JAMES 2:1-7 REVISITED

Five years ago, almost to the day, I posted the following comments on these verses based on some older commentaries in my library verses:

James 2:1-4. The example is one of non-Christians visiting a congregation. The two are clearly visitors or they wouldn't have to be told where to go. The setting is literally the “synagogue,” which sounds strange to us today but was common terminology for Christian Jews of 50-60 AD who may have continued to worship in the same place as their non-Christian brethren. It helps date the epistle since the term would be totally out of place at a somewhat later date when the Christians were effectively excluded from the synagogues.

Verse 2: The gold ring indicates he is a Roman nobleman or senator. Only they were permitted to wear gold rings, according to some commentators. Thus, it indicates rank or profession as well as wealth. The splendid robe is a white toga, often worn by those seeking political office. Perhaps he is a visiting politician seeking votes. It opens the question of our currying favor with those in power because we think they can do us some good. “Poor” in this case is not poor in heart, but those who are in material poverty.

Verse 3: “Stand there” has the implication of “just where you are, don't go any closer.”

“Under my footstool” indicates the lower row of stone benches around the synagogue where one rested one's feet. Footstool is a place traditionally mentioned in the OT for conquered enemies, not exactly a place of honor.

Verse 4: “Haven't you made a distinction among yourselves.” Another possibility in the NIV is “are you not divided,” i.e. double-minded, serving God and mammon.

Verse 5: Note that even though the rebuke may be stern, James softens it by using “beloved brothers.” He believed in speaking the truth, but in love. James actually goes beyond equality here. The poor are actually to be given preferential treatment in line with God's standards of worth. See Luke 1:52 and I Corinthians 1:26-29.

Verse 7: James' opposition to the rich is not just based on general principles, but on actual experience. These verses employ diatribe style and generalities that may not apply to all cases (such as in Proverbs).

Alternative Understandings

Since the above words were written, I have come across somewhat different interpretations of this passage based on the supposed historical context in which James' audience was experiencing at the time.

The exegesis most different from the above is typified by Alicia Batten's comments in a recent issue of Biblical Archaeology Today magazine. She states, “Some interpreters think this scenario...reflects a meal setting, while others argue that a worship meeting is presupposed. I contend, however, that the author has in mind a courtroom scene, based on clues in the text itself.” Her arguments can be summarized in the following points:

    1. James was likely familiar with public court activities in the Roman Empire.

    2. Well-dressed people were advertising their exalted status while litigants were often coached to dress poorly in order to gain sympathy from the judges or jurors.

    3. The audience may have ordered the poor man to stand or sit instead of falling at the judges' feet and begging for mercy.

    4. Legal proceedings were sometimes held in synagogues “and there are indications that Roman and later rabbinic legal proceedings shared things in common.”

Reasoning based on such flimsy “evidence” does not seem to me to be at all persuasive. But below are some comments from both the liberal and conservative wings of Christianity for comparison.

Wall: “Clearly they [i.e.,the first readers of the letter] are believers (Jas 1:2) who are members of a Jewish Christian synagogue (Jas. 2:1-2), who are a congregation of humble means...Their enemies are the landed rich (Jas 5:1) and merchant middle class (Jas 4:13) who are members of a Jewish congregation attached to the local synagogue (Jas 2:2-4; cf. 1:9)...[who] oppress the impoverished members of the Christian congregation (Jas 2:2), even using their political clout to exploit the working-class poor (Jas 5:1-6) and to demand favorable verdicts against them from the law court (Jas 2:6-7) and the synagogue court (Jas 2:3-4).”

Johnson states, “The portrayal raises a number of critical questions.” These include the following:

    1. Does the use of synagogue say anything in particular regarding the character of the community being described?

    2. Is the synagogue the assembly itself or the building in which it occurs?

    3. Is the rich person who enters a member of the community or an outsider?

    4. Is the community gathered for worship and study or to reach a legal decision?

    5. Did this scene really occur or is it made up for rhetorical purposes?

He concludes that in each case “it is impossible, on the basis of the evidence offered here, to decide. Nor does the decision on any of these points really matter, for the force of James' example does not derive from its historical referentiality, but from its rhetorical function.”

McKnight goes into even more detail, beginning with the comment that “the messianic community is treating the poor unjustly and showing favoritism toward the wealthy in public settings...2:1 is filled with exegetical questions, some of which could be partly or completely resolved if we knew more of the precise context...Having prohibited the stunning behavior of the messianic community and set forth the theme of this section [in v. 1], now James elucidates or illustrates the prohibition with a graphic instance of favoritism...Both Laws and Davids suggest that the hypothetical example bears some relationship to actual events in the messianic community and could be an example with some caricature involved.”

As did Johnson, he also asks a series of questions regarding the use of the word 'synagogue' in v. 2. It can mean any building in which a group assembles, the gathering itself, or (his preferred choice)
the messianic community's worship and learning center, which for whatever reasons visitors sometimes attended.

McKnight concludes: “While traces of ancient evidence tease one into considering the event in James 2:2-4 as a judicial assembly, I wonder if we are not pressing James's words well beyond their intent...Suggestive parallels to judicial courts in other literature may have nothing to do with what James is describing. Furthermore, there is nothing in the synagogue assembly in James 2:2-4 that suggests the presence of a judge...Finally, the language of 2:6 suggests a setting other than the synagogue assembly in 2:2-4. In 2:6 the rich are using their power to drag poor members of the messianic community to what appears to be a new setting, a court (not to 'synagogue') where slander (2:7) occurs. Moreover, the rich are described in two different ways: in 2:2-4 the rich are treated with deferential respect and favoritism while in 2:6-7 they are seizing control. The greater the difference between 2:2-4 and 2:6-7, the less likely the former portrays a judicial seeing.”

It appears to me that McKnight's arguments have sealed the doom of interpretations such as offered by Batten despite the admitted uncertainties due to our imprecise knowledge of conditions during the time of James' writing. As L. P. Hartley once said, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."  

HITTITES AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Hittite culture (or cultures – see my post titled “Hittites – Historical Background”) as uncovered through their numerous recovered writings help to illuminate portions of the Old Testament and better place those passages in their historical setting. Below is a brief survey of some examples:

The Rainbow in Genesis 9 “The rainbow first appears in the biblical text at the conclusion of the flood (Gen 9:1-17). It is the sign of the covenant that God makes between himself and Noah, the living creators and the earth for generations to come (Gen 9:12-13)...The Hebrew qeset can mean either 'rainbow' or 'bow,' a weapon for warfare...A Hittite curse on armies involved removing the warriors' bows...Breaking the bow of a warrior came to symbolize the signing of a treaty between parties.” (Branch)

Property Transfer in Genesis 23 “An...approach to the legal features outlined in Genesis 23 has been proposed by R. Westbrook, based on what he terms 'a legal fiction of double transfer.' Westbrook notes that in land transactions from Ugarit, 'a number take the curious form of a tripartite transaction whereby the king intervenes not merely as a witness but as an intermediary through whose hands the property passes from one party to the other.' Similar transactions are found from Boghazkoy [in Turkey during Hittite occupation] and in Elamite documents dated about 1600 B.C.” (Alexander)

Esau's Wives in Genesis 25:34; 27:46 “ Esau's wives were two Hittite women (Gen 26:34; 27:46...)...the ethnic diversity of Esau's wives suggests an Edomite population that was a composite of diverse ethnic elements...” (Knauth)

Ark of the Covenant in Genesis 28 “”Texts for the renovation of a small sanctuary in the Hittite countryside, in Anatolia roughly contemporary with the early judges, often replace the stones [of commemoration of an encounter of a man with a deity] with new statues, evidently understood by the empire to offer a more powerful expression of the deity's nature and force. The ark commanded through Moses is also new to Israel, likewise replacing among other things the simple stone of the type used by Jacob of Bethel (Gen 28:18-22).” (Fleming)

Terephim in Genesis 31:19 “The terephim offer specific and troubling manifestations of divine images in the Pentateuch. The plural term terepim, which is used even when it denotes a singular item, occurs fifteen times in the Hebrew Bible [from Genesis 31:19 to Zechariah 10:2]. The meaning of the term is not clear. Scholars have various etymologies, but none has won particular favor...T.J. Lewis, in his survey of this material prefers 'benevolent or malevolent spirit' (from Hittite)...connecting ancestor figures with necromatic functions, though the interpretation is not without difficulties.” (Hunt)

Moses in Pharaoh's Court in Exodus 2 “The covenant contained in Exodus to Leviticus and Deuteronomy belongs in phase 5 [of the changing forms of treaties and covenants].., about 1400 to 1200 B.C. – and neither earlier nor later. Before and after that two-century span, the formats were wholly different...But how could Hebrew brick-slaves in the East Delta know about such matters? Not at all – unless someone of theirs had been at the court of Pi-Ramesses, where such things were not just known but were enacted, such as the treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittites in 1259 B.C. Had there been a Moses at that East Delta court in those days, there is no problem; if not, the problem is insoluble.” (Kitchen)

Laws in Exodus 21 “Exodus 21:22 refers to the price of restitution paid to the judges...In Hittite Laws Paragraph 17 one finds a similar example to that in Exodus, with one difference: in the apodosis [the main clause of a conditional sentence] the Hittite document assesses the 'estimate,' for the damaged embryo, while the OT text focuses on the husband's authority. The meaning 'estimate' implied in the Hittite document, is supported by the Septuagint's rendition.” (Pentiuc)

Selman states, “Probably the closest parallel between the Pentateuch and ancient Near Eastern laws is the famous les talionis, the principle of an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth (cf. Ex 21:23-25). However, although such laws occur in the...Hittite laws (c. sixteenth century B.C.), the variations between them illustrate just how difficult it is to interpret their interrelationship...for the biblical laws, talion, or equivalent retribution, is a general principle applicable to all...a monetary fine is the only penalty in the laws of Ur-Nammu, Eshnunn and the Hittites...it is...possible that the biblical laws are simply announcements of principle, whereas the monetary compensation reflects actual practice.”

Laws Regarding Stealing in Exodus 22 “In some ways the Bible seems lenient concerning theft. In the ANE [including the Hittites] theft of an animal could require up to thirtyfold restitution and the death of the thief who could not pay.” (See Exodus 22:1-4). (Sprinkle)

Offerings in Leviticus 4-6 “Although the root ht', meaning 'to miss, to sin' occurs in virtually all the Semitic languages; there are apparently no examples in which the root or any of its derivatives is used for ritual purification. Nevertheless, the concepts associated with the 'sin offering' were well known in other ancient Near Eastern ritual literature. For example, we know from Hittite and other ritual texts that purity of the sacred precincts of sanctuaries was a most serious concern.” (Averbeck) And regarding guilt offerings, he says, “Conceptually there are certain parallels that have been proposed for ritual terms and procedures in Hittite and Hurrian texts...”

Scapegoat Ritual in Leviticus 16 Klingbeil states that “relevant material from Syria (Ebla) and Asia Minor (Hittites) have been discussed concerning elimination rituals, such as the well-known scapegoat ritual in Leviticus 16.”

Sexual Laws in Leviticus 18 and 20 “The laws in Leviticus 18 and 20 systematically define consanguineal members who were within the individual household...while forbidden sexual contact between them...This legislation (also found in Deut 27:20-23) had its primary concern...over relationships with immediate blood kin...Incest was equally abhorrent in most other ancient Near Eastern societies (e.g., the prohibitions in the Hittite laws)...” (Matthews)

“Hittite Laws, while condemning bestiality, did not consider homosexual acts as sins, except when it involved incest with one's own son. In contrast, Leviticus 18:22 unequivocally prohibits sex between men, and Leviticus 20:13 states it was punishable by death...at issue in context (Lev 18:6-23) is the integrity of the family.” (Sprinkle)

Unlike other ancient Near East societies, “The Hittites, like Israel, viewed both incest and bestiality as sins of impurity that could provoke the gods to wrath, were punishable by death and required sacrificial cleansing rituals...” (Sprinkle)

Outline of the Book of Deuteronomy “G.E. Mendenhall maintained that the book of Deuteronomy in its organizational structure and form is very similar to certain suzerain-vassal treaties common in the ancient Near East. In its arrangement Deuteronomy may thus be viewed as reflecting the same core sections, appearing in roughly the same order, as are found in ancient Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties...When viewed in this light, the structure of Deuteronomy is a mirror reflection of a treaty form borrowed from a neighboring Near Eastern culture. This understanding of Deuteronomy, however, has not met with universal acceptance among scholars.” (Taylor) I should mention at this point that I don't know of any interpretation of any passage of Scripture which has ever met with “universal acceptance among scholars.”

McConville expands on the above: “The chief distinguishing mark of the Hittite treaties, as opposed to the Assyrian treaties of the first millennium, is the presence of an historical prologue, which the latter lack. Some scholars (Kitchen, Kline, Craigie) accept that Deut follows clearly the Hittite pattern, while others...think that the differences between [the Hittite and Assyrian] treaties are not so marked that Deut can be dated by its affinity with the former. However, the OT form is ultimately unique.” But, “the choice of this particular form (the Hittite vassal-treaty) is the closest model for OT covenantal texts, since it is a first suggestion that the covenant in the OT is conceived essentially as relationship.”

Covenant in Joshua 24 “The format of the covenant between Israel and their God in Joshua 24 is an abbreviated form of what occurs in Exodus-Leviticus and most clearly of all in Deuteronomy; it is the format of c. 1350-1190 BCE [BCE = before the common era = B.C.] exclusively, as attested in almost forty Hittite, Anatolian and northern Syrian documents and with Egypt in that period, which firmly excludes all other epochs...” (Kitchen)

 

THE HITTITES: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

There is a great deal of confusion regarding this ancient people, and the reasons behind this confusion are explained in the following quotations which review the history of this once powerful nation:

Millard: “The names given for these Hittites [mentioned in Genesis] are all Semitic, and it is likely that all were members of a local Canaanite tribe. The Hittites of Anatolia (modern day Turkey) were another people, forgotten until excavations at Boghazkoy were begun in 1906...Inscriptions show that the Hittites set up their kingdom about 1750 BCE [Before the Common Era = BC], and that from about 1380 to 1200 BCE they rivaled the Eqyptians and the Babylonians in international affairs. Their armies marched into Syria, where they faced Egyptian forces. After decades of war, the battle of Qadesh (ca. 1259 BCE), led to a treaty that established a line across northern Lebanon, the frontier between their zones of influence. This line provided the [Northern] limit for Israel's territory (Josh. 1:4; 2 Sam. 24.6).”

“After the Hittite empire had collapsed under attack from migrant tribes.., several princes held on to certain cities, and created local kingdoms...These 'neo-Hittite' states were finally overwhelmed by Assyria in the ninth and eighth century BCE. Before that time they supplied wives for Solomon (1 Kings 11.1), perhaps soldiers for David (Uriah the Hittite - 2 Sam. 11) and presented a threat to Israel's Aramean enemies (2 Kings 7.6).”

Satterwaite and Baker: “For the Canaanites, Amorites and Hittites, considerable extrabiblical evidence goes back many centuries before Israel's occupation of Canaan...Discussion of the Hittites is fraught with difficulty since at least four different ethnic groups of antiquity have this designation. The most important historically were the Hittites (Heth) who, during second millennium B.C, controlled much of modern-day Turkey.

The empire collapsed about 1200 B.C., though a number of smaller Neo-Hittite states continued for some time in the borderland between Anatolia and Syria. The relationship between these Indo-European peoples and the Hittites mentioned in the Pentateuch is a matter of debate...further reference to Hittites in the north of Israel should be identified with the Neo-Hittites, city-states that had belonged to the Anatolian Hittite Empire before its fall and continued to be identified by that name (Judg 1:26; 1 Kings 10:29; 11:1; 2 Kings 7:6; possibly Josh 1:4). They could be indicated as distinct from the Hittites of the Pentateuch, since the OT uses Hebrew plural forms of Hittite only for those groups in Syria and Anatolia...It seems best to assume at this stage that the pentateuchal Hittites were a completely separate group from those further north.”

As far as the language employed by the original Hittites, Hess states, “In addition to Egyptian, two other non-Semitic languages were used in the second millennium B.C. and had an impact on the Pentateuch. One is Hittite, an Indo-European language that was used by the Hittites who lived in modern-day central Turkey.”

There is an interesting by Andrew Curry in the May 2025 issue of Smithsonian magazine in which the latest archaeological finds from the capital of the earliest Hittite Empire, mentioned in the first five books of the Bible, are discussed. He says, “Over the past century, more than 30,000 remnants of clay tablets have been recovered from Hattusa and other Hittite cities. More are found every year. That constant flow of brand-new information makes Hittitology one of the most dynamic, fast-moving fields of ancient history.”

A selection of some of the insights gained from Hittite studies which relate to the Old Testament will be given in a companion post titled “Hittites and the Bible.”

 

I SAMUEL 3 (GOD SPEAKS)

 This is a key chapter in the life of Samuel since it is here that Samuel replaces the flawed priest Eli as the main conduit between God and His people. The narrative proceeds in an orderly and chronological fashion and is usually taken that way. But at the same time, even the most dense reader cannot have failed to notice the numerous repetitions in the narrative. It is a bit like Grimm's fairy tales in that certain events and words are repeated in clusters to build up a sense of suspense. In this case, there are at least six repeated components to consider. And in addition, you can see from Figure 1 that these repetitions appear in a strictly symmetrical order.

                                                Figure 1: Literary Structure of I Samuel 3

        A. Samuel was ministering to the LORD (1a)

                B. The word of the Lord was rare (1b)

                        C. Eli and Samuel were lying down (2-3)

                                D. The LORD called, Samuel! Samuel! (4a)

                                        E. He said, 'Here I am' (4b)

                                                F. Eli said, 'Lie down again' (5)

                                D. The LORD called again, Samuel! Samuel! (6a)

                                        E. He said, 'Here I am' (6b)

                                                F. 'Lie down again' (6c)

                B. The word of the LORD had not been revealed to Samuel (7)

                                D. The LORD called again (8a)

                                        E. He said, 'Here I am' (8b)

                                                F. 'Lie down again' (8c-9)

                                D. The LORD called again (10a)

                                        E. He said, 'Speak' (10b)

                B. The word of the LORD is revealed to Samuel (11-14)

                        C. Samuel lay down (15)

                                D. Ely called Samuel (16a)

                                        E. He said, 'Here I am' (16b)

                B. The word of the LORD is revealed to Eli (17-18)

        A. Samuel was a prophet of the LORD (19-20)

Instead of reading this chapter in chronological order, next look for what it has to say while considering similarly lettered sections. With that different approach, we can see the following:

“A” Sections

A comparison of these two passages demonstrates that the intervening events in the chapter have had the effect of transforming a mere flunky in the temple to a powerful prophet who will be used by God for decades afterward to make and break kings. It is an important development in God's dealing with the people of Israel which from the beginning of the nation saw Him utilizing prophets, priests, and kings over the whole span of the Old Testament to reveal His will to His people. And of course the ultimate spokesman for God was Jesus Christ, who held all three offices at once.

“B” Sections

There is an interesting progression here as well as we look at these four passages. The first time the phrase “word of the LORD” appears we are told that direct communication from God to man was extremely rare at the time. Tellingly, the second passage using that phrase reveals that the “man of God” Eli was similarly cut off from any word from God. And from our previous knowledge as to how he had turned a blind eye to all the abuses of position his two sons had been engaging in, we are not surprised at that fact. But surprisingly, the lowly but faithful temple servant Samuel becomes the one to whom God chooses to talk instead. And lastly, Samuel reluctantly shares God's revelation that Eli will be supplanted, and the latter bows to his fate, realizing that he fully deserves condemnation for favoring his sons over God Himself. That last point should hold a valuable message for all of us parents.

“C” Sections

Even these two short passages in which it is said that Samuel was in bed contain a message. The first time it is obvious that Samuel is asleep whereas the second time he may have been lying down in bed, but it is doubtful that he got much sleep that night thinking about God's words to him and whether he should share them with Eli.

Most of us have had that sort of experience at least once in our life where we are facing some sort of trial the next day and can't relax at all. I can remember years ago when I had decided to break up with a girl I was dating but didn't know how to go about it or what her reaction would be. It turned out that I needn't have agonized since she told me that she wanted to break it off before I even had a chance to talk. Similarly, in Samuel's case it was Eli who forced the subject, and he took the news quite graciously since he knew full well his faults deserved punishment.

I am reminded ot the hymn lyrics from "What a Friend We Have in Jesus" – "Oh, what peace we often forfeit, / Oh, what needless pain we bear, / All because we do not carry / Everything to God in prayer."  

“D-E-F” Sections

These three repeated components of the narrative should best be considered together. As with many folk tales, things often happen in triads. Thus, in this case it is only after Samuel has gotten up and wakened Eli for the third that the aging priest begins to catch on that there is a divine mystery going on here. We can perhaps excuse Eli for being a little spiritually obtuse since we have been pointedly reminded in v. 7 that he had never been privileged to receive any direct communication from God.

Samuel is prepared for the fourth time God wakes him, and instead of running to Eli he simply says, “Speak.”

It is only on the final occasion he is called when the call actually comes from Eli, who is naturally curious as to what God may have told Samuel.

One obvious message to us is that we need to be always open and alert for any word from God which may be given us by any means He chooses. A very valuable resource on how to do that is Garry Friesen's book Decision Making & the Will of God.

TITUS 3:1-11

There is practically a consensus among scholars that these verses constitute a discrete section in the Letter to Titus from Paul, although they can't seem to agree as to the number or identification of sub-units within this passage. For purposes of completion, I will toss my own analysis into the mix, for what it is worth. And as is my usual custom, I am always looking for the presence of some sort of literary symmetry as confirmation of the divisions I come up with. As Figure 1 reveals, it is rather easy to see the symmetry in this particular case.

                                           Figure 1: Literary Structure of Titus 3:1-11

        A. Commands from Paul (vv. 1-2)

                B. Personal Example Before Conversion (v. 3)

                        C. God's Grace (vv. 4-5)

                B'. Personal Example After Conversion (vv. 6-7)

        A'. Commands from Paul (vv. 8-11)

As added confirmation, besides the topical correspondences evident above, there are verbal parallels. Thus, we can see that both A and A' contain the following words: “quarreling/quarrels,” “to everyone,” “good work(s),” and “avoid.”

Interestingly, Paul's famous triad of faith, hope and love appears in these verses in the reverse order – faith (v. 8), hope (v. 7), and love (v. 4).

Several additional points can now be made assuming that Figure 1 accurately represents the flow of Paul's thoughts:

        1. Titus 3:12-15, consisting of various greetings, becomes by process of elimination the final section of the epistle.

        2. The central point Paul wishes to stress in this chapter is that salvation is due to God's mercy on sinners and not caused by any commendable works we may have done (Section C).

        3. When one comes to Christ, there should be a demonstrable change in our outward behavior to reflect our new status in relation to God (note the contrast between B and B').

        4. Note how Paul in Section B has the humility to hold up his own former behavior which was displeasing to God as an example to his audience instead of taking a superior tone toward them as the Pharisees tended to do.

        5. There is a definitely intended contrast between verses 8 and 9 in that devotion to good works in v. 8 is the exact opposite of senseless quarrels among believers:

                verse 8 – good works are

                        (a) excellent

                                (b) profitable

                verse 9 – arguments are

                                (b') unprofitable

                        (a') worthless

Next are some comments gleaned from the scholarly literature on these verses:

Titus 3:1

A textual problem in this verse is pointed out by Metzger in that the older Greek manuscripts are missing the word “and” between “rulers” and “authorities.” This may have been an accidental oversight. However, in light of the omission of “and” also later in this verse, he provides another explanation, namely that “the author deliberately framed his sentence concisely...”

Ward states that “Rulers and authorities are not merely synonyms. The rulers means those who are actually ruling; authorities tells us that they have the right to do so. The turbulent Cretans already know their duty of submission, but they need Titus constantly to remind them.”

Titus 3:1-2

Hanson: “There is an interesting comparison to be made between these two verses and the two other places in the NT where the topic of obedience to rulers is treated, Rom. 13:1-10 and I Pet. 2:13-17...The full pattern of teaching on the topic occurs only in I Peter and includes the following elements:

        (a) Obey secular rulers.

        (b) They are God's agents.

        (c) Show respect to all men.

        (d) Love especially the brethren.

Of these...Titus has only (a) and (c).”

Titus 3:3,6-7

“This, let it be emphasized, is more than an argument...It is an outpouring...of a heart which is glowing with love in return for God's love. It must be borne in mind that Paul writes as one who has in his own life experienced all this. He does not stand next to his story, but he is himself part of it.” (Hendricksen)

Towner states regarding v. 4 that “Paul proceeds to explain the reason behind it [i.e. the new life in 3:1-2]: There are two parts to Paul's argument...First, expanding on the description of the past epiphany in terms of 'the grace of God' in 2:11, Paul here interprets what 'appeared' as being 'the kindness and love of God [for humankind]'...Yet the main point in describing the epiphany as a display of these specific virtues...is to explain that God has communicated the very qualities needed to live the life prescribed in 3:1-2.”

Titus 3:5

“Washing may be said to describe a change of condition, rebirth a change in states, and renewal a change of disposition. Each is attested by baptism...” (Nute)

“According to the original text, the Holy Spirit...enacts the washing of regeneration, which is the renewal. 'Regeneration' translates palingenesia, which is used for cosmic renewal...or for the experience of a complete change of life ('regenesis'). This and Matthew 19:28 are the only biblical uses of this word. The word was used widely in the ancient world for many different kinds of renewal. Its use in Titus 3:5 probably refers to the individual's incorporation into the cosmic renewal with a view to its future completion. Paul also calls this regeneration a 'renewing.'” (Comfort)

Titus 3:8a

Mitchell expresses the opinion that verses 4-7 are a “tight credal formulation, perhaps from an early hymn.” As such, these verses are perhaps those referred to in 8a – “The saying is sure.” Similar pronouncements also occur elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles (see I Timothy 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; and II Timothy 2:11).”

Knight confirms the above thesis when he states that that 8b applies to all of vv. 4-7: “But even while we identify vv. 4-7 as the saying.., we must do so with an awareness that there is no evidence that will allow us to identify the saying with absolute certainty.” But he does go on to point to a very early Greek manuscript which joins together these four verses.

The NIV is a little misleading here in its translation: “This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good.” In fact, the Greek originals for the two underlined words are not in the least related to one another.

Titus 3:8b

Nute comments on 'devoting yourselves to good deeds': “The alternative translation 'enter honorable occupations' [suggested in a footnote to this verse in the RSV] might represent the technical meaning of the Greek verb used, but the general meaning of 'good deeds' seems preferable.”

Titus 3:9-11

“Some differences appear in Paul's instructions to Titus concerning dealing with false teachers in 1:10-16 and those instructions described in 3:9-11. In the first chapter Titus was exhorted to 'rebuke them sharply,' with the purpose of correcting and restoring them to 'sound doctrine.' This heresy of the Judaizers clearly threatened the very heart of the gospel, the true nature of salvation itself. However, in this present warning Titus was to 'avoid' divisive discussions or debates...the issues described appear to be more peripheral and esoteric in 3:9...” (Griffin)

Titus 3:10

Hendricksen states, “Both this noun and the cognate verb (to warn, to admonish; literally to put in mind) are used elsewhere only by Paul...The qualification indicates that, according to Pauline teaching, discipline must ever spring from love, from a desire to heal, never from a desire to get rid of an individual.”

Titus 3:11

Guthrie: “If this action, however, should seem rather harsh, Titus must recognize that the stubbornness of the man is evidence of a perverted mind...It is useless to contend with men of twisted minds, and there is no need to condemn them for they are self-condemned.”

THE ORGANIZATION OF ISAIAH 7:1-17

There are a number of equally good ways (and a few bad ways) to study the Bible. In a previous post simply entitled “Isaiah 7,” I conducted a very brief verse-by-verse exposition of this chapter. This is how we generally encounter the biblical text, but even it is subject to abuse.

For example, as I have probably mentioned before, years ago I visited the Sunday school class of a church I was checking out after moving to a new town. The “teacher” was more like a vote counter since he would read the first verse of a passage and then poll us one at a time to see what sense we each could make out of that one verse taken in isolation from the context. He would then count up the votes and announce our consensus understanding.

At one point in the proceeding I rebelled by pointing out that the meaning of the particular verse we were discussing was clearly explained in the very next verse. He patiently explained to me that as a newcomer I obviously didn't understand that I was violating the rules of the class by jumping ahead in the text. He apparently felt that the verse numbering, which didn't come about until the late Middle Ages, was part of the holy text and was equally sacred. Each and every verse had its own independent meaning not to be confused with any other verse. Needless to say, I did not visit that congregation again.

But the opposite extreme can be just as faulty as the sole method to approach the Bible. Isaiah 7 is a good example of that since, as I shall show below, just taking the broader context of the passage into account can also be misleading and gloss over points of extreme interest to today's reader. This is especially true when a Christian studies the Old Testament passages. To demonstrate this point, let me first present a broad overview of the flow of thought in Isaiah 7 in diagram form:

                                                Figure 1: The Organization of Isaiah 7

1. Initial Historical Conditions (vv. 1-2)

        2. The LORD said to Ahaz through Isaiah (vv. 3-6)

                3. Central Poem (vv. 7-9)

                    a. “It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass” (v. 7)

                        b. “The head of Aram is, etc.” (v. 7:8a)

                            c. Prophecy regarding the fall of Ephraim (7:8b)

                        b'. “The head of Ephraim is, etc.” (v. 9b)

                    a'. “If you do not stand firm, you shall not stand” (v. 7b)

        2'. The LORD spoke to Ahaz (vv. 10-16)

1'. Predicted Future Conditions (v. 17)

Thus, this passage takes the very common biblical symmetrical pattern known as an inclusio. And as such, the stressed central portion of the organization is to be found in Isaiah 7:8b. But in this case there is a minor problem with that analysis in that not all scholars believe that 7:8b was part of Isaiah's original writing.

For example, Blenkinsopp labels 8b “a gloss, perhaps referring to further deportations from Ephraimite (central and northern) territory about the time of the accession of the Assyrian king Asurbanipal (Ezra 4:9-10).”

Let's assume for the purpose of argument that this prophecy of Ephraim's doom is spurious and should be omitted. In that case, there is no real center to Figure 1, so that the emphasis of the passage falls on the introduction and conclusion (1 and 1') instead. If that is so, then the main point of this part of the chapter is the great contrast in Judah's position before and after their northern foe (the alliance of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, typified by Ephraim, and the Assyrians) disappears. Note that this is exactly the same point emphasized by 7:8b itself. So either way, that is how the original Jewish audience would have read Isaiah 7:1-17.

But a modern Christian audience would read these verses in an entirely different manner and instead emphasize the verses hidden in Section 2' in which God assures Ahaz that his foes will not be a problem in the fairly near future. The sign that the king is given involves the birth of a child from a young woman (or virgin) and the boy's early maturation. If that sounds familiar to you, it should since it was quoted in quite a different context by Matthew in Matt. 1. The similar language employed in each passage is demonstrated below:

Wording                                                    Isaiah 7                Matthew 1

“The LORD said”                                     14a                          22

“Behold”                                                   14b                          20

“young woman/virgin is with child”        14c                           18

“she will give birth to a son”                   14d                           21

In addition is the fact that the name Jesus (Matthew 1:21) means “Yahweh is salvation” while the theme of Isaiah 7 is the announcement of the salvation of God's people from danger. Also, Blomberg points to the very next chapter of Isaiah for another correspondence:

“Immanuel / God is with us”                  Isaiah 8:8,10            23

Derek Kidner elaborates on the connection between these two remote passages: “How the sign fits the crisis is much debated. As a straight prophecy of Christ (cf. Mt. 1:22f) it may seem too remote to speak to Ahaz; yet the sign was for the threatened house of David (vv. 6, 13), and the very vision of a coming prince was itself a reassurance. Cf. 37:30; Ex. 3:12; Rom. 4:11, for signs to confirm faith rather than compel it...But God may have unveiled the distant scene by way of the near. Some suggest that the sign had immediate value in (a) the time it indicated (the few years from the conception of a child – any child – now, to his reaching the age of conscious choice: v. 16); or (b) the name ('God (is) with us') which a contemporary mother would be moved to give her son – the opposite of Ichabod (cf. 1 Sa. 4:21); or (c) the rank, if it announced a royal birth, which tends to be a harbinger of hope. (But on any reckoning this child could not be Hezekiah, born some years before.) These possibilities are not necessarily in conflict with each other, nor with the long-term prediction of Christ.”

And David Payne adds several more points including:

“No Christian who takes Mt. 1:20-23 seriously can deny an ultimate fulfillment in Christ; but two options still remain open, namely a single fulfillment, in Christ, or else a double fulfillment; one in the lifetime of Ahaz, the other the Messianic fulfillment. The latter option in fact seems preferable...”

“Despite several attempts to demonstrate otherwise, it remains very doubtful whether the Hebrew word 'almah signified only a 'virgin'. Certainly it was a term which included virgins; but it cannot be restricted to them.”

In conclusion, we see that as in many Old Testament prophecies, they speak just as well to the immediate situation of the Jews at the time of writing as to events discussed in New Testament times.

 

"NAME" IN REVELATION 2-3

 

                                                   A New Name (collage )

The concept of one's “name” is an important one in the Book of Revelation, appearing some 37 times. And within the letters to the seven churches it is used 11 times. As often occurs in books of the Bible, there is a certain symmetry associated with these latter occurrences, which can be graphically shown in Figure 1.

                                          Figure 1: “Name” in the Letters to the Churches

A. “My name” – bearing up/holding fast (2:3,13)

        B. A new name written (2:17)

                C. Condemnation (3:1)

                        D. Those Worthy (3:4)

                C'. Condemnation (3:5a)

                        D'. Those Worthy (3:5b)

A'. “My name” – you did not deny (3:8)

        B'. Three names written including a new name (3:12)

Below are some thoughts from biblical scholarship on this subject:

Sections A and A'

“To bear Christ's name...is to share his authority, protection and identity; this entails responsibilities (2 Tim 2:19; 3 Jn 7; Rev 2:3)...To acknowledge Christ's name, not deny it (Rev 2:13; 3:8), guarantees the preservation of one's own name (Rev 3:5; cf. Lk 12:8-9) (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Similarly, Bietenhard says, “Faith and proclamation include confession of the name (Rev. 2:13; 3:8) and readiness to suffer for his name's sake (Matt. 10:22; 24:9). Faith and faithfulness to Jesus is the same as holding fast to his name (Rev. 2:13; 3:8).”

Sections B and B'

Beasley-Murray outlines two possibilities for interpreting Revelation 2:17: “If the name is of Christ or of God (cf. 3:12 and 19:12) then there may be an allusion to the concept of the power inherent in the name of God; the Christian shows God's might and appropriates for himself, in a manner none other can, the character of God. If the name is a new one bestowed on the Christian, then the allusion is to the habit of bestowing new names on persons who have attained a new status...” The structural parallelism exhibited in Figure 1 between B and B' indicates that the first of these two choices is the most likely one.

In agreement with that deduction, Bietenhard states: “The new name which the victor receives expresses his inalienable fellowship with Christ himself (Rev. 2:17).”

Similarly, Bruce says, “The 'new name', according to 3:12, is Christ's (cf. 22:4) 'known only to him who receives it':” Purveyors of magical amulets knew how important it was that a name of power should be kept secret; the power of Jesus' name is not to be commanded by magic arts, but is known in the experience of His servants.”

“Alford is probably right in saying that the important point is the stone's inscription which gives the believer 'a new name,' indicating acceptance by God and his title to glory.” (Walvoord)

Concerning Revelation 3:12, Payne comments: “Each of these figurative phrases carries significance and is interrelated with the others...'to bear the name of the city of God is to be openly acknowledged as one of her citizens' (Swete).” And regarding the name of God and Christ, Payne says that “like a pillar with a dedicatory inscription, he is to be devoted to God, as revealed in Christ, in His new and final glories.”

Walvoord points out that in 3:12, “He repeated His promise: 'I will also write on him My new name' (cf. 2:17; 14:1; 19:12). Because believers have identified with Christ by faith, He will identify with them.”

“In John's apocalyptic vision all people will finally be marked with God's name (Rev 3:12; 14:1; 22:4) or its opposite (Rev 13:17).” (DBI)”

One of the gifts of final perfection is that the victors will bear the name of the Lamb (Rev. 3:12; 14:1; 22:4).” (Bietenhard)

Bruce: “As overcomer he has a triple name inscribed on him – the name of God, who owns him for a son, the name of the city of God, among whose burgesses he is enrolled, and the name of Christ his Lord.”

Sections C-D and C'-D'

“Name sometimes means reputation, bad (Deut 22:14; Lk 6:22) or good (Prov 22:1; Rev 3:1)...Name can stand by metonymy for the person bearing the name (Num 1:2; Acts 1:15; 4:10; Rev 3:4).” (DBI)

It is in these center sections of Figure 1 that we begin to see quite different interpretations depending on one's theological stance. For example, Walvoord is a good representative of the “once saved, always saved” camp. He states, “While this passage may imply that a name could be erased from the book of life, actually it only gives a positive affirmation that their names will not be erased.” But if he is correct, it is interesting that John would have gone to the trouble of mentioning such an impossible happening, even if it was only to deny it.

Bruce, on the other hand, takes another way out of the perceived problem. He says, “The 'book of life' appears here, but not in the other places where it is mentioned in Rev. (13:8; 17:8; 20:12,15; 21:27) to include at first all whose names are on the membership roll of a local church on earth, but those whose membership is but nominal have their name deleted...”

Mounce urges caution at this point by stating, “It is hermeneutically unsound to base theological doctrine solely on either parables or apocalyptic imagery. Better to allow the text, even when difficult, to present its own picture.”

Morris, among others, notes that v. 3 “is not a reference to the second coming. That will take place whether the men of Sardis are watchful or not. But Christ comes in many ways and this is clearly a limited coming in judgment on unrepentant Sardians. The fate of these unrepentant sinners is none the less fearsome because left undefined.”

“Possibly these professing Christians are in danger of losing their salvation, to which they are barely hanging on. However, it is preferable to see them as analogous to the people 'who say they are Jews, and are not, but lie' (3:9; cf. 2:9). These false Jews prove they are not genuine, faithful Jews by their ungodly lifestyle (e.g., by persecuting the church). Likewise, the so-called Christians of Sardis are living in such a way as to call into question whether or not they possess true, living faith in Christ.” (Beale)

So in conclusion you can see that there are several viable alternatives to the possibility of a true Christian backsliding to the point where he or she would not be saved in the end.

ROMANS 5-8 ORGANIZATION

In an earlier post titled “Romans: Introduction to the Literary Structure” I proposed the following symmetrical structure for the book:

Figure 1: The Structure of Romans

I. Greetings (1:1-7)

II. Gospel as the Power of God (1:8-17)

III. Gentiles do not Honor God (1:18-32)

IV. Judging Those Outside the Body (2:1-16)

V. Doing the Law (2:17-24)

VI. Present Position of the Jews (2:25-4:25)

VII. Justification by Faith (chs. 5-6)

A. Christ’s Death (ch. 5)

B. United With Christ (ch. 6)

VII'. New Life (chs. 7-8)

B. Dying to the Law (ch. 7)

A. Life in the Spirit (ch. 8)

VI'. Future Position of the Jews (chs. 9-11)

V'. Living in the Spirit (chs. 12-13)

IV'. Judging Those Within the Body (14:1-15:6)

III'. Gentiles Glorify God (15:7-13)

II'. Gospel Preached by the Power of the Holy Spirit (15:14-33)

I'. Greetings (ch. 16)

Since the center of this organization encompasses Romans 5-8, a closer consideration of that portion of the book is in order.

In Stott’s introduction to his excellent little commentary on these verses, he states that “chapters 5-8 do form a compact unity. They are without doubt among the greatest and most glorious chapters of the whole New Testament.” This is appropriate considering their central position in the structure shown in Fig. 1. In these chapters, “Paul sketches a drama of bondage and liberation. A trilateral power alliance of sin, flesh and death – plus an unwilling accomplice, the law – stand opposed to the reign of God.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

A number of scholars prefer to include ch. 5 with the previous literary unit instead, perhaps because, as Becker formulated, it acts in a way as a hinge between these two adjacent sections. However, thematically, Romans 5 belongs with the following chapters due to their common emphasis on sin (Morris), the Christian life (Morris), and the law of Moses (Childs). Kasemann similarly rejects inclusion of ch. 5 in the previous section as a confusion between justification and sanctification. Another argument in favor of treating these four chapters as a unity is its “long drought of direct citation of the Scriptures” compared to the rest of the book, only broken by the quotation in 8:36. (Seifrid)

Stott divides these chapters thematically into four subunits: Peace with God (5:1-19), Union with Christ (5:20-6:23), Freedom from the Law (7:1-8:4), and Life in the Spirit (8:5-39). A fourfold division along present chapter lines seems more justified by literary considerations, most notably their similar endings:

“Eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (5:21)

                        “Eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (6:23)

                        “Law of God...Jesus Christ our Lord” (7:23)

                        “Love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:39)

Romans 5 is unified by its repetition (11x) of the word “one.” Romans 5 and 6 (VIIA and B) share an emphasis on the death of Christ (5:10; 6:3-9), the fact that sin’s power has been broken (5:18-19; 6:3), and the concept of our life being in His (5:10; 6:8). Each of the two chapters begins with a long passage in which the use of “we” is pervasive. In these passages, we learn that “[o]ur election, calling, justification, standing in Christ, is fully accomplished by his saving work.” (Harvey and Towner) It has also been noted by Allen that 6:15-23 “is the application of 5:12ff to the Christian’s moral life.” Chapters 5-6 contain four examples of the sentence construction “just as..so” (5:12-18,19,21; 6:4). Words commonly utilized in Section VII include “offenses,” “increase” and “offer.”

On the other hand, Morris notes that chs. 7 and 8 (VII'B and A) appear to purposely contrast one another in that the “I” of the former chapter is almost wholly replaced by “the Spirit” in Rom. 8. The key word “body” is quite prominent throughout Section VII'. And McGuinn points out the presence of sexual metaphors in 7:1-6 and 8:18-25. Kasemann calls these two chapters “The End of the Law in the Power of the Spirit.” In addition to this proposed division, there is a symmetrical correspondence uniting all four chapters that takes the following form:

                                    VIIA. Chapter 5

VIIB. Chapter 6

                                                            VII'B. Chapter 7

                                    VII'A. Chapter 8

Kasemann has similarly pointed to the common motifs in Romans 5 and 8, the connected thoughts of chs. 5 and 6, and the close relationship between 6 and 7.

Brauch, alternatively, sees two implied questions brought up in Rom. 7:1-4. The first one is addressed briefly in 7:5 and then in more detail in 7:7-24 while the second question is answered briefly in 7:6 and then expounded upon further in 8:1-17.

VIIA and VII'A (Romans 5 and 8)

Kasemann entitles ch. 5 “Freedom from the Power of Death” and subdivides it with a new unit beginning at vs. 12, as does Stott. Stott also notes that this chapter ends as it began, with “the privileges of the justified.” One of the major themes of ch. 8 is the work of the Spirit (the latter word occurring almost twenty times in this chapter). We are prepared for this emphasis by a crucial pronouncement earlier in ch. 5:

“God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.” – Rom. 5:5

The role of the Spirit in giving the Christian eternal life is found in 5:21 and 8:9-11. Another common theme to these two chapters is the implications of faith-righteousness found in 5:1-11 (a sub-unit defined by a framework consisting of the word complex “boast / through our Lord Jesus Christ / justified / reconciled”) and 8:31-39, which effectively brackets the whole of the combined sections VII through VII'. There is a possibly similar function served by the references to Christ / Spirit helping us in our weakness (5:6; 8:26). Similar themes within these passages include (a) the sharing by Christians in God’s glory (5:2; 8:30), (b) boasting in our sufferings since it leads to glory (5:2-4; 8:18), (c) perseverance in the midst of suffering (5:3; 8:35), and (d) Christ’s dying for sinners (5:6-8; 8:32). The effects of the Fall on mankind and nature are described in 5:12-20 and 8:19-22, respectively.

Some specific verbal correspondences between these parallel sections include: “peace” (5:1, 8:6), “justified” (5:1,9; 8:30,33), “hope” (seven times in 5:2-5; 8:20-24), “not only that” (5:3,11; 8:23), “patience” (5:3-4; 8:25), “God's love” (5:5,8; 8:35,39), “Lord Jesus Christ (5:8; 8:11),” “saved” (5:9,10; 8:24), “enmity with God” (5:10; 8:7), “his son” (5:10; 8:29,32), “likeness” (5:14; 8:30), “condemnation” (5:16;18, 8:1), and “life” (5:17,18; 8:6,10).

There is also a roughly chiastic correspondence between the major sub-themes of these two chapters:

1. Justified / at peace with God (5:1-2)

2. Suffering–hope–Spirit (5:3-5)

3. Law increases the trespass (5:6-21)

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

                                    3'. Law of Spirit frees (8:1-17)

2'. Suffering–hope–Spirit (8:18-27)

1'. Justified / at peace with God (8:28-39)

All of the above structural considerations work against the contention of Campbell that all or part of Romans 8 should be considered closely together with chs. 9-11.

VIIB and VII'B (Romans 6 and 7)

Ch. 6 is titled “Death to the Power of Sin” by Kasemann and consists of three parallel units: vv. 1-11, 12-14 and 15-23. The first and last of these begin in an identical manner and conclude with a contrast between life and death including the phrase “in Christ Jesus.” The middle unit (6:12-14) has been treated by others as either part of the first unit (Stott), the theme to the last unit (Kasemann), or as transitional verses (McGuinn). Romans 7 has as its major theme “Death to the Law” (closely allied with the theme of the previous chapter) and contains three subunits with openings using language borrowed from ch. 6.

            A. QUESTION – “What shall we say then?” (6:1)

B. ANSWER – “Certainly not!” (6:2)

C. QUESTION – “Do you not know?” (6:3)

A. QUESTION – “What then..?” (6:15a)

B. ANSWER – “Certainly not!” (6:15b)

C. QUESTION – “Do you not know?” (6:16)

C. QUESTION – “Or do you not know, brethren?” (7:1)

A. QUESTION – “What then shall we say then?” (7:7a)

B. ANSWER – “Certainly not!” (7:7b)

A. QUESTION – “Has then..?” (7:13a)

B. ANSWER – “Certainly not!” (7:13b)

Each of these five units figuratively describes a spiritual truth: dying with Christ, freed from slavery, freedom to remarry after a spouse dies, killed by sin through the commandment, and an alien entity living within, respectively. Key words and phrases found in both chapters are: “no more” (6:2,9; 7:17,20), “by no means” (6:2,15; 7:7,13), “raise up” (6:4,9; 7:4), “body” (6:6,12; 7:4,24), “serve” (6:6; 7:6,25), “mastery” (6:9,14; 7:1), “desires” (6:12; 7:7-8), “members” (6:13,19; 7:5,23), “thanks be to God” (6:17; 7:25), and “slavery” (6:19; 7:6).

The center unit beginning at 7:1 has been linked thematically with both the preceding verses and those that follow by Thimmes.

More substantial thematic similarities have been noted in the literature:

    Objections to Christian discipline (6:1,15; 7:7-8)

    Various things are nullified or discharged (6:6; 7:2,6)

    Paul’s “sin-dominated personality” (6:6; 7:24)

    Going from death to life (6:13; 7:5-6,10)

   The figure of marriage applied to the law (6:14; 7:1-6)

   The law is not evil (6:14; 7:7)

    Being under sin compared to slavery (6:17-18; 7:6,14)

    Mind/body dualism; “members” (6:19; 7:23-24)

An additional factor uniting these two chapters is found in their respective conclusions in which the phrase “Christ Jesus (or Jesus Christ) our Lord” is prominent. Likewise, the first unit of ch. 6 and the last unit of ch. 7 both end with quotes from Ps. 119 (v. 133 in 6:14 and v. 7 in 7:22).

Finally, L.C. Allen has proposed that the second half of Romans 7:25 more properly belongs with the following chapter, but this proposal is countered by others (see Morris) who would actually rearrange the text to move 7:25b to a position before 7:24.

DID GOD REJECT SACRIFICES IN AMOS 5:21-27?

“Taken as a whole, the Hebrew Bible manifests a certain ambivalence regarding sacrifice. In the Pentateuch, it is solemnly enjoined as a positive divine requirement, while other passages seem to articulate God's rejection of the practice as a whole (e.g. Amos 5:21-27; Isa. 1:10-20; Ps. 51:16-17). The latter formulations are best seen as hyperbolic [i.e. exaggerated] reminders of the truth that cultic sacrifice is pleasing to God only when offered by one whose whole whole life is lived in accordance with God's will.” (Begg)

I decided to see what other commentators had to say on the subject in relation to these three passages and whether they agreed with Begg's method of resolving this apparent contradiction.

Amos 5:21-27

“They [the people of Israel] believed that their festivals, their sacrifices, and their songs of praise would be accepted by God and that he in response would pour out his blessings on the nation. The first person verbs in verses 21-23 carry an extremely powerful renunciation of the nation's most significant expressions of love and devotion to God...The expectations of the worshiper are false, God has no pleasure in these rituals. They words are amazingly similar to Isaiah's (Is. 1:10-17)...Amos does not chide the people for not celebrating feasts; he condemns the feasts they did celebrate...In the preceding verses God has rejected temple worship as a means of communicating with himself. Now [in v. 24] God opens the door for true worship in his presence. The jussive form of the verb is an admonition to change the central focus of worship from the performance of the ritual to the establishment of justice and righteousness. This need not imply that the prophet rejects all types of worship as evil or unnecessary; it merely means that justice must have its central place in the lives of all those who wish to enter God's presence. God requires a just and righteous living as a prerequisite of worship (Mic. 6:6-8; Isa. 1:10-17)...If their social and legal relationships to each other, and especially to the poor and weak, are not consistent with the responsibilities outlined in the law of God, they can hardly expect God's approval.” (G.V. Smith)

Carroll R. says that “the emphasis lies with Yahweh's uncompromising moral exigencies [given in v. 24] that should be the foundation of Israel's life... [However] Israel's unacceptable religion, which ignores God's ethical demands (5:7,14-15, 24) even as it celebrates a false Yahweh (5:21-23) and is tempted by other gods (5:26), will bring the darkness of exile (5:18-20, 26-7).”

Isaiah 1:10-20

“Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this diatribe is the questioning of the requirement, written into the so-called “Covenant Code...that adult males present themselves at the state sanctuary three times a year...In Isaiah, as in his near contemporaries Amos and Micah, animal sacrifice seems to have aroused the strongest negative reaction (cf. Amos 5:22; Mic 6:6-7), more than the cereal and incense offerings, and continued to do so long after this time (e.g. Isa 66:1-4), no doubt because it could be so easily exploited to the advantage of temple personnel...As in the passages in Amos 5:24 and Mic 6:8, our poem closes with the contrast between liturgical religiosity on the one hand and justice and righteousness on the other.” (Blenkinsopp)

In addition, Wolf says, “By referring to Sodom and Gomorrah in verses 9 and 10, Isaiah hoped to impress on the people the seriousness of their situation. Their superficial attempt at being religious could not save them. They continued to bring large numbers of sacrifices, but their lack of true devotion vitiated the intended effect of the offerings. God requires his worshipers to have clean hands and a pure heart, and they had neither (Ps. 24:4). The quality of one's worship – not the quantity of good deeds – is most important...There was nothing intrinsically wrong with the sacrificial system or with the special holy days mentioned in verses 13 and 14.., but the activities of the people on those days had become as detestable as the sacrifice of a dog or a pig.”

Psalm 51:16-17

“In these verses of Psalm 51, the psalmist reflects on the nature of sacrifice. Sacrifices are not offered by humanity to appease God. Sacrifices are necessary because humanity needs symbols, acts with which to come before God to restore right relationships. But the symbol is not the sole element of the sacrificial system. Proper sacrifice requires proper attitude; in the case of the singer of Psalm 51, the attitude is a spirit being broken and a heart being broken and crushed. The word translated broken is from the Hebrew root sabar and includes the ideas of 'contrite, sorry, and humble...Verses 16-17 of Psalm 51 are not a polemic against the sacrificial system. They are a polemic against sacrifice of material goods without sacrifice of spirit and heart. In the same way that sin cannot be forgiven without a broken spirit and heart, so proper sacrifice cannot be offered without a proper attitude.” (deClaisse-Walford)

M'Caw and Motyer, keeping in mind David's own personal situation, state, “These verses do not deny the principle and practice of sacrifice. No sacrifice was prescribed in the law for adultery and murder, and therefore none could be offered. David could only rely on God's wisdom to provide such a sacrifice and himself bring that contrite spirit without which all sacrifice for sin is ineffectual.”

Baigent takes the same approach based on the heading to this psalm: “A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came to him, after he had gone into Bathsheba.” He notes that although some scholars doubt that David was the actual author, this psalm obviously had the events in David's life in mind, as recorded in II Samuel 11-12. Thus, as Durham said, “(I)t is best to refrain from dogmatic conclusions concerning this psalm's authorship, either to identify it with David or to deny that it relates to David's experience.”

Modern Application

It is easy for us today to take potshots at the disobedient Jews of the past, but the Old Testament teachings and stories are for our benefit also. I could cite a number of people I have met in church settings, both Protestant and Catholic, who rely almost solely on religious rituals (either one-time acts or repeated ones) to save them in spite of what they might do in their life during the week.

I THESSALONIANS 2:14-16 WAS PAUL ANTISEMITIC?

In writing to the primarily Gentile church at Thessalonica, Paul says some rather harsh things regarding the Jews. He calls them murderers and accuses them of throwing out converted Jews such as himself, displeasing God, and demonstrating hatred toward all men. This last phrase probably refers to non-Jews and is actually echoed in the words of both the Roman historian Tacitus and the Graeco-Egyptian scholar Apion who was a near contemporary of Paul.

One simple, but unnecessary, solution to the accusation that Paul appears to be violently anti-semitic at this point in the letter is to state with scholars such as Pearson and Schmidt that these verses were not by Paul at all, but inserted into the text by some later writer. Of course, there is absolutely no manuscript evidence to back up this theory.

As Stott says, “These two verses [i.e. 15-16] sometimes called 'the Pauline polemic against the Jews', have been described as 'violent', 'vehement', 'vindictive', 'passionate', 'intemperate', 'bitter' and 'harsh'. So incongruous do some commentators feel them to be in one of Paul's letters, that they attribute them to an anti-Jewish interpolator.”

It is helpful at this point in discussing this controversial point to consider the literary and historical context in which Paul's words occur.

                         Figure 1: The Literary Structure of I Thessalonians 2:13-3:10

A. Thanks to God (2:13)

        B. persecutions (2:14-16)

                C. “brothers” (2:17a)

                        D. “longed to see you” (2:17b-19)

                                E. “we could bear it no longer” (3:1)

                                        F. “we sent Timothy” (3:2)

        B'. persecutions (3:3-4)

                                E'. “we could bear it no longer (3:5)

                                        F'. “Timothy has come back” (3:6a)

                        D'. “long to see you” (3:6b)

                C'. “brothers” (3:7a)

        B''. persecutions (3:7b-8)

A'. Thanks to God (3:9-10)

The above is a prime example of how one cannot always take the chapter divisions, which were only added to the text during the Middle Ages, as a sure guide as to where paragraphs in the Bible were meant to begin and end.

Looking at the three “B” sections, we can see how they are all closely connected:

In B, Paul compares the persecutions he suffered from his fellow countrymen with the persecution the Thessalonian believers were receiving from their fellow Gentiles.

In B', he reminds them that such persecutions had been predicted by Paul in advance.

And finally, in B'' he tells them that he can withstand his own troubles as long as they continue to stand firm in their own faith.

But what can we say to excuse the extreme language Paul utilizes in 2:14-16?

For one thing, Quanbeck reminds us: “The severe language reflects the strenuous struggle between Paul and the Jews (Acts 14.2,5,19; 17.5,13; 21:21; 25:2,7).” In a similar manner, Wanamaker feels that such persecution in Palestine by Jewish nationalists (or zealots) may “account for Paul's vituperative outburst in I Thes. 2:15f.”

Another possibility is voiced by Donfried as described by Wanamaker: “...Acts 17:5-9 gives the clue to the problem when it indicates that the mob charged Jason and the other Christians whom they had dragged before the magistrates of Thessalonica with opposing the decrees of Caesar by saying that there was another king named Jesus.” In his commentary on I and II Thessalonians, Elias similarly points to this historical event, partially instigated by hostile Jews, as lying behind Paul's remarks here.

Brauch has even more to say on the subject. His major points are given below:

    1. “First, it should be noted that the statements in question come from persons [such as Paul, John, and Jesus] who were themselves Semites.” As Morris says, “At the same time we should notice that Paul's anger is the anger of a man with his own nation, with his own people. He is very much part of them, and he sorrows for their fate.”

    2. “Their [referring to Paul and John] Jewishness and their commitment to the sacred writings which give to Judaism its uniqueness and identity are affirmed.” For proof of this, read Luke 13:34; Romans 9:2-3,11:1,17-24; Galatians 1:13-14; and Philippians 3:4-6.

    3. “In addition, Paul sees the rejection of the Messiah by his own people as but a temporary reality.” See passages such as Romans 11:1,17-24.

    4. “Paul's strong words in this text are elicited by a situation in Thessalonica in which Christians (probably Gentile Christians) are suffering at the hands of their own countrymen.” Cousins agrees: “His bitterness suggests that the persecution at Thessalonica, though carried on by Gentiles, was instigated by Jews (cf. Ac. 17:5-9).”

    5. Brauch concludes by saying that “just as the Gospel of John uses the term 'the Jews' to designate the Pharisaic-Sadducean leadership that opposed Jesus, so Paul has in mind those Jews who opposed his mission (I Thess 2:16).”

Then Wanamaker adds a point often ignored by commentators, namely, the fact that accusations of the Jews killing the prophets actually first arise in the Old Testament itself, not the New Testament. As examples, see I Kings 19:10-14; II Chronicles 36:15ff.; Nehemiah 9:27; and Jeremiah 2:30 “This indictment implies that Paul saw a continuity in the pattern of Jewish rejection of God's agents from OT times.”

Echoing this thought, Morris quotes Denney as saying that it is “the vehement condemnation, by a man in thorough sympathy with the mind and spirit of God, of the principles on which the Jews as a nation had acted at every period of their history.”

It is also very interesting to compare Paul's accusations against “the Jews” with the speech of Stephen in Acts 7, keeping in mind that Paul himself was present during at the time and was one of the Jews who helped stone him.

Malherbe notes that some translations mistakenly put a comma between verses 14 and 15, wrongly implying that it was all the Jews who were at fault. But omitting the comma gives the correct implication that it was only those particular Jews who sinned thusly.

Lastly, Constable, among others, have another explanation for why Paul was so adamant in his words in these verses. “It was not out of personal hatred for them (Rom. 9:1-5). Rather it was to emphasize the seriousness of hindering the preaching of the gospel. This message was transforming the Thessalonian believers, and they were heralding it to others far and wide. These verses illustrate how important it is that the gospel reach everybody (Matt. 28:19-20).”