JUDE 1-4

  

                                                   Jude 1-4 (paper collage, 1984)

One way in which to view this short letter is to divide it into three parts: Introduction (vv. 1-4); Body (vv. 5-16); and Conclusion (vv. 17-25). And there is a certain symmetry in that there are a number of concepts and words shared between the Introduction and Conclusion:

Subject or Wording                                                         Introduction                  Conclusion

“Jesus Christ”                                                                 v. 1 (2x)                          v. 25

“God”                                                                              vv. 1,4                            vv. 21,25

“love”                                                                             vv. 1,3                             v. 21

“kept safe,” “keep from falling,” “save,” “Savior,”       v. 1                                 vv. 21,23,24,25

“mercy”                                                                           v. 2                                 v. 21

“beloved”                                                                        v. 3                                 vv. 17,20

contending for the faith                                                  v. 3                                 vv. 20-23

“once for all,” “now and forever”                                   v. 3                                 v. 25

“faith”                                                                             v. 3                                 v. 20

descriptions of the ungodly                                             v. 4                                 vv. 18-19

“godless”                                                                         v. 4                                 vv. 15, 18

“long ago,” “before all time”                                          v. 4                                  v. 25

“only”                                                                              v. 4                                  v. 25

In addition, the full phrase “Lord Jesus Christ” is found in verses 4, 17, and 21, as well as in the order “Jesus Christ Lord” in v. 25. And notice that the brief descriptions of the ungodly troublemakers in the church in verses 4 and 18-19 bracket the more full diatribe against these people which constitutes the central body of the letter.

A note regarding Jude's writing style is in order here before reading any further in this short letter. Many scholars have pointed out the propensity of James to list triads in his letter. Thus, we have “called, beloved and kept” (v. 1); “mercy, peace and love “ (v. 2); and “ungodly, pervert and deny” (v. 4) in just these first four verses. In Nyrey's commentary on Jude, he locates sixteen such triplets just in this short epistle. As an exercise, you might want to see how many of these you can detect.

Jude 1

It is first necessary here to discuss a textual issue since ancient manuscripts differ somewhat in their readings. Metzger notes that The King James Version chose to go with the reading hagiasmenois (“sanctified”) in place of the more widely attested and earlier Greek manuscripts which have instead agapmenois (“loved”).

Reicke states: “Even though the author calls himself the 'servant' rather than the brother of Jesus, this is fully understandable as an expression of modesty...Jude has authority enough through his relationship to James, the well-known leader of the Jerusalem church...The recipients of the epistle are described as 'the called ones who are loved by God the Father,' vs. 1, in short, as in Second Peter, the church in general. Jude, however, was writing with more regard for Jewish Christians readers than Second Peter.”

The exact familial relationship of Jude to Jesus in an earthly sense is a question of such scope that I won't attempt to tackle it here except to include an interesting quotation from the Roman Catholic priest and scholar Joseph Fitzmyer who, in his two-volume commentary on Luke, equivocates as to the sense in which Jesus had 'brothers.' He gives examples in which adelphos should be understood since it can also mean neighbor (Matt 5:22-24), coreligionist (Romans 9:3), or stepbrother (Mark 6:17-18). But he recognizes that “the only virginity of Mark of which he [i.e. Luke] speaks in the Gospel concerns her status prior to the conception of Jesus (1:27, 34).” This is in spite of the official Catholic teaching of the eternal virginity of Mary.

“Both Jude and Andrew might well have been jealous and resentful of their far greater brothers. Both must have had the gift of gladly taking second place.” (Barclay)

For more information on the siblings of Jesus, see passages such as Mark 3:31-35; 6:3;15:40; 16:6,9; Matthew 12:46-50; 13:55; 27:56; Luke 8:19-21; 24:34; John 7:2-5; Acts 7:2; and I Corinthians 15:7.

Concerning the word 'servant,' Green points out: “One of the paradoxes of Christianity is that in such glad devotion a man finds perfect freedom.”

Jude 2

“The greeting Jude conveys to the audience is almost a prayer wish that God would multiply his blessings in this community (1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2). With the term mercy, Jude draws on the Hebrew concept of the 'kindness' of God (hesed) toward people that sustains the covenant. Peace is the sense of welfare and rest in God that mercy seeks to produce. These two elements were typical of Jewish greetings...Of course, love (agape) is intrinsic to the Christian understanding of God's actions in and through Christ in behalf of humankind.” (Towner)

Jude 2-3

It is widely agreed by Bible scholars that the author of 2 Peter borrowed language from the letter of Jude so that, for example, 2 Peter 1:2 // Jude 2 and 2 Peter 1:5 // Jude 3. Or, as Reicke believes, “both epistles derive from a common tradition which may well have been oral rather than written. Very possibly there was a sermon pattern formulated to resist the seducers of the church. This would explain both the similarities and the differences in a satisfactory fashion.”

Jude 3

There is another minor question regarding the Greek text of this verse which is reflected in the KJV reading of “the (hamon) salvation” vs. most modern translations which favor “our (humon) salvation.” (Metzger)

We learn here that “Jude had projected another treatise, concerning 'our common salvation', when he found himself obliged to take up a more controversial line, in vigorous defense of the apostolic faith. This defense was made necessary by the alarming advances made by an incipient gnosticism in the circle of Christians in which Jude addresses himself – not in this case an ascetic form of teaching like that attacked by Paul in Colossians, but an antinomian [lit. 'against the law'] form which may have appealed to Paul's teaching about “Christian liberty, misinterpreting that liberty as license...” (Bruce)

Nyrey explains that the metaphor 'contend' in this verse “can refer to (a) military combat (John 18:36; 2 Tim 2:4...) or (b) sporting contests (1 Cor 9:24-25; 2:Tim 2:5...). Contending for the faith (1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7) may be viewed in two complementary ways.” The first is in terms of honor and shame while the second is in terms of purity and pollution. Concerning this last category, he says, “When boundaries are threatened, one sounds the alarm, posts guards, and seeks to identify, neutralize, and expel the threatening pollution. Hence the group is put on guard to secure the boundary ('faith delivered once for all') against polluting scoffers, who have 'crept in.'”

Jude 4

The King James Version of Jude 4 relies on manuscripts which reads “the only master God and our Lord Jesus Christ” while there is much better manuscript support for omission of the word “God.” (Metzger)

Davids says, “Jude's major concern is ethics. The false teachers are accused of denying Christ (v. 4), who is described as 'our only Master and Lord' (NRSV). But the specific charges Jude brings indicate ethical rather than doctrinal departure from Jesus: to call Jesus 'Lord' and reject his ethical teaching is just as much a denial of him as to deny he is Lord.'”

“Furthermore, they are treating the fact that God graciously accepts sinners as an excuse for flagrant, shameless sin, Aselgeia, a license for immorality, means in Greek literature, and particularly in Aristotle's Ethics, 'unrestrained vice'. Thus it comes fittingly as the climax of the foul catalogue in Galatians 5:19.” (Green)

I CORINTHIANS 2:1-7

To illustrate the utility of a good Bible reference book, the above passage was chosen as a random example to show what one such book, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (IVP, 1993), has to say in its individual articles on these verses.

I Corinthians 2:1-5 Winter comments on these first five verses of this section: “Paul explained why he had renounced in his modus operendi all formal conventions whereby a foreign rhetor established his credentials when he first came to a city (1 Cor 2:1-5). He tells why he would not proclaim the gospel using the superior presentation of rhetoric or wisdom (1 Cor 2:1). While rhetors sought topics from their audience on which to declaim in order to demonstrate their prowess in oratory, Paul was concerned only to proclaim Jesus the crucified Messiah (1 Cor 2:2)...It was a radical and costly step on the part of Paul to refuse to use much admired rhetoric of his day in preaching. His renunciation was motivated by the desire that his converts' faith must not rest on his own wisdom but on the power of God (1 Cor 2:5).”

Arnold adds: “The Corinthians...were tempted to be more impressed with the form and style of delivery...rather than the content of the message. Paul thus calls them to focus on the content of the preaching – Jesus Christ and him crucified – and the demonstration of the Spirit's power in his preaching, evident in the transformed lives of the converts (1 Cor 2:1-5).”

And to counter those who may feel that Paul could not hold his own with more rhetorically trained opponents, Yamauchi says, “Though Paul eschews the more florid displays of Greek oratory (1 Cor 2:1-4), his letters nonetheless employ [numerous] rhetorical devices.., and he meets his sophistic opponents (in 2 Cor 10-13) by using their techniques and procedures.”

And Hafemann says that “rather than questioning the legitimacy of his apostleship because of his suffering, Paul considered suffering to be a characteristic mark of his apostolic ministry (Gal 6:17; 1 Cor 2:1-5, etc.), and an aspect of his own moral life concerning which he was content...Paul's suffering also functioned to make it clear...that the power and knowledge of the gospel was God's and not his own, so that those who encountered Paul would place their faith in the power of God and not in the person of the apostle...”

I Corinthians 2:1-2 “It has been argued that the small number of converts in Athens caused Paul to change the character of his preaching, and that this is reflected in such passages as 1 Corinthians 2:1-2. But the situations in Athens and Corinth were radically different and called for different emphases.” (Gempf)

I Corinthians 2:1 Trites explains that “the noun for 'testimony' (martyrion) appears in Paul's letters as a synonym for the gospel. Paul speaks of 'the testimony about God' (1 Cor 2:1 NIV, if this is the correct textual reading), 'our testimony about Christ' (1 Cor 1:6 NIV) or simply 'our testimony' (2 Thess 1:10).”

I Corinthians 2:2 Greidanus: “Contemporary recommendations to use Paul's letters to preach biographical sermons on Paul are obviously contrary to his intentions.”

Travis says, “Two main word groups occur frequently in Paul's letters [referring to 'judgment']. Like the English verb to judge, the Greek krino can mean 'form an opinion,' 'decide' (1 Cor 2:2), but commonly refers to the assessment of human beings by others (1 Cor 4:5; 6:1) or by God (Rom 2:16).”

“Paul claims that the Corinthians misunderstood the power and freedom of the gospel because they failed to understand the significance of the cross when they were baptized into Christ and his death (cf. Rom 6:3). He reminds them, however, that when he was among them he 'knew nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified' (1 Cor 2:2; see also 1 Cor 1:18,23). Prior to the consummation of all things, the Christian life, and particularly Christians' conception of true power and authority are characterized by the cross.” (Fowl)

I Corinthians 2:3 Bruce says, “He [Paul] left Macedonia in deep depression and arrived in Corinth, as he confessed 'in weakness and fear and much trembling' (1Cor 2:3). If Macedonia had shown itself so unwelcoming Corinth would surely be more so: its public reputation promised no receptive soil for the gospel seed. But nevertheless Paul was able to spend eighteen months in Corinth, preaching the gospel and building up the church, with no serious molestation.”

“The phrase 'fear and trembling' is unique to the Pauline writings in the NT (1 Cor 2:3; 2 Cor 7:15; Phil 2:12; Eph 6:5).” (Porter)

I Corinthians 2:1,4 “A number of commentators have taken en sophia logou as a reference to a formal characteristic of skillful speech...Paul reiterates that he did not come in such a way as to distinguish himself in eloquence or wisdom (1 Cor 2:1; cf. 1:7). What is primarily at stake is Paul's speaking. Paul is adamant in restating in 1 Corinthians 2:4 that his speech and proclamation were not with eloquence and rhetorical skill.” (Blue)

I Corinthians 2:3 Black: “Anthropologically, weakness presupposes that a person's whole being is dependent upon God and is subject to the humiliations of all creation (1 Cor 2:3). Weakness also involves the inability of human beings to attain God's favor by themselves (1 Cor 9:22).”

I Corinthians 2:3-4 Barton says that “Paul's authority depended upon his ability to mediate effectively the message of the cross along with its cultural and socio-economic corollaries. This he attempted to do by preaching it (with whatever lack of rhetorical finesse, cf. 1 Cor 2:3-4), teaching and writing letters about it, and by embodying it in his own apostolic lifestyle and person.”

I Corinthians 2:4 Kim states that “when Paul speaks of 'the signs of the apostle' in terms of 'signs and wonders and mighty work' (2 Cor 12:12; Rom 15:18-19; Gal 3:5; 1 Cor 2:4; 1 Thess 1:5), he seems to reflect Jesus' words of apostolic commission (Mk 6:7-8; cf. Mk 16:17-18).”

“Righteousness and Spirit, together with closely related concepts like life (2 Cor 3:6), freedom (2 Cor 3:17) and power (cf. 1 Cor 2:4), form a matrix that constitutes the eschatological glory revealed in Christ.” (Gaffin)

Twelftree states that “the compelling power of Paul's message was not in his rhetoric but in the demonstration 'of Spirit and of power' (1 Cor 2:4). As 'Spirit' and 'power' can be interchangeable in Paul's writing (cf. Rom 15:1,19; 1 Thess 1:5), the words here are likely to signify the same reality.”

I Corinthians 2:4-5 “Paul inherits from the OT and intertestamental Judaism the concept of the Spirit as the power of God. He attributes his evangelistic success to the Spirit's effective presence, and suggests more than once that miracles attended his own preaching, though he does not enumerate these (1 Thess 1:4-6; 1 Cor 2:4-6; Rom 2:4-5; Rom 15:18-19; Gal 3:2).” (Paige)

“The Spirit is...spoken of as the power of resurrection existence made operative in the Christian's ethical life (as in Rom 8:1; 1 Cor 2:4-5) (Kreitzer)

I Corinthians 2:4-7 “Paul emphasized the dissimilarity between the word of the cross and

'wisdom of speech' (1 Cor 1:17) which is the 'wisdom of the world' (1 Cor 1:20), 'human wisdom' (1 Cor 2:5), the 'wisdom of this age,' which is the wisdom of the earthly 'rulers of this age' (1 Cor 2:6) – mere 'human wisdom' (1 Cor 2:13)...the message of the gospel is 'God's wisdom' (1 Cor 2:7)...Thus the proclamation of the gospel of Christ who is God's wisdom has the power to lead to faith and the bestowal of the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:4-5).” (Schnabel)

I Corinthians 2:5 Guthrie and Martin explain: “So glorious a being [as God] could never be impotent (cf. Rom 4:21; 11:23; 1 Cor 2:5; 2 Cor 9:8). Indeed the description 'the power of God,'

which is used absolutely, aptly indicates this dynamic aspect of God's character (cf. 2 Cor 6:7; 13:4; 2 Tim 1:8).”

I Corinthians 2:6 Reid comments on the term “rulers” found in verses 6 and 8: “This term commonly referred to human rulers, a sense Paul himself used when he spoke of rulers as civil authorities (archontes) in Romans 13:3...Interpreters are divided over whether 1 Corinthians 2:6,8 refers to human or to spiritual powers, with some suggesting a dual reference.”

“Paul alludes to the Corinthians as 'perfect' or 'mature' (1 Cor 2:6) because to them God's Spirit revealed his wisdom that is 'not of this age' (1 Cor 2:6,10). The Corinthians stand in contrast to those without the Spirit (1 Cor 2:12,14), who possess no spiritual discernment.” (Klein)

Kreitzer says, “The adjective teleios can...take the sense of 'mature' or 'adult' and is so used in 1 Corinthians 2:6; 14:20; Philippians 3:15...”

I Corinthians 2:6-7 “Paul understood the death and resurrection of Jesus in the past as cosmic eschatological events that separate 'this age' (Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6), or 'this present evil age' (Gal 1:4), from 'the age to come.' This present age is dominated by rulers, demonic powers who are doomed to pass away (1 Cor 2:6-7).” (Aune)

Painter: “Ephesians 1:4 envisages the plan and action of God before the foundation of the world (pro kata boles kosmou). This Jewish expression is found four times in the Gospels (Mt 13:35 = Ps 78:2; Mt 24:21; Mk 10:6; 13:9) and with 'before the ages' (proton aionon, 1 Cor 2:7) means 'before the creation'...The urgency of the moment calls for denial, not because the physical world is evil in itself (1 Cor 10:26) but because the form of this world is passing away (1 Cor 2:6; 7:31) and the new age is dawning. Attachment to 'things of this world' is not appropriate.”

ECCLESIASTES 1:1-11

Several authors have stressed the joint importance of the poems located in the prologue (1:3-11) and toward the end of the book (12:1-7) in setting out the whole scope and theme of Ecclesiastes. These two poems correspond roughly to the respective themes of “the futility of life” and “the answer of practical faith,” the two poles around which the book's observations revolve. But, surprisingly, few commentators seem to have viewed the beginning and conclusion of Ecclesiastes as a pair of perfectly symmetrical bookends, as Seow notes:

        A. The Words of the Preacher (1:1)

                B. Thesis: All is Vanity (1:2)

                        C. Poem (1:3-11)

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

                        C'. Poem (12:1-7)

                B'. Thesis: All is Vanity (12:8)

        A'. The Words of the Preacher (12:9-14)

Ecclesiastes 1:1 The controversies concerning this passage begin with discussions concerning the identity of the author these words. Longman states, “Even conservative commentators...reject the tradition of Solomonic authorship. The connection between Qohelet and Solomon is instead recognized as a literary fiction on the part of the writer of the book...”

And elsewhere Longman says, “Increasingly, commentators have recognized two voices in the book. In Ecclesiastes 1:12-12:7, Qohelet speaks in the first person; In Ecclesiastes 1:1-11; 12:8-14 someone else (often called the frame narrator or second wise teacher) speaks about Qohelet to his son...” Note how that roughly fits the literary structure shown above.

“To disguise the identity of an actual king by naming him 'Qohelet' ['teacher] is one thing, but to refer to him as 'son of David, king in Jerusalem (Eccles 1:1) when he was not is problematic for some interpreters, although it need not be, since there is no reason to assume that adopting a literary persona is an act of deception...It simply means that the main character of the book is referred as Qohelet for reasons which still elude interpreters to this day.” (Enns)

Shields discusses the pros and cons regarding the identity of Qohelet with Solomon. He concludes: “The fact that Qohelet is never explicitly identified with Solomon suggests that the association exists to serve a purpose other than outright identification. And the most recognized reason for the association is to establish the authority and integrity of Qohelet's wisdom.”

Ecclesiastes 1:2 And now we come to that mysterious Hebrew term hebel, translated as “vanity” by the KJV. Depending on the English translation you have or the commentator you read, this may be rendered by one of the following possibilities: breath, absurd, vapor, empty, self-pride, fleeting, transitory, futile, senseless, incomprehensible, mystery, enigma, meaningless, frustrating, temporary, air, steam, or gas.

As one example, Pokrifka says, “The life that God breathes into creatures is portrayed as fleeting. Life and everything in it is hebel (Eccles 1:2), which literally means 'vapor' (Ps 144:4; Prov 13:11; 21:6) and is often translated as 'breath'...'Vapor' figuratively speaks of the ephemeral nature of life and its absurdity. The translation 'vapor' is preferred over against the traditional rendering 'vanity' (KJV), especially given the plethora of images for the brevity and transience of life used in close connection with hebel.”

Thus, Firth makes the following interesting suggestion: “The pleasure for readers is in seeking to follow all the clues that Qohelet provides as to what he means by hebel [breath, vanity, etc.] Indeed, by deferring from providing an exact resolution, Qohelet continually invites the readers to come back and reread the text and to continue the exploration.”

Hendry brings up a question regarding the statement 'All is vanity' in this verse. He asks, “(H)ow could [the author of] Ecclesiastes pronounce all to be vanity, unless he knew of some validity, some sure ground to which his spirit clung? His object is not to counsel despair but to refute secularism on its own ground.”

I would add that hebel often appears in the repeated phrase 'vanities of vanities', which is a Hebraic way of expressing a superlative and thus means 'the greatest vanity.' In the same way 'king of kings' denotes the ultimate king and 'song of songs' means 'the foremost song.'

Ecclesiastes 1:3 In this verse we come upon another translation quandary. Klingbeil states that “the frequent use of the phrase 'under the sun' (e.g. Eccles 1:3,9,14; 2:11,17,18)...could have been used in a polemical sense against known (non-Israelite) theological concepts – a tendency found in other biblical material as well (see Ps 121:6).”

I would add that the exactly six times the phrase occurs in Ecclesiastes may symbolically indicate, as it does in many other places in the Bible, one less than the symbolic perfection or completion indicated by the number seven. Thus it may very well be another subtle reminder that our human understanding of the situation we are in will always remain incomplete.

Seow notes that in the Ecclesiastes this phrase “is preferred over the phrase tahal hassamayim 'under the heavens,' which occurs much less frequently in the book (1:13; 2:3; 3:1) but is very common elsewhere in the Bible. The two expressions are synonymous to the extent that they both refer to the universality of human experience.”

And we must not forget the first part of verse 3 having to do with the lack of gain achieved by man for all his work. “The thought expressed in v. 3 is not confined to the beginning of the book but occurs repeatedly, and is actually repeated in almost identical words in another passage (3:9).” (Whybray)

Beale and Carson point out: “Verse 26 [of Matthew 15] may faintly echo Eccles. 1:3 on the ultimate futility of merely earthly labor (see also Ps 49:7-9).”

Belcher says, “Although there is reward (heleq) to labor that should be enjoyed (Eccles 2:10; 9:9), there is no profit (yitron) to labor (Eccles 1:2; 2:11).” And Longman notes that the refrain “What profit is there?” also appears in Ecclesiastes 3:9 and 5:16.

Ecclesiastes 1:4 Prokrifka says that “there are cycles of time set by the natural life cycle and developmental stages of human beings. There are generational cycles of about forty years (Ps 78:5-8; Eccles 1:4) and the natural life cycle of about seventy years (Ps 90:11).”

Moore qualifies the words in this verse by stating, “Obviously the earth is not eternal. Only God is. This is simply a way of saying a great long while or a relatively long period of time.”

Ecclesiastes 1:4-7

Grant discusses the genre of Wisdom Poetry in the Bible, typified by Job 28. “Similarly, Ecclesiastes 1:2-11 probably should be considered a wisdom poem. It too sets the tone for much of the ensuing autobiographical debate while remaining distinct from that narrative. It speaks with the language of creation theology (Eccles 1:4-7), and its introductory status provides a hermeneutical lens through which to read the succeeding sections of the book.”

Crenshaw: “The initial unit (1:4-7) deals with the four elements of the universe as discussed by ancient philosophers: earth, air, fire, and water. The remaining unit (1:8-11) refers to the quality that distinguishes human beings from animals, the capacity for speech, and isolates two aspects of the affective dimension, sight and sound. The section concludes with a denial that novelty occurs anywhere and a bold assertion that everything is destined to oblivion...Despite continual departures and entries of separate generations, both human and natural, the earth stands intact...Jerome perceived the irony in this observation about ephemerality and permanence.”

Moore also notes this irony: “Humans truly are the capstone of God's creation, yet we have an uncertain and transient existence. But the material world, which is of much less value than man, has relative stability and consistency. Understandably, we cry out at the inequality of this situation. We are extremely uncomfortable with these graphic reminders of our mortality.”

Hendry says that “men endeavor to screen themselves from the icy wind of mortality by the thought of their posterity and the continuing race..They seek a pseudo-immortality in the fanciful perpetuity of their work...But there is nothing to support this in the course of nature, which is circular, as Ecclesiastes points out (vv. 5-7), or in the course of history, which endlessly repeats itself (vv. 9,10). Progress is ever accompanied by regress. It is only the actors and the scenery that change...”

Thus, as Seow says, in 4-8, “the repeated language subtly conveys the point about the repetitive character of everything.” I would go a step further in demonstrating how form and function follow one another. Thus, for example we see in verses 5 and 7 how the author has utilized the poetic form of the chiasm to show that no matter how things change, they still remain the same:

        A. The sun rises

                B. and the sun goes down

                B'. and hurries to the place

        A' where it rises (1:5)

        A. All streams run to the sea

                B. but the sea is not full

                B'. to the place (i.e. the sea) where the seas flow

        A'. there they continue to flow (1:7)

Ecclesiastes 1:5 is notable in that it is from this verse that Ernest Hemingway got the title for his masterpiece concerning the “lost generation,” The Sun Also Rises.

Ecclesiastes 1:7 “We should point out Qohelet's unusual knowledge in this passage: he writes as if he knew that water evaporates from the ocean and then rains on the land, thus feeding the rivers!” (Ellul) As a scientist, I had also thought that this seemed to betray a knowledge of the physical world beyond what the ancients were aware.

Ecclesiastes 1:8 “NRSV gives the alternative translation of 1:8 as “all words are wearisome; more than one can express.” If adopted, that would provide a fitting parallel to the ending of the book – “Of the making of many books there is no end, and much study is weariness of the flesh” (12:12).

Similarly, Seow prefers the translation 'words' to 'things' and notes that in the eleven subsequent uses of debarim in the book, the meaning is clearly 'words.' Seow additionally notes the similarity of this verse to 12:12.

“Qohelet jumps from this 'trite' observation concerning the cycle of nature to humanity (he could have added the seasons). Words become wearisome. A person gets to the point where he cannot talk any more, but the eye does not get its fill of seeing, nor the ear of listening. This is the first step: as creators or producers of speech (of truth? of information?), we are limited: we reach a stopping point.” (Ellul)

But Whybray questions the translation 'wearisome' itself: “The subject of which yege'im is the predicate is not 'mankind' or 'human life' but All things. If yagea' – the singular form – means 'weary', the literal meaning of the line is 'All things are weary'. There is no justification for rendering yagea' by 'wearisome', that is causing weariness (presumably to man). But, further, the meaning of 'weary' for yagea' is by no means well established. It is a very rare word, only occurring in two other passages in the Old Testament. The related noun yegia', which occurs more frequently, has two other connotations besides that of weariness: hard work or toil, and the product which results from toil...In the present context it makes good sense to take the phrase 'All things are yage'im' as referring to the ceaseless 'toil' or busy activity of any natural phenomena described in the following verses...”

Ecclesiastes 1:9 “Aside from reading conclusions that placed Qohelet in direct contradiction to the prophets (e.g. Eccles 1:9 vs. Is. 42:9; 43:19), some of his words may represent a direct attack on the prophets and other religious officials in ancient Israel.” (Shields)

Koptak also notes this contradiction and says, “Readers of the canon in later generations may bring together the opposing perspectives of Isaiah 43:19 ('I make something new') with Ecclesiastes 1:9 ('Nothing new exists under the sun'), examining the way each speaks to the topic of knowledge. Qolelet helps readers recognize the limits of human knowledge, itself a step forward in wisdom. Historical lessons are not enough.., and a new creation is needed, both in the vision that the suffering servant mediates and a re-creation of the people.”

Ecclesiastes 1:10 Fleming says of the phrase no remembrance of men of old, “people too easily forget what happened in past generations. It is because of this that things appear to them as new (v. 10).”

Ecclesiastes 1:11 “In common OT thought life ended at the grave. Thus, if one's name or reputation did not live beyond the grave in someone's memory, that person's existence had ceased entirely. Such a fate might happen as a natural part of history (Eccles 1:11), but it might also have moral overtones...With this concept, God imposed on those not being remembered after death was usually a terrible fate that God imposed on those who deserved it.” (Seevers)

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.”