided into smaller units. In such passages as Ezra 5:8; Neh. 1:3; and so on the term medinah is used to refer to 'Judah,' which was but a portion of the larger satrapy of 'Beyond the River' (Ezra 5:3,6, etc.” (Howard)

“It has been objected there were not 127 satrapies. This word is also used in 8:9 and in Ezr. 5:8 and Neh. 1:3. Satrapies comprised several provinces...These 127 provinces may well have corresponded to the ethnic groups of the empire, whereas the 20 satrapies of Herodotus iii 89 were larger groupings used for government and taxation purposes.” (Bendor-Samuel)

“Medinot are provinces (see also Neh I 3, vii 6; Ezra ii 1), not satrapies; the Persian empire never had more than thirty-one satrapies.” (Moore) And Leith states the same thing.

It should be noted that the ten English translations and paraphrases I consulted all translated the key word as “provinces,” not “satrapies.”

Despite this consensus, Jobes says, “If the author of Esther intends his statement to be historical, an expansion or reorganization of the empire under Darius's son Xerxes would have to have occurred. It is also possible that the opening statement in Esther is rhetoric intended to parody the expanse and bureaucracy of the Persian Empire, which would be consistent with the tenor of the story.” But as demonstrated above, there is really no need to resort to either of these interpretations to fit the known historical facts we possess.

But there is a second, though minor, issue that must also be dealt with here. Daniel 6:2 states that there were 120 satraps in the Persian Empire whereas Esther 1:1; 8:9; and 9:30 states that there were 127.

Moore states, “Without the support of any version, Haller would delete 'seven' to bring it into conformity with Dan vi 2 and ix 1, which state that Darius the Mede had a hundred and twenty provinces. Despite scholarly speculation, no satisfactory explanation exists for the particular number of provinces given here.”

Despite Moore's pessimism, the most obvious explanation is that Esther and Daniel are talking about different time periods of history, and the exact number of provinces tended to vary under different kings. After all, as mentioned earlier, Moore reminds us that there were up to 31 satraps, not 20, at one time.

Another possibility is that in the book of Daniel the number 127 was rounded off to an even 120, as happens frequently in the Old Testament.

Alternatively, Jobes points out that Cassuto “suggests that there was a tendency to add the favored seven” to the real number of 120. We will really never know which scenario is correct, but it is certainly not the sort of historical “contradiction” to lose any sleep over.

 

REVELATION 18:11-13

In Revelation 18 it is more than a mere possibility that “Babylon” actually stands for something other than a once grand, or even rebuilt, city located in the Middle East. As to exactly what it does stand for, that will be the subject of a subsequent posting.

The destruction of Babylon is actually mentioned several times in the book of Revelation, but the most elaborate description is found in Chapter 18, which deals with the effect that destruction had, has, or will have on the other people in the world who have had dealings with her. As part of that reaction, we have the response of the merchants of the world who bemoan her passing.

The litany of precious goods traded with Babylon is given in vv. 11-13. It is frequently stated that there are 29 such items listed there. However, it is more accurate to say that the two last items on the list both refer to the same thing – human slaves. That then leaves contains exactly 28 (i.e. 4x7) individual items, in keeping with the overwhelming emphasis in the book on the symbolic meaning of “7” as perfection or completion. Parenthetically, Ford identifies goods from India, North Africa, China, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Egypt, and Armenia – seven different geographical areas.

Bruce is in agreement with the number of items as only 28 when he states, “There is a slight change in construction in the Greek which suggests that 'souls (lives) of men' is in apposition [i.e. parallel] to 'bodies.'”

Mounce counts twenty-nine items but then admits that bodies and souls of men are generally agreed to apply to the same beings.

And Travis says concerning these slaves, “'Soul' (psyche) refers to physical life in Revelation 12:11. More commonly, it denotes the center of personality, the inner person in its capacity to direct one's life and relate to God (...Rev 18:14). It is therefore the object of salvation...In Revelation 18:13 both soma ['body'] and psyche refers to slaves as whole person (cf. Ezek 27:13).” Beasley-Murray adds: “Perhaps John employed both terms to express his abhorrence at so brutal a system that crushed men's bodies and souls alike.”

“Slaves is literally 'bodies', an eloquent commentary on the way slave-traders approached their subject. Souls of men also means slaves (as in the Hebrew of Ezk. xxvii. 13). It reminds us of another aspect of the evil that was Rome, namely its disrespect for persons. And in various ways all the world's great empires have had their traffic in 'the souls of men'.” (Morris)

“The concluding item is horses and chariots and bodies, even souls of human beings! These wicked people trade in bodies and souls of slaves as if they constituted merely articles of merchandise! ...Observe that to this catalogue of cargoes which belong to Babylon and which perish every department of existence makes its contribution: the mineral kingdom: gold, silver, etc; the plant kingdom: fine linen, silk, etc; the animal kingdom: ivory, cattle, sheep, etc; and even the kingdom of man: bodies and souls of men (slaves).” (Hendricksen)

Finally, “Bengel suggests that the bodies are slaves used for carrying goods and the souls of men are slaves considered as merchandise.”

This low reckoning of the value of life would be especially pertinent if Babylon refers to the Roman Empire since “Roman society was dependent on sixty million slaves, many whose life of slavery was largely due to conquest of their countries by Rome's armies...John the prophet refers to these in his doom-song over the fall of Babylon as he concludes his list of the trades of the city.” (Beasley-Murray)

Only about half of those trade-goods in Revelation are identical to those found in Ezekiel 27. This is explained by Beale: “Presumably the goods not listed in Ezekiel reflect the actual products of trade at John's time, and thus both here and there are not simply borrowed from Ezekiel but were also part of the Roman trade system. The trade goods listed were selected because they represented the kind of luxury products in which Rome overindulged in an extravagantly sinful and idolatrous manner.”

And confirming the similarity between the two lists is Mounce's observation: “The same three groups of mourners are all referred to in the Ezekiel passage, although their reactions to the fall of the cities differ somewhat – the mariners wail (vss. 29-30), the kings are afraid, and the merchants hiss (vs. 35).”

As to the order in which we see these items listed, there seems to be really little in common between the two lists, as you can see below. This is not unexpected since the order in Ezekiel is said to be determined by the countries traded with. “The extremes of west and east thus bound the list, and express vividly Tyre's worldwide connections.” (Block)

Ezekiel 27:12-24                                     Revelation 18:11-13

1. silver                                                      2. silver

2. other metals                                           9. bronze, iron

3. slaves                                                     19. slaves

4. bronze vessels                                        9. bronze

5. horses and mules                                   18. horses

6. ivory                                                      7. ivory

7. ebony                                                     6,8. costly wood

8. turquoise and coral                                3. jewels and pearls

9. purple cloth                                           5. purple, scarlet

10. rubies                                                   3. jewels

11. wheat                                                   16. wheat

12. meal                                                     15. flour

13. oil                                                         14. oil

14. balm                                                     12. myrrh, frankincense

15. wine                                                      13. wine

16. wool and yarn                                       4. silk, linen

17. iron                                                        9. iron

18. spices                                                    10. spices

19. cloth                                                       4. silk, linen

20. lambs, rams and goats                           17. cattle and sheep

21. perfume                                                 11. incense

22. precious stones                                      3. jewels and pearls

23. gold                                                       1. gold

24. gorgeous cloth                                       4. silk, linen

There are several observations which can be made in comparing these two lists.

    Both put silver high on their list.

    The four agricultural goods (wine, oil, flour/meal, and wheat) appear in the opposite order.

    Gold appears as the first item in Revelation, while it is next to last item in Ezekiel.

    And most importantly, slaves are listed near the top of the Ezekiel list while they occur dead last in the one in Revelation.

Although the trade items in Ezekiel are stated to be given in some sort of geographical order, at the same time it appears that they are also listed in very approximate order of increasing worth, with slaves as one of the least important and gold as one of the highest value. By contrast, Revelation can be seen to have, for the most part, the opposite order from most value to that of least importance. This difference is confirmed in the observation above that the four agricultural goods from the plant world (wheat, meal, oil, and wine) appear in reverse order in the two listings. But if that is true, then we actually see good agreement between the OT and NT in that pagan cultures in both cases seem to value gold and precious stones highly while treating human beings as a much less desirable trade item. The very fact that people appear at all on a list of possessions to be bartered for is demeaning enough without that added insult.

Beale says, “All the trade products in the list in vv. 12-13 are good in and of themselves, but the telltale mark of their sinful use is the reference to slaves at the end of the list...That the phrase refers to slaves is apparent since it concludes a list of trade products and is confirmed by Ezek. 27:13, where among the various trade goods 'souls of humans' are mentioned and refer to slaves...Gundry sees the phrase in Rev. 18:13referring to slaves as 'solely physical entities' of merchandise; 'bodies' (somaton) reflects the Greek idiom for 'slaves;' and 'souls of humans'...echoes the Hebrew idiom for slaves (benephes adam), which together form a hendiadys [figure of speech in which one thing is represented by two descriptions]. Whereas in Ezek. 27:12-24 slaves come early in the list, in Rev. 18:12-13 they come 'at the end of a list which is in descending order of value, human souls in the category of livestock,'to issue 'an indictment of that world's values [quoting Sweet].'”

And unfortunately Tyre and “Babylon” were not alone in that assessment, as my wife and I were powerfully reminded in looking over the last will of some of her Southern ancestors in which their slaves, with their estimated value, were listed right beside household furniture, cows, and chickens.

 

JOPPA IN THE BIBLE

I am indebted to my friend Dave Moore for starting me on my investigation of this interesting city through a recent “Moore Engaging” podcast.

Sometimes the geography involved in a Bible passage tells us a lot about what is happening. Take the seaport town of Joppa for example. “Called Japho (Jos. xix.46), the Heb. word is yapo..., the Arab. yafa (whence our 'Jaffa”). It was not in Israelite hands in the early centuries of the history of Israel, but it certainly served as the seaport for Jerusalem 35 miles away.” (D. Payne)

Pfeiffer adds, “Joppa was an old city with a history dating to the Egyptian conqueror Thutmos III (fifteenth century B.C.)...There are few harbors along the Palestinian coast of the Mediterranean, with the result that Israel made little use of the sea. Joppa (modern Jaffa) served as a port during Old Testament times, and Caesarea became the main Palestinian port under Roman rule.”

The name Joppa appears thirteen times in the Scriptures, ten in the New Testament. And as we shall see below, they all witness to the way Joppa functioned as a sort of borderland between Jews and Gentiles where there were interactions, political and spiritual, in both directions. Thus, Phillip Cary states that “we must imagine a city claimed by Israel but inhabited by Gentiles, important for what little contact Israel has with the sea, busy with commerce and occupied by many peoples, languages, and gods.”

Joshua 19:46

This verse is part of a long listing of towns which were designated as the territory of the twelve tribes after they entered the Promised Land. Joppa was assigned to the tribe of Dan, but they could not drive out the people there and ended up settling north of that area instead.

Ezra 3:7 // II Chronicles 2:16

We learn from these parallel passages the involvement of Hiram with both David and Solomon. Wiseman says, “Hiram [was] the king of Tyre, contemporary with David and Solomon; reigned 979/8-945/4 BC...Hiram was a great admirer of David (1 Ki. v.1) and sent materials [by way of the seaport of Joppa] and craftsmen to aid the building of his palace at Jerusalem (2 Sa. v.11; 1 Ch. xiv.1). On Solomon's accession Hiram sent ambassadors to make fresh contracts which led to a trade-treaty whereby he supplied wood from Lebanon and skilled craftsmen for the construction of the new Temple at Jerusalem...”

So we have the unusual picture of two kings of Israel relying on the help of a friendly pagan ruler in order to build the very center of Jewish worship, the temple in Jerusalem. But we will see that the people of God eventually reciprocated that favor by bringing God's message to pagan lands in turn.

Jonah 1:3

Things begin to get really interesting when we get to the book of that reluctant prophet, Jonah. As most of you probably know, he was told to go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach the message of imminent destruction on them unless they repented. But Jonah decides to travel in the opposite direction instead, taking a boat from Joppa.

Allen explains: “The Hebrews were landsmen with little experience of the sea. That Jonah was prepared to entrust himself to an ocean-going boat rather than face up to God's call must have struck the hearers as proof positive of his mad determination.”

And Stuart perceptively adds, “Jonah chose a port where the people he might meet, and the ships he could hire, were not likely to be Israelite. Once in Joppa he was already partly 'away from Yahweh' as he apparently conceived it.”

At this point, it is probably necessary to bring up the question of the literary structure of verse 3 since there is a lot of controversy concerning that point.

To begin with, there is the negative comment of Stuart, who gives his opinion that the order of the words here, “contrary to several recent attempts to see significance in the (accidentally) chiastic structure of the verse, is not really important. The repetition of the motive of Jonah is. He does not want to preach against Nineveh to give them any chance of repentance, and he thinks he has a chance to avoid a restatement of the divine call by fleeing.”

As to what Stuart means by a “chiastic structure,” Figure 1 below illustrates that proposed by Allen:

                                     Figure 1: Allen's Structure for Jonah 1:3

  Jonah rose to run away to Tarshish from Yahweh's presence

     and he went down to Joppa

          and he found a ship

            going to Tarshish

        and he paid its fare

    and he went down into it

  to go with them to Tarshish from Yahweh's presence

As an aside, from a Jewish viewpoint, any movement away from Jerusalem was indicated as “going down.” Thus, Jonah goes down in two parallel movements, as seen above.

While Figure 1 looks very persuasive, another scholar casts this verse in two different parallel scenes instead.

                                       Figure 2: Sasson's Structure for Jonah 1:3

                Intent: he sought to escape

                                Activity: he went down to Joppa

                                        Goal: he found a ship

                Intent: he paid its fare

                                Activity: he boarded the ship

                                        Goal: to accompany them

My personal opinion is that (1) Allen is much closer to the intended reading of this verse than Sasson and (2) Stuart is incorrect in calling the verse order accidental. My reason for the former is that Sasson's breakdown is highly flawed since (a) it ignores the obvious repetition in the last clause of the first clause in the verse, (b) fails to take into account the repetition of the key word “down,” and utilizes a totally arbitrary division of the verse into intent, activity, and goal. After all, almost all of the elements in this verse could be described as an activity. As to Stuart's denial of a chiastic structure in this verse, it should be pointed out that (a) chiastic structures appear throughout this short book and (b) that opinion ignores the obvious verbal repetitions in 1:3.

Scholars point out that Jonah's very presence in Joppa, a pagan city, already symbolizes his desire to escape from God's domain. Stuart states, “As far as can be ascertained from historical records, Jaffa always remained outside Hebrew control...The narrator of Jonah, therefore, must have chosen it knowing well its status, very likely intending to have the prophet seek escape from God's control even before boarding the Tarshish-bound ship.” One need not ascribe to Stuart's rather liberal bias against the historical nature of the book of Jonah in order to agree with his conclusion.

Acts 9:36-43 and Acts 10:11

We need to go to the New Testament for the final mentions of the city of Joppa. And since these episodes are somewhat related, it is helpful first to consider another chiastic literary structure:

                                                      Figure 3: Structure of Acts

        A. Peter and miracles (9:32-43)

                        B. Angel's appearance to Cornelius (10:1-8)

                                        C. Peter's vision (10:9-16)

                                                        D. Peter is brought to Cornelius (10:17-26)

                                        C'. Peter describes his vision (10:27-29)

                        B'. Cornelius describes the angel's visit (10:30-33)

        A'. Peter and miracles (10:34-48)

The bringing of Dorcas back to life by Peter in 9:36-43 (Unit A) is paralleled by rebirth of Cornelius and other Gentiles through Peter's initiative (Unit A'). And both events involved Joppa.

Conclusion

But the truly interesting comparison is between Jonah's and Peter's activities centered around this city.

In many ways, as Dave Moore points out, Jonah is the exact opposite of Peter. But in some other matters, there is a parallel relationship between the two. Just consider the following pairings, listed in no particular order:

As Wiseman says, “Just as Peter was psychologically prepared for expanding the scope of the Gospel by staying with a tanner (9:43), Jonah began his flight from God by traveling with some pagan sailors.” To explain that statement, it is necessary to know that tanners were considered ritually unclean by Jews due to their close association with dead animals.

Peter argues with God three times on the roof of the tanner's house before he finally gets the point whereas Jonah's actions speak loudly for him as he purposely disobeys God after the first call and only obeys the second command after having been swallowed by a large fish and living in its stomach for three days.

Eventually both of them speak to the Gentiles, Jonah reluctantly and Peter willingly, and receive a favorable response to their words.

Seaport towns, Joppa and Caesarea, are the scenes of these stories

Just as the Acts story ends with the believers being immersed in water, Jonah also symbolically died when he descended into the water, but all were raised up again.

The Holy Spirit tells Peter in Acts 10:20, “Now get up, go down, and go with them without hesitation. God tells Jonah in 1:1, “Go at once to Nineveh” but he goes down to Joppa instead and goes with the sailors.

Both stories feature animals associated with Gentiles (Acts 10:12; Jonah 3:8). While the Acts narrative begins with the animals, the book of Jonah ends with them.

Preaching to the Gentiles in both stories is effective in bringing them into a right relationship with God.

Jonah says he worships Yahweh but doesn't show it by his actions. Cornelius tries in vain and appropriately to worship Peter instead of God.

The believers who accompanied were pleasantly surprised that the Holy Spirit had been given to the Gentiles (10:45), but Jonah becomes angry when the Ninevites turn to God (4:1).

Lastly, Cary's words on the subject are worth quoting in conclusion: “We could think of it [i.e. Joppa] as the place on the borders of the Holy Land where the mercy of the Lord Jesus begins to overflow beyond Israel, pouring out to the whole world. In doing so it follows in Jonah's footsteps...Of course Jonah has no intention of preaching good news to the Gentiles when he goes to Joppa, heading for Tarshish. But neither did Peter when he went to Joppa...The prophet is precursor to the apostle precisely in the intensely ironic relation between his intentions and God's sending.”

REVELATION 3:15-16

 

                                Laodicea (2011, acrylic and collage)

A fairly literal translation of this address to the church at Laodicea reads as follows: “I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold not hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” (NRSV)

Or, if you prefer a loose paraphrase: “I know you inside and out, and find little to my liking. You're not cold, you're not hot – far better to be either cold or hot! You're stale. You're stagnant. You make me want to vomit.” (The Message)

The first factor in trying to understand a passage such as this is to pin down the genre in which it is written. All but a small minority of scholars are in agreement that the bulk of Revelation, chapters 4-22, is written largely in highly figurative and symbolic language. But an anonymous article in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery points out: “Symbolic imagery is present already in the letters to the seven churches. Here we read about [for example]...Christians who have been lukewarm. We do not interpret these images literally. They are physical symbols of spiritual realities.”

However, that confronts us immediately with a two-fold challenge: pinning down both the physical referent and the spiritual meaning derived from it.

Traditional Approach

Beale explains, “The image of the Laodiceans being 'neither hot not cold' but 'lukewarm' has traditionally been understood to be metaphorical of their lack of spiritual fervor and halfhearted commitment to Christ. “One problem with this is that Christ's desire that they be either 'cold or hot' implies that both extremes are positive. The traditional view, however, has seen 'cold' negatively, the idea apparently being that Jesus either wants the readers to be either zealous ('hot') for him or completely uncommitted ('cold'), but not middle-of-the-road. But it is unlikely that Christ would commend that extreme of complete disloyalty (though cf. 2 Pet. 2:21).”

We will get back to the 2 Peter passage in a bit, but one thing should stand out concerning this interpretation: it skips immediately to the meaning of the metaphor without first pinning down the physical image present. It simply assumes that everyone has the same underlying meaning attached to the concepts of hot and cold. That sort of fallacy was first brought to my attention decades ago when I lived next door to a fellow chemist at work who was raised in Palestine. There was one of our managers, named Dr. Ward, whom he did not care for. My neighbor thought it was the most hilarious thing in the world to insult him by calling him Mr. Warm. I tried vainly to explain to him that in our culture a warm person exhibits positive traits, but apparently he couldn't grasp the concept due to the negative connotation “warm” had in the Middle East.

Here are the comments of some scholars who hold to this “traditional” view, which was indeed the interpretation I was always taught in our church while growing up.

Morris: “To prefer a rejection of the faith [i.e. coldness] to the way the Laodiceans professed it is startling to say the least (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 21). But to profess Christianity while remaining untouched by its fire is a disaster. There is more hope for the openly antagonistic than for the coolly indifferent...There coolness was a denial of all that Christ stands for...It is worth reflecting that the Ephesians were condemned for too great a zeal, coupled as it was with the absence of love, the Laodiceans for too little.”

Hendricksen: “You cannot do anything with such people. With the heathen, that is, with those who have never come into contact with the Gospel and who are therefore 'cold' with respect to it, you can do something. With sincere, humble Christians you can work with joy. But with these 'we're-all-such-very-good-folks-here-in-Laodicea' people you can do nothing. Even Christ himself cannot stand them.”

“There would have been some hope for Laodicea if it had been stone cold, but to be lukewarm, to be neither one thing nor the other, to be completely compromised, was a condition without hope.” (Phillips)

Note that (1) Morris and Hendricksen totally disagree as to the identity of the “cold” person; (2) none of the three attempts to explain the meaning of “hot”; and (3) II Peter 2:21 does not really provide a close parallel to this passage at all since it describes the complete apostasy of a one-time believer, not a lukewarm attitude at all.

In relation to (1) above, it is interesting that there continued to be a controversy in the early church considering the identity of the lukewarm person. Ford explains that 'lukewarm' “is used by Arethas to describe a man who has received the Holy Spirit in baptism but has quenched the grace. Gregory applies it to a man grown cold after conversion. Origen applies it to unregenerate persons.”

Here is what Hemer has to say in reference to this passage and especially regarding the “traditional” interpretation above: “Some aspects of the association of the three words chiaros [lukewarm], psychros [cold] and zestos [hot] in Rev. 3:15-16 are unique in surviving Greek literature. Here all three are used metaphorically and absolutely of personal character. The passage has usually been understood to refer to levels of spiritual fervor [see Matthew 24:12 for love growing cold and Acts 8:25; Romans 12:11 for a fervent spirit]...and this assumption accords with the exhortation in Rev. 3:19 (zeleoe, be zealous): it would be natural to urge earnest endeavor upon the half-hearted. The common interpretation is however open to question...It is not a matter of saying 'it is better to be hot or even cold, better even stony indifference than half-hearted support.'”

But if the traditional interpretation is not the correct one, then what is? It all begins with a proper identification of the physical image behind the language. Walvoord makes a stab at it with the following comment: “In their feasts as well as in their religious sacrifices people in the ancient world customarily drank what was either hot or cold – never lukewarm. That statement may well be true, as far as it goes, although I would have personally extended that reference to many situations outside of feasts and sacrifices (see Matthew 10:42 regarding one who gives a cup of cold water to one in need).

Bruce goes one tentative, but critical, step further: “The choice of the figure of lukewarmness to characterize the Laodiceans' ineffectiveness or lack of zeal may have been suggested by their city's water supply...” And that is indeed the judgment of most current commentators.

Similarly, Ruiz says, “Their lukewarm Christianity is nauseating like the tepid water for which the city was known.” And I can identify with that quite well since the water supply in our town growing up was not only lukewarm but also loaded with calcium and magnesium compounds to the point where solids would start precipitating out if it was cooled down, as well has having a vaguely petroleum taste to it.

Mounce does a good job of explaining the condition at Laodicea: “In an important article, Rudwick and Green argue that the adjectives 'hot,' 'cold,' and 'lukewarm' are not to be taken as describing the spiritual fervor (or lack of it) of people. The contrast is between the hot medicinal waters of Hieropolis and the cold, pure waters of Colossae. Thus the church in Laodicea 'was providing neither refreshment for the spiritually weary, nor healing for the spiritually sick. It was totally ineffective, and thus distasteful to the Lord.' On this interpretation the church is not being called to task for its spiritual temperature but for the barrenness of its works. Among the several advantages of this interpretation is the fact that is no longer necessary to wonder why Christ would prefer the church to be 'cold' rather than 'lukewarm.'”

So that brings us next to the meaning of lukewarmness in regard to the Laodicean church. Here scholars may differ somewhat in emphasis, but all are in general agreement.

“Lukewarmness should probably be taken as denoting 'ineffectiveness', the inadequacy of human effort as a substitute for diverse manifestations of God's giving. The central thought of the letter is that effective service hinges upon response to Christ, not upon human endeavor.” (Hemer)

“The community at Laodicea is not accused of any specific disorder, but its condition appears to be worse than that of the other communities because the evil is more insidious. The community members seem to be self-satisfied and indifferent; there seems to be no outstanding evil or persecution to make them aware of the condition of their religion.” (Ford)

“I believe this is very simple: the lukewarm is the one who desires nothing, who does not feel any lack, any absence, who does not understand that there is anything missing, who does not aspire to anything and because of this does not hope for anything. The cold is the one to whom much is lacking and who knows it but who does not ask for anything, who is shut up in the consciousness of his failure. The hot is the one who moves and who acts. But these latter two aspects are ultimately aspects of hope. The lukewarm, who is satisfied with that which he is, is led to do nothing to change, since the actual situation appears satisfactory to him. He then does not see his real situation before God.” (Ellul)

Lastly is the question of how serious Christ's rejection of the Laodiceans was. “Vomiting is here a gesture of disgust, as when the fish expelled Jonah on the land (Jon 2:11)...spitting and vomiting are gestures of revulsion and rejection. The action of the stomach in vomiting, or of the mouth in spitting, becomes a vivid image of rejection. God will spit out the Laodiceans (Rev 3:16), and the land will spit out Israel if the people do not obey (Lev 18:28; 20:22).” (DBI)

And Beasley-Murray states, “There is written a condemnation unequaled in the NT as an expression of the abhorrence of Christ. The reference is to the last judgment (cf. Lk. 13:25-28).”

However, all is not lost for the Laodiceans. As Mounce points out, “It should be noted that although the Lord was about to spew them out of his mouth, there was yet opportunity to repent (vss. 18-20).”

JEREMIAH 7:22 DID GOD NOT COMMAND ANIMAL SACRIFICES AT ALL?

I found this provocative statement on the website of the American Humanist Society: “...the Old Testament is contradictory as to whether the Lord commanded the Israelites to sacrifice animals to him. At Jeremiah 7:22, God denies he ever gave the Israelites commandments about animal sacrifices. In contrast, Exodus 29:38-42 and many other verses depict God as requiring the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices.” 

 We should admit that there are liberal Christian commentators who would agree with the fact that there is a contradiction here. As just one example, Biddle says, “This is inconsistent with other biblical traditions.”

There is no argument with their contention regarding the many passages in which animal sacrifices to God are prescribed for a number of different occasions. So the crux of their argument lies with the passage in Jeremiah in which supposedly “God denies he ever gave the Israelites commandments about animal sacrifices.” Let's consider how various translations render that key verse:

“For in the day that I brought our ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (NRSV)

“But when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt, I gave them no commands about whole-offering and sacrifice; I said not a word about them.” (NEB)

“For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me...” (NIV)

And a close parallel to this verse is found in Amos 5:25 in which God asks, “Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?” The form of the question obviously implies a negative answer.

There are actually several ways to address this “problem.” Let us first begin by quoting John Bright: “The force of this passage, and others like it (e.g. Amos v 21-25; Hos vi 6; Mic vi 1-8; Isa I 10-17), has been much disputed. It is unlikely, however, that it is to be taken either as a categorical rejection of the sacrificial system as such, or as a statement that there was no sacrifice in the wilderness.” If that is true, then one has the choice of at least the following trains of interpretation for an explanation:

    1. Looking at the NRSV above, it opens the door for understanding the Jeremiah passage from a chronological or historical perspective. Thus, if we wish to be literal, it could be strictly talking about the Day of Passover stipulations only. As D.R. Jones says, “Perhaps we should note that what is being referred to is the great act of redemption which was the model of all subsequent redemptive acts, not precisely the legislative work of Moses.”

    2. Or it may have been referring to a later exodus event, the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai: “The Decalog is spelled out in Exod. 20:1-17, but at no point is the narrative concerned with cultic details. It was only after the covenant had been ratified (24:1-8) that the cultic details of the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the sacrifices were declared...The repetition of dabar [“command,” vv. 22 and 23] may have been deliberate in which case the phrase in v. 22...may be translated concerning the details of burnt offerings and sacrifices. That was to come later.” (Thompson)

Somewhat similarly, Bright says, “The point lies in the balance between vss. 22 and 23. The words 'Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people' are the formula of covenant (cf. Deut xxvi 16-19): God's essential demands...did not concern ritual matters, but the keeping of the covenant stipulation.”

    3. Marshall gives as an alternative interpretation the possibility that “it could mean that the sacrifices were offered not to God, but to other gods. In Stephen's speech the context supports the view that the people offered sacrifices not to Yahweh, but to idols like the calf.” See Acts 7:44 where he quotes from Jeremiah 7:22.

    4. An interesting predictive interpretation is offered by Jones when he says regarding Jeremiah, “He is not repudiating what he must have known to be a divine provision of worship. He is envisaging or witnessing a historical situation in which the Lord deliberately strips Judah of the great gifts of the promises. History is God speaking. No Temple, no land, but exile (cf. 8:3). She must pack up her sacrificial worship. Now her sights must be set on one hope only – a new redemption.”

    5. But the most popular approach to Jeremiah 7:22 is implied in the NIV translation given above and summarized by Wiseman: “Some would interpret v. 22 as showing ignorance of the fundamental Mosaic laws, but the prophet's present concern is with priorities. Proper sacrifice...is subordinate to, as well as a consequence of, true obedience.” Kaiser puts it this way, “So deceptive was the nation's trust in this hollow worship that Jeremiah later announced that God had wanted more than sacrifices when he brought Israel out of Egypt (Jer 7:22). He had wanted the people to trust him.” This is an attractive interpretation, but the question is whether it can be justified by the text. And in that regard there are at least two pieces of supportive evidence:

        a. “It is possible to resort to the hypothesis of prophetic exaggeration. On this view Jeremiah is really commanding judicious reform. When he says no to this and yes to that, he means that that is more important than this.” (Jones) Huber is a bit more wordy, but expresses the identical idea in saying, “Probably, Jeremiah employs an 'idiom of exaggerated contrast' whereby 'the first of two statements is negated only for the purpose of setting of the second' (Lundbom). In a similar fashion, Amos builds on the implied negation in Amos 5:26 to underscore Amos 5:26-27...The illocutionary force of these statements is not about cultic history or sacrifice per se but rather the relative subordination of cultic duty to covenant obedience (cf. Jer 6:19-20; 7:5-7; 9:23-26).”

        b. Motyer, followed by Cawley and Millard, takes an entirely different route to come to the same conclusion when he says that “closer examination of the Hebrew suggests that the difficulty belongs more to the English translation than to the original. The preposition which the English gives as 'concerning' – the vital word in the whole verse – is the Hebrew 'al-dibre, which can only mean 'concerning' by a radical weakening of its real significance 'because of' or 'for the sake of'...According to this, the verse says that Yahweh did not address Israel either 'because of' sacrifices: that is to say, the performance of sacrifice is not a means whereby pressure may be applied to God; not did He address them 'for the sake of' sacrifices, for the living God stands in no need of anything man can supply...the cult is not a thing which exists on its own but rather for the sake of the spiritual needs of a people committed to obedience to the moral law of God.”