THE BOOK OF DANIEL: UNITY OR DIVERSITY?

The reader of this prophetic book can certainly be forgiven for thinking that this strange writing appears to be two or three separate books which were somehow combined together. This has given rise to the following observations and incompatible theories:

Heterogeneous Mixture

1. For one thing, some of the book is written in the Aramaic language while the rest is in standard Hebrew. This suggests the following divisions:

        Daniel 1:1-2:4a (Hebrew)

                Daniel 2:4b-7:28 (Aramaic)

        Daniel 8-12 (Hebrew)

Gammie declares, “Scholars have not yet come up with an altogether convincing explanation for the two-fold languages in the book.” Similarly, after reviewing several theories, Young concludes, “There does not appear to be any truly satisfactory explanation of the two languages.” Many scholars posit an original Aramaic document to which additional Hebrew writings were appended or which was partially translated into Hebrew. But if so, why wasn't the entire book translated into the same language? Alternatively, Bullock suggests that the Aramaic portions of the book are those most suited for a non-Jewish audience, while others such as Dorsey and Lund feel that the Aramaic language is most suited for those stories which focus on international events. But neither one of those explanations does full justice to the text.

2. Secondly, if one looks instead at the general subjects and genres that occur in Daniel, one comes up with a slightly different division for the book. Namely, the first six chapters are widely recognized as court tales (similar to the Book of Esther) involving Daniel and his friends while the rest of the book consists of various visions and revelations usually classified as apocalyptic literature. Also, chs. 1-6 refer to the heroes in the third person while chs. 7-12 are narrated by Daniel himself. In Dan. 1-6, each of the stories follows the same pattern and contains the following elements which always occur in the same order:

a. A decision, dilemma or decree of the king which threatens the life or life-style of the faithful.

b. The faithful resolve to remain loyal to God or turn to him for help.

            c. A trial or test

            d. Successful conclusion to test

            e. King's decision in favor of God and his followers.

3. However, even this scheme is not entirely correct since all of Daniel 2 can also be viewed as an apocalyptic vision, giving us the following alternation in genres:

            court stories (ch. 1)

                        court story with apocalyptic vision (ch. 2)

            court stories (chs. 3-6)

4. And to complicate matters even further, there is the chronological problem to take into account. If one considers the various reigns, the following overlapping and repetitive scheme for the book appears:

Nebuchadnezzar (chs. 1-4)

Belshazzar (ch. 5)

Darius (ch. 6)

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

Belshazzar (chs. 7-8)

Darius (ch. 9)

Cyrus (chs. 10-12)

5. Finally, there is the manner in which the opening chapter contains language which is closely echoed in the start and conclusion of the last major section of the book (Daniel 10-12):

    in the third year of (1:1; 10:1a)

    food and wine (1:5a,8; 10:2b,c )

    three years/weeks (1:5b; 10:2a)

    at the end of that time (those days) (1:5c,15a,18; 10:14b; 12:4,7,13)

    time of testing (1:12-14; 12:1)

    purification through testing (1:15b; 12:10a)

    wisdom/wise (1:17,20a; 12:3,10c)

    understand(ing) (1:20b; 10:1c,d,12,14b; 12:8,10b,d)

    King Cyrus (1:21; 10:1b)

The above parallels might cause one to look at Daniel 1 and chapters 10-12 as matching bookends to the center of the book. But this resulting three-part division does not really coincide with the three-part scheme based on the original languages, as in division #1 above.

Unity

A look at all the competing theories above should make one suspect that whatever the history behind the composition of this prophetic book, its present structure seems to be purposely designed to frustrate any efforts to divide it back into its original components. Here are some reasons to consider its present form as a unified structure:

    1. In the first place, retaining Dan. 7 in Aramaic acts as “an interlocking device” to tie together the two halves of the book. (Collins and Longman) As Sims states, “Chapter 7 has been widely recognized as the structural link between the two parts, so strongly binding the two that efforts to separate them are futile” Baldwin puts the case even more strongly: “There are good reasons for thinking that ch. 7 is the key to the whole book, even its focal point.” This pivotal role of ch. 7 is also seen in the way its ambiguity allows the pictured four-kingdom scheme to either refer backwards to the four sovereigns who have already appeared in the first six chapters or forward to the future realms of chs. 8-12. Similarly, Stead notes that “both the stories and the visions of book of Daniel are read together as providing complementary perspectives rather than opposing viewpoints.” A final indication of the structural importance of ch. 7 is the fact that the attribution of the words of the book jointly to God and the prophet is not given until Dan. 7:1. This is unlike the other prophetic books, where similar attributions are given in the opening verses.

    2. Next, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, each set of adjoining chapters may be seen to share at least one key word or phrase. This literary device serves to lead the reader from one section to the next with some sense of unity.

    3. One other literary motif that occurs throughout the Book of Daniel, thus serving to link the two halves, is the pervasive 3 + 1 pattern highlighted by Talmon. Some examples are: Daniel and his three friends (chs.1 and 2), the three friends and one “like a son of the gods” (4:24-25), three horns plus a little one (7:8), a king who “shall put down three kings” (7:24), and three kings plus a fourth who “shall be far richer than all of them” (11:2).

    4. Finally, the two halves of the book are further united in a more general and basic fashion, as pointed out by several commentators:

Sims says that “the evidence of verbal and thematic interlocking between the narrative and apocalyptic parts of Daniel works against the view that the book consists of two distinct genres unequally yoked together...clear visions and confused history [are] followed by clear history and puzzling visions.”

“The first part of the book prepares for the second, and the second looks back to the first.” (Young)

McKenna states that “both parts of Daniel have the same purpose: to reveal heavenly realities and events that are to come in the world. In this sense, both are apocalyptic.”

“In effect, the book records both the external [chapters 1-6] and the internal [chapters 7-12] history of Daniel.” (Towner)

“Throughout the book the kingdom of God provides the frame for human history. In the tales this is acknowledged primarily in the doxologies.” (Collins)

“...the stories, like the visions, portray a God who rules in heaven who is also sovereign over the realm of death, who is active in the past and trustworthy for the future...It is a mixed form, as much a series of short stories to which visions are attached as a series of visions prefaced by some stories.” (Goldingay)

“the book is unified by theme (the sovereign Lord's control over, and ultimate disposition of, human power); by its central character, Daniel himself; by structure...; and by imagery.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

And Ryken highlights the first of the means mentioned in DBI above:“With such a decisive split between two genres, we naturally look for alternative unifying elements that permeate the entire book. The most important of these is the titular hero, Daniel.”

"IT IS FINISHED."

Variations on this statement either made by God / Jesus or regarding Him appear in four key places in the Bible:

    Genesis 2:1 – “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.”

    John 17:4 – “I finished the work you gave me to do.”

    John 19:30 – “When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished'; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”

    Revelation 21:6 – “And he said to me, 'It is finished. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.'”

But strangely, I have yet to run across a Bible commentary which firmly ties these passages together. However before proceeding, a brief comment is in order regarding the Hebrew and Greek words translated as “finished”or its equivalent in these passages. In English, this term can be understood in two almost opposite ways – (1) something which didn't work out the way you wished and thus must be forever abandoned or (2) some task which was started and then successfully completed. The biblical language used in these three passages above indicates the second of these interpretations is in mind.

With that issue made clear, here are some randomly presented comments from scholars which I hope to all draw together into a cohesive picture encompassing the high points of salvation history from a biblical standpoint.

Scholarly Views

“For Gen 1, creation is complete when humans are on the scene.” (Van Leeuwen)

“Ergon ['work(s)'] for him [John]...includes what we would call the 'natural' activities of Jesus as well as the 'supernatural”. It reminds us that these are all of a piece, that Jesus' whole life was consistently spent in doing the will of God and in accomplishing His purpose. Not only in the miracles, but in all His life He was showing forth God's glory. There is probably another thought behind John's use of the term ergon. The same word is used consistently in the Old Testament of the works of God. Perhaps especially important are the passages in which it is used of His works and creation...and in delivering His people...” (Morris)

“Some scholars...believe that in its frequent mention of days in i and ii 1, the Fourth Gospel wishes to portray a week of seven days to open the ministry – a week beginning the new creation just as Gen i-ii 3 frames the work of the first creation within a week of seven days.” (R.E. Brown)

“The hour of glory is also the passion: throughout, Jesus is serenely in control, directing events (Jn 19:26-27), organizing his mother and his closest disciple (Jn 19:26-27), fulfilling Scripture (Jn 19:28) until finally 'it is accomplished' (Jn 19:30).” (Burridge)

“In John 20:19-23 almost all of the main themes of this Gospel are tied together and brought to a climax. John reports that Jesus, after having breathed (enephysesen) on the disciples, said to them, 'Receive [the] Holy Spirit' (Jn 20:22). This clearly alludes to Genesis 2:7...and thereby places the entire pericope into the context of the Spirit as God's life-giving power, both at creation and in the eschatological re-creation of God's people as God's temple.” (Wenk)

“A further understanding of these fulfillment quotations [in John's Gospel] can be discerned through the use of the verb teleioo ('to bring to its end, to perfect') in a fulfillment formula (Jn 19:28) that is sandwiched by formulae that use the verb pleroo ('to fulfill' [Jn 19:24, 36]). Reading both sets of formulae together, we see that John is not simply concerned with the fulfillment of individual predictions contained in the OT, he also aims at drawing attention to the fact that this passion narrative depicts 'the ultimate fulfillment of all christological prophecy in the Scriptures' (Hengel). In the death and resurrection of Christ one finds the true fulfillment of the entire OT history as it forms the climax of God's work among his people.” (Pao)

“John's teaching on the new birth is part of a larger 'new creation' theme in his Gospel. From the very outset, John links Jesus' coming to God's creation 'in the beginning' (Jn 1:1; cf. Gen 1:1)...Even the first week of Jesus' ministry is presented in a fashion analogous to the week of creation (Jn 1:19-2:11)... and Jesus breathes on his disciples and gives the Spirit in the final commissioning scene (in 20:22), invoking the creation of Adam (Gen 2:7; cf. Ezek 37:9).” (Kostenberger)

“The tabernacle...was to be a place for God's presence to dwell (tent) among his people (25:8-9), the sine qua non in order for Israel to be his people...Its completion recalls the completion of the universe in Genesis (cf. Gen 2:1-3; Exod 39:32, 42-43). God's presence is the essence of this feature of Exodus. The tabernacle/temple will ultimately be done away with in the final community of God and his people (Rev 21:2-4, 22) for it is God's presence that, in the final analysis, makes his people holy...” (Carpenter)

“In Jn. 4:34; 5:36; 17:4, teleioo is used where Jesus speaks of the works of the Father which he has to accomplish. On the cross he can say that they are accomplished (tetelestai, it is finished, 19:30, cf. v. 28). (Schippers)

In Revelation 20:5-6, “the saints'...priestly status means that they serve in the presence of God, whereas those suffering the second death will be separated from God forever...The statement in 22:5 that the saints reign 'forever and ever' in eternity is a continuation of the reign begun during the millennial period and is not to be superimposed on 20:4-6 as if the two reigns were identical in time... The point of the title [Alpha and Omega] is that the God who transcends time guides the entire course of history...” (Beale)

A New Approach

By combining some of the above observations and adding a few ideas of my own, the somewhat symmetrical arrangement shown in Figure 1 below can be constructed. It results in three major narratives, each containing the key phrase “It is finished (or accomplished)” or its equivalent in relation to God's work and His creation.

In the first phase we see God creating the physical universe, culminating in the creation of man. But, unfortunately, the ensuing events shows the first human couple falling from grace and condemned to a limited lifetime away from God's direct presence.

In the second act, Jesus as the “new Adam,” lives without sin and consequently his death is able to reverse the curse on mankind to bring salvation and restoration to God for all who accept that fact.

Finally, in the last days we see a reversal of the events in Genesis resulting in a New Creation in which there is a separation of mankind into those who do and do not believe in Jesus' work on their behalf. But for the former group, there is complete restoration of the relationship that mankind had with God in the beginning.

Whereas the key word “finished” begins the first and third of these acts by God, in the middle section this word appropriately appears toward the center. However, all three sections end the same way – with references to eternity.

The two places in John's Gospel referencing Jesus finishing his work deserve a little more notice since their key position in the center of the center panel of this triptych indicates that they serve as a hinge for the whole salvation story in the Bible.

Looking first at John 17:4-5, the RSV reads: (v. 4) “I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do; (v. 5) and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.” Notice that whereas v. 4 clearly refers back to the beginning of Genesis, v. 5 looks forward to Christ back in heaven reigning with the Father, as in the Book of Revelation.

Turning to the other swing passage in John's Gospel – verses 19:28-30b, there is some disagreement as to how it should be parsed. RSV, JB and NRSV have the parenthetical phrase “to fulfill the scripture,” associated with the following words having to do with Jesus thirsting (in fulfillment of Ps. 69). On the other hand, KJV, NIV and The Message translate it in such a way as to indicate that the fulfillment refers to all prior events.

As Borchert says, “This statement, however, raises two questions: (1) What Scripture was intended? And (2) To what was the fulfillment referring?”

Thus we see that this second related passage in John's Gospel also serves as a perfect hinge point looking equally backward and forward at the same time.

Finally, note in Figure 1 how each differently lettered theme appears throughout these three sections often in different guises. As just one example, consider the “C” Units:

        God breathes his own breath/Spirit into mankind. (Gen. 2:7)

        By contrast, Satan's spirit enters into Judas. (John 12:1-2)

        Jesus gives up his spirit/life on behalf of fallen humanity. (John 19:30)

        Jesus breathes his Spirit into his followers. (John 20:22-23)

                                                Figure 1: Creation and Salvation

The Creation and Fall: Genesis 1-4

A. Let there be Light (1:3-5)

    B. “The heaven and the earth were finished” (2:1-3)

        C. God breathes the Spirit into Adam (2:7)

            D. The tree of life (2:8-9)

                E. River flowing out of Eden (2:10)

                    F. Precious stones (2:11-14)

                        G. They were naked (2:25)

                            H. Judgment pronounced (3:14-19)

                                I. Clothed by God (3:21)

                            H. Judgment begins (3:22-24)

                                    J. “lest they live forever” (4:22-23)

The New Adam: John 12-20

                            H. Judgment on this world announced (12:31)

            D. Prediction of the cross (12:32-34)

A. “I am the light of the world” (12:35-50)

        C. Satan enters into Judas (13:1-2)

                        G. Jesus clothed only in a towel (13:3-4)

                E. Jesus pours out water to wash the disciples' feet (13:5-12a)

                                I. Jesus puts clothing back on (13:12b)

    B. “I finished the work you gave me to do” (17:4)

                            H. Judgment pronounced (18:12-19:16)

                        G. Jesus' clothing taken (19:23-25)

    B. “It is finished” (19:28-30a)

        C. Jesus gives up his spirit (19:30b)

                E. Water and blood flow from his side (19:34)

                    F. Precious spices (19:39)

                                I. Jesus wrapped in linen (19:40)

                            H. Jesus takes judgment on himself (19:41-42)

                        G. Jesus' clothing left behind (20:6-7)

        C. Jesus breathes the Spirit into His disciples (20:22-23)

                                    J. “have life in his name” (20:21)

The New Creation and Restoration: Revelation 21-22

    B. New Heaven and New Earth...It is finished (21:1,6a)

                            H. Judgment pronounced (21:6b-8)

                    F. Precious stones (21:9-21)

                E. Water of life flowing (22:1-2a)

            D. Trees available to all (22:2)

A. Light no longer needed (22:5)

                                    J.“they will reign forever” (22:5b)

JOHN 1:51

 

                                   Highway to Heaven (2009 college)

One of Jesus' most opaque sayings is found in John 1:51 – “...you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” As R.E. Brown says, “At the very end of this part on the call of the disciples in the Jordan valley [i.e. John 1:43-51], there comes a verse that has caused as much trouble for commentators as any other single verse in the Fourth Gospel...there is nothing in what follows 51 to indicate that its promise was ever fulfilled, if the vision promised is to be taken literally.”

Jesus is obviously referring to himself by that final phrase ['the Son of man'], and the context shows that he is addressing these words to Nathaniel just after revealing to him that he had earlier supernaturally seen Nathaniel under the fig tree. In addition, it seems obvious that Jesus is somehow alluding back to Jacob's vision of the ladder to heaven described in Genesis 28:1-12. But it is not at all obvious what the relationship is to either of those portions of the Bible. It is a question which cries out to be answered, which I will attempt to do with the aid of my trusty, but not always trustworthy, commentaries. But first a few specific subjects need to be addressed.

Addressee

One question involves the audience which was being addressed by these words of Jesus. Although only Nathanael is mentioned in the text, Kostenberger, among others, brings up the fact that in the Greek text, the words “you” and “your” are given in the plural, not the singular. His explanation is the common one, that is, that all the disciples are being referred to here.

However, O.M. Hendricks expresses the opinion that “Nathanael (Heb 'God has given') may be a collective character representing those in Israel who have no deceit, i.e. none of the qualities of Jacob before he became Israel (Genesis 27:35; 32:28). Because of their openness to Jesus they will see him in the fullness of his role as mediator between heaven and earth; cf. Gen 28.12.” It is not necessary for one to believe that Nathanael is only a symbolic character and not an historical one in order to accept, or at least understand, Hendricks' interpretation of him as the opposite counterpoint of the trickster Jacob.

Mode of transport

It may seem like a minor point, but there is also a little controversy as to what the angels were climbing on, a ladder or a flight of stairs. The Hebrew text seems to indicate the former, but Carr expresses another opinion based on speculation as to the 'original wording': “The earliest version of this oracle described angels ascending and descending a stairway (a better translation than NRSV's ladder) to heaven. This is reflected in v. 17 [in which Jacob calls it 'the gate of heaven.'].”

Are the angels climbing 'on it' or 'on him'?”

If it is the latter (not 'ladder'), “the parallel is clear: as the angels ascended and descended on Jacob (who was later renamed 'Israel')...so the angels will ascend and descend on the Son of Man (Jesus)... Jesus will mediate greater revelations than Abraham (8:58), Jacob (cf. 4:12-14); Moses (1:17-18; 5:45-47; 9:28-29), and Isaiah (12:37-41).” (Kostenberger) Carson also notes this recurring “greater than” theme throughout John's Gospel.

Bruce's opinion is: “The difference between 'on it' and 'on him' (underlying John's 'on the Son of Man') is not significant in that the Hebrew could be translated both ways.”

Is this a prophecy of a specific event?

There seems to be no consensus of opinion on this subject. Thus, we are told authoritatively by various scholars that the fulfillment happened at Jesus baptism, the miracle at Cana, the Transfiguration, the cross, or in the post-resurrection appearances of Christ. And finally, an anonymous entry in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery reads: “Indeed, when the new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven, as John prophesies in his vision, Jesus the Lamb of God will dwell there, himself the light for all to see, in this final and complete opening of heaven to earth (Rev 21:1-3).”

But a more general fulfillment is what is probably being suggested:

“John at Bethel sees a stairway to heaven and experiences the presence of God. The disciples during Jesus' life did not literally see a stairway to heaven, but they did experience the presence of God and commerce between heaven and earth...in the signs with Jesus worked, and they responded with commitment (faith).” (Bruce)

Culpepper also expresses the opinion that rather viewing the words as the prophecy of a particular event, this verse “should probably be taken as a metaphorical reference which occurred during Jesus' ministry.”

Overall Meaning

Ellis: “Wescott understands this of prayers taken to God through Christ, and the answers were sent in Him, seeing that He is ever present (cf. Mt. 28:20). But Jesus' words are more likely to have been colored by Jewish theology and apocalyptic. More probably we should understand this picture as denoting the embodiment, in Jesus, of a heavenly fellowship between God and man, brought about by the death of Jesus...”

Blum: “Just as Jacob saw angels from heaven communicating with earth, so Nathanael...would see Jesus as the divine Communication from heaven to earth. The Son of Man, replacing the ladder, is God's link with earth (cf. Dan. 7:13; Matt. 26:64). Perhaps Jesus was also indicating that He is the new Bethel, God's divine place...”

“From this point onward Christ's Messianic work of linking heaven to earth; and re-establishing free intercourse between man and God, goes on.” (Comb)

According to The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, Jesus is suggesting “that he himself is the ladder (as in Jacob's vision) that would finally open up heaven to earth and earth to heaven.”

Evans and Novakovic state: “ According to midrashic [rabbinical] traditions, the angels came down to gaze upon Jacob because his image was on God's throne in heaven...The Fourth Evangelist probably wanted to invite his readers to view Jesus as superior to the patriarch, for Jesus, not Jacob, is the true image of God...”

Morris points out that “in both passages there is the thought of communication between heaven and earth. In both the angels are spoken of as ascending first,which may imply their presence on earth already. In this passage [i.e. John 1:51] the place of the ladder is taken by 'the Son of man'. Jesus Himself is the link between heaven and earth (3:13). He is the means by which the realities of heaven are brought down to earth.”

“The meaning of this statement seems to be that heaven is now opened for continuous communication with men, the representative of whom is Christ Himself under the title of 'Son of man.' It is remarkable that this title is substituted for Nathanael's 'Son of God.' The link between heaven and earth depends as much on the Mediator's human character as on the divine.” (Guthrie)

Conclusion

R.E. Brown states that “whether it is as the ladder, the shekinah [God's glory], the merkabah [Ezekiel's chariot], Bethel ['house of God'], or the rock [according to a mystical Jewish belief that Jacob's rock was the first thing created by God and the basis for the whole world], the vision means that Jesus as the Son of Man has become the locus for divine glory, the point of contact between heaven and earth.”

GENESIS 28:13-22 -- JACOB AND GOD

 

Genesis 28:13-22 Jacob and God

Sometimes we can learn a lot in the Bible from the smallest word or even from the absence of words. As an example, the above verses describe the aftermath of Jacob's night vision at Bethel of the heavenly ladder as he was on his way from his parents' house to that of his Uncle Laban.

God first unilaterally promises Jacob seven different things:

1. that He is the God of Jacob's ancestors

2. that he will give him and his descendants land

3. that his offspring will be many

4. that they will inhabit all parts of the earth

5. that all the families of the earth will be blessed through him

6. that He will be with Jacob wherever he goes

7. that He will bring him back safely to his own land

Since the number seven (and its multiples) is symbolic throughout the Bible of perfection or completion, God is in effect saying that He will bless Jacob thoroughly in every way possible.

Then Jacob wakes up, sets up a stone pillar of remembrance, and replies to God in verses 20-22 that if God will do all these things, then (“and only then” is implied) Jacob (1) will take Yahweh as his God, (2) make the stone God's house, and (3) give God a tenth of all his belongings.

This is in fact a replay of Jacob's earlier actions which had gotten him into his present fix, being forced to run away from home. Remember that by cheating his brother Esau out of his father's blessing on two separate occasions, he had made himself unwelcome in their midst.

And the fact is that Jacob didn't even need to go through all that scheming at all since, as related in Genesis 25:23, God had already promised Rebekah that her younger son would be favored by Him over the elder. And there is absolutely no doubt that she would have told Jacob that fact over and over again. But instead of simply accepting God's promise, he and Rebekeh felt it was still up to them to make sure that this promise came true, by whatever means they felt were necessary.

Jacob finds his match, however, in the scheming Laban who tricks Jacob into working an additional seven years by pulling a switch of identities on him on his wedding day, just as Jacob and Rebekeh had successfully hoodwinked Isaac by pretending that Jacob was his brother Esau instead. But all of this pain was entirely unnecessary in the first place and could have been avoided if Jacob had simply trusted God to be true to His word.

Then there is the lesson to be learned from considering in more detail the things Jacob demands out of the bargain he is willing to make with God on his own terms instead of accepting by grace what God is willing to give him with no strings attached. Note that in place of the complete lists of seven blessings above, what Jacob wants is the equivalent of blessings #'s 6 and 7. And to make sure that number 6 is thoroughly understood by God, Jacob defines it further as providing him with adequate food, drink, and clothing. In other words, there is really little difference between Jacob and his brother Esau, who gave away his birthright for a little food. Jacob seems to similarly despise the larger blessings God has for him in return for immediate gratification.

Thus, on top of Jacob turning a free gift from God into a contract which Jacob will only sign if God agrees to all of Jacob's demands, those demands are actually much less that what God had already promised to carry out. This whole story may sound absolutely ridiculous to us today with Jacob having the nerve of trying to get the upper hand over God in the first place and then compounding his nonsense by being willing to take much less that God had already offered him free from any obligation on his part. However, with my prior experiences with two chemists I knew who had Middle Eastern origins, I think I can understand Jacob's mindset a little better. One of these men was a devout Orthodox Jew and the other one was an Arab who was born in Israel. I won't bother telling you which story belongs to which since they both shared a common trait – wanting everything to be on their own terms and always being suspicious of anything that looked like too good a deal. And in each case, they, like Jacob, never seemed to learn their lesson.

One of these men was my next door neighbor, and both of our houses needed our asphalt driveways resurfaced at the same time. So we we were looking for an applicator who could do that job. (I should mention first that there was a common scam in the area at the time for a contractor to agree to add a topping of asphalt to peoples' driveways but they applying used motor oil instead, which looked great at first, but totally washed away with the first good rain.)

I found a man who agreed to do the job for a certain price and sent him over to my neighbor's house for an estimate there. Our driveways were about the same square footage, and so the quote for that job was the same. My neighbor laughed at me for accepting the opening bid without further dickering, and proceeded to show me how it should be done. First, he pointed out to the contractor that his driveway was a little bit shorter than mine and therefore the price for his job should be lowered a little. The man agreed. Then a day later he called the man back and said that since the same equipment could be used to do both our jobs at the same time, that would mean a savings for the contractor, who wouldn't have to drive his equipment to another site. Again the man agreed to lower the price.

Then the evening before the contractor was scheduled to come out for the job, my friend got the jitters. He began worrying about how easily he had been able to talk the man down in price and became convinced that the contractor would play some trick on him to recoup his loss. He actually called the contractor up that night and told him that he was willing to pay the original quote instead of the lower amount. The man said, “No,you got me fair and square. You only have to pay what we finally agreed on.”

Well that reply only intensified my friend's fears that he was going to get gypped, and so he had a sleepless night worrying about it. We were both away at work when the asphalting was done, but as soon as we parked out in front of the house, my neighbor carefully looked over my drive and his, trying to see if there was any subtle difference he could detect between the two. And that continued every day for several weeks until it finally rained. But after the rain was over, he saw that the driveways both looked as good as new and he could finally relax. So he, like Jacob, caused himself much prolonged grief over something that he didn't need to worry about in the first place.

And to close out that story, my friend apparently was unable to shake himself of his habit of trying to get the best out of others. He ended up getting in trouble with the law and having to pay a large fine when he attempted to get out of paying income tax to the government on profits from some land he had developed by putting the land in his nephew's name.

My second story is a bit shorter. I was being relocated from the Northeast to the Southwest United States by the company, and so I realized that I didn't have any more use for my set of studded snow tires I had just used for one winter season. I knew that another chemist had a car that used that size tire, and so I offered to give my tires to him. Immediately, he became very wary of the offer and wanted to know exactly how much money I wanted for them. I assured him that it was a free gift since they would be absolutely useless to me where I was going. Then he wanted to know what kind of shape the tires were in. I assured him that they had only been used for one season, and were good for at least one more.

He was still waiting for the other shoe to fall, because he had apparently never run into anyone in his acquaintance who would just give away something free of charge. Even after I had given him the tires, I got the impression that he was still waiting for me to ask him to do something for him in return. The whole concept of grace was lost on him entirely.

And like my other friend, this one continued to milk our company for all he could get by falsely claiming religious discrimination against him.

ETHICAL LISTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

 The Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, contains a number of lists including genealogical material, place names, and enemies which have been conquered. But also among them are those catalogs of acceptable and non-acceptable behavior for a person of God. These could also be called virtues and vices. Concentrating just those catalogs in the OT, we come across the following:

Ten Commandments

These are by far the most well-known of such lists, and they include both virtues to emulate as well as vices to avoid. The two places where they are presented are in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. I will not attempt to canvass all that the scholarly commentaries have to say on each one of the commands except to note that the ten deal both with behavior and attitude. Also, although some of them are negative in form and others are positively stated, each could be easily restated to fall into the opposite category. As just one example, “Do not commit adultery” is the same as “Be true to your spouse.”

Crimes Cursed by God

Twelve such violations of God's law are found in Deuteronomy 27:15-26, which is Moses' recitation before all the assembled of the curses they agree to if they disobey the covenant stipulations. On the flip side, the following chapter is devoted to all the blessings which will accrue to the people if they are true to God's covenant.

Sexual Crimes

Again, there are twelve of these, presented in Leviticus 18:6-18. It should be noted that “12” appears often in the Bible, both OT and NT, because of its symbolic value as the product of 3 (standing for the triune God) and 4 (often representing creation or, more specifically, mankind). Thus, it is an ideal way to symbolically speak of the close relationship between God and His people.

Capital Offenses

Verhey additionally includes crimes requiring the death penalty. However, these differ from those above in that they do not appear in any one OT passage but are scattered throughout the Book of Exodus at 21:12, 15, 16, 17; 22:18, 19; 31:15. Verhey's unproven theory is that they may all have been part of a ceremony such as described in Deuteronomy 27 where the people took on the responsibilities of the covenant with God. Such heinous offenses include, respectively – murder, striking one's parents,

kidnapping, cursing your parents, female sorcery, having sex with an animal, and doing work on the sabbath. Note that most of these infractions involve disobedience to one of the Ten Commandments. And having interspecies sex violates the basic distinction between man and animal clearly pointed out in Genesis 1-2.

I Samuel 12:2-5

Returning to the discrete lists in the OT, we next come to this passage, which is Samuel's farewell speech to the people now that they have decided to let a king lead them instead. He defends his own actions during the time when he was their leader by declaring himself innocent of fraud, robbery, oppression of others, and bribe-taking. When he is done with this declaration, the people all confirm that he has been innocent of all those sins (presumably in contrast with other so-called leaders of the time).

Nehemiah 10:28-39

Those Jews gathered together in the Holy Land after the great Exile renew their covenant with God at this time. As Ezkenazi notes: “The obligations reflect practices important for Jewish identity in the fifth century BCE. They combine legislation from various Torah sources as well as obligations not reflected in the Torah as it now exists.” Some of those regulations especially expressed during this particular time period include (negatively) vows not to let their children intermarry with Gentiles and (positively) to give a certain amount of money every year towards the upkeep of and regular services at the temple.
Job 31:1-40

Much as Samuel declared to the people all the sins of which he was not guilty, Job, in his desperation, does the same in the presence of his critical friends. As Seow says, “Job provides a kind of detailed affidavit listing every possible offense that he might be accused of committing and vigorously insisting on his innocence. He is prepared to be judged by the highest legal and ethical standards.”

It should be pointed out that in both the case of Samuel and Job, neither one is entirely perfect in God's eyes. But from man's viewpoint, on the other hand, neither is blameworthy.

Psalm 15:2-5

The Psalmist presents us with a list of the characteristics of those who may be admitted into the Temple. Kselman says, “The moral qualities enjoined are right action and truthful speech, specifically refraining from slander (Lev. 19.16), nonassociation with the wicked (Ps 1.1), keeping one's oath, and honesty in business and legal matters. As in some of the prophets (e.g. Am 5.21-24; Isa 10-17), religion is defined in terms of moral behavior rather than ritual activities.”

Psalm 24:3-6

This passage is quite similar to Psalm 15:2-5. In both cases the context involves the requirements for entering into holy space and they are also four-fold (the number four being symbolic of creation): being clean of hand and pure of heart (given positively) as well as, negatively, “not taking up my life falsely” and not swearing falsely. The phrase in quotes is a fairly literal rendering of the Hebrew text, but one must admit that its meaning is not transparently clear at first glance. The following alternative translations have been suggested, all of which make it clear that it is a warning against the sin of idolatry:

    NRSV: “who do not lift up their souls to what is false”

    JB: “whose soul does not pay homage to worthless things”

    NEB: “who has not set his mind on falsehood”

    NIV: “who does not trust in an idol”

Thus, it is a warning against the sin of idolatry.

There may be an echo of the first two requirements in Psalms found in Jesus' beatitudes. Thus, Blomberg states, “Psalm 24:3-5 may underlie [Matthew] 5:8 with its call for clean hands and a pure heart as a requirement for those who would come into God's presence and receive his blessings.”

Proverbs 6:16-19

Waltke says of these seven descriptions of wrongdoers, “Although the troublemaker is not named in vv. 16-17, the catalogue's list of unhealthy body members and abhorrent antisocial schemes and actions fits him to a 'tee.' Each abomination, a misused body part, does not represent a different individual but functions as synecdoche [i.e. a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole] manifesting the psyche and behavior of a type of person labeled 'insurrectionist' in v. 12; above all, it holds his attitude and actions up as an abomination to the LORD. These are not descriptions of any one person but descriptions of people who deserve the title troublemakers and whose behavior the LORD detests.”

Proverbs 30:11-14

Although scholars such as Scott, Hubbard, and Whybray treat the three negative descriptions in v. 14 as all saying the same thing, other scholars recognize three separate items in that verse, bringing the total to seven, exactly as in Proverbs 6:16-19.

Hubbard comments: “A significant sector of Israel's society seems to have run amok. Life is out of hand in ways that the prophets denounced. 'Generation' at the head of each verse calls attention to a substantial group within the land that bears wretched characteristics...Whereas most of the proverbs focus on the foolish or wicked as individuals, here the suggestion must be that a substantial minority or even a majority of the citizenry are bound together in the four kinds of rebellious conduct described.”

Isaiah 33:14-16

The context behind this ethical list of six characteristics is that it describes those who will be able to stand in the day of God's judgment. “Verses 13-16 relate the impact of God's appearance upon the world but especially upon Judah. When they see God's might displayed upon Assyria, there will be terror among those Jews who have been little more believing than the Assyrians...Although those who know the Bible will perhaps see it as familiar and predictable (Pss. 15 and 24 are very similar), it [i.e. v. 15] is in fact a rather strange answer. What kind of change must a human being undergo to live with God? It is not a change of essence but a change of character...This is the truth which the Hebrews discovered at Sinai (Lev. 19:2, etc.) and which Isaiah also recognized in his personal Sinai...If we are to dwell with God as his guests, we must share his character.” (Oswalt)

Derek Kidner adds, “If this verse is negative, it is in order to clarify the meaning of 'pure in heart' in readiness for v. 17.”

Ezekiel 18:5-18

In the 37 entries in these verses, Ezekiel here “presents...the relationship between one's conduct and one's fate. His rhetorical strategy involves the presentation of three hypothetical case studies, each of which illustrates the manner in which justice is administered: A: vv. 5-9, B: vv. 10-13; C: vv. 14-17. (Block)

Block goes even further with a chart in which he shows that, to a large degree, the comments in parts A and C are but negative forms of the more positive formulations in part C.

Finally, Weinfeld compares the form of this particular list with those in Psalms 15 and 24 as well as in Isaiah 33, all of which he feels arose in priestly / temple circles.

Micah 6:6-8

R.L. Smith labels these verses as the conclusion of “God's Lawsuit” beginning in v. 1 of the chapter. In this powerful passage, the supplicant asks God rhetorically what sort of ritual acts he should do to satisfy God. But he ends up saying instead: “What does God demand of you? Nothing but to do justice, to love devotion, and to walk humbly with your God.”

Thus, this ethical list is the most concise of all, and Smith states, “This is one of the great passages of the OT. It, like Amos 5:24 and Hos 6:6, epitomizes the message of the eighth-century prophets...This question represents one of the two basic ideas about religion. How can a man approach God? One answer is: with sacrifice, things, good works. The other answer is reflected in v. 8. God requires not some external gifts from his worshiper, but a humble communicant who loves to serve God and practice justice toward his fellow-man.”

So we see that all of these lists go together to give us a very good idea of the sort of both behavior and attitude believers should practice if we wish to be pleasing to our heavenly Father.

SONG OF SONGS 7:10-13

I generally steer away from any detailed exegesis of passages from this particular book because of their almost X-rated nature, but these verses particular are relatively innocuous. And, as in trying to understand any portion of this poetic book, much depends on one's view of how the book of organized. So if you want a broad overview of that subject first, consult my post titled “What is the Importance of the Organization of the Song of Songs?”.

This quite unusual Old Testament book consists of a series of poetic speeches, mainly given by the hero and heroine, speaking of their overwhelming love for one another. But as to whether (a) they are married at the time or not; (b) the scenes are presented chronologically or by some other scheme; (c) they represent real events or fantasies in the characters' mind; or (d) the whole book concerns (literally) human love or (symbolically) divine love – all of these issues impact how we look at any given passage in the Song.

These verses represent the woman's response to the hero's rhapsodizing over her physical beauty in 7:1-9, and the poetic parallelism in her speech can be represented visually somewhat as follows:

    I am my beloved's and

        his desire is for me

    Come, my beloved

            let us go forth        into the fields and

                      lodge           in the villages

            let us go out early to the vineyards

                            and see whether the vines have budded

                                        whether the grape blossoms have opened and

                                                     the pomegranates are in bloom

    There I will give you my love.

        The mandrakes give forth fragrance and

        over our doors are all choice fruits, new as well as old

    which I have laid up for you,

O my beloved.

Within these few verses we can see examples of what are called by scholars introverted, incomplete, identical, stair-step, and emblematic parallelism (For definitions of these terms and examples of each, see my post titled “Understanding Biblical Poetry”).

Keeping that general introduction in mind, here is how various scholars approach the problems in this passage:

The Opening Verse

If this verse sounds familiar to you, it may be because the first line (“I am my beloved”) has appeared earlier in 2:16 and 6:3. But there is a significant difference in the second line. Instead of the following line reading “and my beloved is mine,” it reads “And his desire is for me.” As Snaith says, “So the possession is no longer mutual: the girl appears to be dominant here. This is particularly notable when we realize that the Heb. word for his desire (tesuqato) is used elsewhere in the OT only in Gen. 3:16...'yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you',,,As Gordis notes, the woman's subservience to the man becomes very different here, where the poet expresses the lovers' joyous desire for each other; perhaps her desirability gives her the upper hand.This variation seems to change the whole balance between the sexes.”

Henna

If you compare various English translations of these verses, you may note that in v. 11 the final verse is sometimes translated as “villages” (as in NRSV) and sometimes as the “henna bushes” (NEB).

Gledhill: “She is inviting him to spend the night in the kepharim with her. This can mean either villages or 'henna-bushes.' It is most likely that the latter is the meaning here. They want to be far away from human habitations, they are seeking the solitude of the rustic bower.”

Mandrakes

Then there is the obscure reference to “mandrakes” in v. 13 to deal with. Almost all commentators say the same thing regarding this root, namely, that it was widely considered as an aphrodisiac in ancient times. And to prove that point, they cite Genesis 30:14-19, the story in which Rachel wants to conceive a child by her husband Jacob.

However, to me that sounds like a rather weak explanation since the context of Genesis 30 clearly shows that there was nothing at all wrong with Jacob's libido; the problem was with Rachel's lack of fertility instead. And from the hero's comments in Song of Songs 7:1-10, it is obvious that he also is having no problem in getting sexually aroused. All of that appears to point to a situation in which the couple is already married since it would have been unheard of for an unmarried woman to wish to become pregnant.

But then, perhaps the reference to mandrakes, popularly called “love apples” at a later date, is just thrown in to add to the general sexual overtones in the poem. As Gledhill puts it: “The tangential mention of the mandrakes is a literary device to give a sexual frisson to the poetry.” And he also points out that the “Hebrew word for 'mandrakes' is etymologically related to the word dodim (love, caresses) encountered earlier in the Song (1:2).”

And then Longman adds: “Indeed, apparently the drug made from the plant is more likely to put one to sleep than get one excited. Yet the poet is interested more in literary effect than pharmacological accuracy.”

Old and New

This phrase concludes the poem, but what does it mean when she says that she has stored up old and new for her lover? Longman expresses the opinion of most scholars: “The immediately preceding context might suggest new and old sweet-smelling plants, but why old plants? I suspect that the terms 'new' and 'old' here are used as a merism. W.G.E. Watson defines a merism as 'when a totality is expressed in abbreviated form.' Specifically, this merism is one defined by 'polar word-pairs.'..Old and new things might mean all things. She has stored up or treasured (from spn) everything near and dear to her for her man. She gives him everything.”

Is the author King Solomon and if so, is he speaking of his personal experiences?

This is an issue that separates fundamentalists from some conservative Christians and all liberals.

Because the very first verse in the book states, “The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's,” there is the strong feeling among some that King Solomon was the author and that he was writing about his own life here. Thus, Akin says, “Solomon, at least at this point in his life, was a one-woman kind of man.”

However, Dobbs-Allsopp, along with many other scholars, points out that this opening phrase can be interpreted as saying either that the song is by Solomon [in which case, the rest of the book does not necessarily have to be about him] or about him. And in that latter case, one should keep in mind that “it was common practice in antiquity to attribute authorship to a well-known figure” such as David, Solomon, or Jeremiah. “The Song, though, because of its relatively late date, was clearly not written by Solomon.”

Bullock first cites the conservative author Gleason Archer's defense of Solomonic authorship because of, among other things, the author's knowledge of the flora and fauna of the time and place. But then he points out the possibility that this book was a somewhat sarcastic and negative portrait of Solomon's later reign written by an anonymous author during the time in which the northern part of the kingdom had “the heavy burdens and taxation and forced labor.”

Then there is the opinion of the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, which states that the imagery of royal courts in the book “has mistakenly led some to argue that the Song is a story of a royal pair, perhaps Solomon and his Egyptian queen, but the language is love poetry, where the woman is a queen in the eyes of her lover and the man is a king in the eyes of his beloved.”

Appreciation for the book and deriving useful applications from it do not need to depend on the answer to this question.

Is the couple married?

There is no clear consensus regarding this subject, as you can see from the following back-and-forth opinions. Gledhill says, “It would appear that the lovers in these verses are not yet married, since the reason for their adventurous escapade into the countryside is presumably because they could not be alone together in any other place. If they were already married, there would be no need for this.”

However, that argument alone does not have much weight since (a) there are good reasons for married couples to want to get away from it all, (b) it is doubtful that a unmarried woman in that day and culture would take the risk getting pregnant with the shame which would ensue, (c) the woman's words may only express a fantasy, or (d) it may all be an allegory having nothing to do with a sexual encounter (see below for more comments on possibilities a, c, and d).

Despite those considerations, both NEB and JB assign these words to the “Bride.”

But treating the whole book from a symmetrical rather than a chronological viewpoint (see my post cited at the start of this short review) may actually give fuel to the belief that they are not married at this point of the story, but will become so somewhat later, as described in 5:1.

And finally, Childs says, “Nowhere is human love in itself celebrated in wisdom literature, nor in the whole Old Testament for that matter. Wisdom, not love, is divine, yet love between a man and his wife is an inextinguishable force within human experience.”

Are her words to be taken as reality or fantasy?

We know from the dream sequences in 3:1-5 and 5:2-6 that the woman has a rich fantasy life, and so there is really no need to take her words in Song 7:10-13 as a realistic proposal rather than just a deep desire on her part.

Adding to that possibility, Bullock feels that by v. 10, “We may assume that the king retires, for the maiden seems to engage in monologue, calling her beloved to go away with her (v. 11).” Hostetter, for one, agrees with this scenario.

What applications can we gain from this passage?

Gledhill offers two suggestions in this regard: “The literary fiction reminds us of our creatureliness and of our unashamed delight in participating in the natural order of things” and “Perhaps it may act as a stimulus to revive a flagging relationship by being more adventurous, more romantic and less mechanical”

“Sometimes the wife should be the aggressor and take the initiative in romancing her husband...For the first time in the Song, Shulammite took the initiative in requesting a time for romance and lovemaking with her husband. She knew that sex that took place only at home could run the risk of becoming routine. Vacations and special getaways often enhance and rekindle passion in marriage.” (Akin)

Many commentators, both ancient and modern, have also hesitated in treating this passage in a literal manner lest it encourage the idea that sex before marriage is endorsed in the Bible (even though the couple may have been married). And thus, they resort to a strictly allegorical interpretations. Marvin Pope's massive commentary on Song of Songs is so long because he devotes an inordinate number of pages to exhaustively canvassing all the allegorical and symbolic understandings of each passage proposed over the years.

Childs offers another good reason: “The theological reasoning behind the allegorical interpretations was not obscure. The Song of Songs formed part of the canon of sacred scripture...Did it not then follow that the book must have a sacred meaning if it had been incorporated into this sacred context?”

I will not attempt to cite all of the the various allegorical approaches but content myself with quoting Gledhill's catalog: “The behavior of the two lovers is used to illustrate the relationship between either Yahweh and Israel, or God and his church, or Jesus Christ and the individual believer. In the last case, the Song becomes a manual for advanced spirituality or the higher life. Some of the themes that are often interpreted allegorically are: seeking and finding; the desire for intimacy; the happiness of uninterrupted communion; the raptures and ecstasies of consummation; hindrances to fellowship; the threats of external and internal assaults; maintaining intimacy; holding fast; slowness in responding; restoration after rupture; the power of praise, the sins that spoil.”

It is quite easy to see how early commentators could get quite carried away in their allegories. However, there is an in-between view which has attracted many scholars lately, namely, the typological approach. It sticks with a literal understanding of the events and comments in the poem while also recognizing that they may have secondary application as types relating to spiritual manners.

And finally, there is Childs' comment regarding the nature of this book: “The polarity of 'secular versus sacred' is alien from the start to the categories of Hebrew wisdom. Rather, reflection on human experience without resort to the religious language of Israel's traditional institutions of law, cult, and prophecy is characteristic of wisdom, and is by no means a sign of secular origin.

 

GENESIS 1:31-2:4

When the first Christian scholar in the Middle Ages devised our present chapter divisions, he apparently was at a loss as to where the line should be drawn after the Creation Story. Most scholars today feel that he made a mistake in this particular case, although exactly where that chapter division should have been drawn is not quite clear.

On the one hand, the repeated formula beginning with “God said, 'let...'; continuing with 'and God saw it was good'; and concluding with 'There was evening and there was morning, the...day' concludes at 1:31. But on the other hand, the Hebrew wording in Genesis 2:4 obviously harks back to that in Genesis 1:1, appearing to form an envelope around all of Genesis 1:1-2:3.

So I would like to look at these transition verses, Genesis 1:31-2:3 in a little more detail, beginning with the analysis below in which parallel thoughts are more clearly shown. Note that God's name in the sections labeled A appear to be symmetrically spaced apart as do the four counted days in sections D. However, one can certainly not claim that there is complete symmetry to the whole section, as one sees throughout the rest of the Bible, including the New Testament.

                                   Figure 1: The Literary Structure of Genesis 1:31-2:3

A. God

        B. all which he had made

                C. beheld it was very good.

                        D. Evening and morning was the sixth day

                                E. and finished heaven and

                                E. all the host of them finished (1:31)

A. God

                        D. on the seventh day.

        B. His work which he had made

                                E. and he rested

                        D. on the seventh day

        B. from all the work which he had made and (2:1-2)

A. God

                C. blessed

                        D. the seventh day and

                C. sanctified it

                                E. because he rested

        B. from all the work

A. God

        B. [had created] (2:3)

The “D” Sections

Figure 1 indicates that God “resting” from his work is equivalent to His “finishing” creation, and there are indications in various commentators' writings that this is indeed the intended meaning.

Ellul explains that “the sabbath was not created because of the six days but the six days were created with a view to the sabbath. The rest was not one of idleness but of completeness, when everything was very good.”

“This finishing of God's work assigned to day seven is not a further creating, for it is paralleled by God's resting. Both finishing and resting are viewed positively and characterize the seventh day as a distinct state of triumphant consummation for the Creator...The sabbath day in particular was sanctified to be a constant source of blessing to man as the sign of eternal hope.” (Kline)

Brotzman and Tully note that the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls, in contrast to the standard Hebrew text, clearly “state that God finished creating the world on the sixth day rather than the seventh.” This was perhaps to remove any suspicion as to whether God had worked on the Sabbath.

Van Leeuwen asks, “In what sense is creation in Genesis 1 'finished' (Gen 2:1-3)?...At the end of 2:3, the cosmos is complete. Yet this complete world does not preclude development and change within the limits and possibilities established at creation. It is ready to bring forth the (human) generations announced in the 'toledoth' of 2:4.”

“It should be noted that the verb sabat ('to rest') does not carry the modern connotation of resting because of exhaustion. It means 'to cease', and in reference to the rest at creation it signifies a celebration of the completion of the week...De Vaux explains it this way: 'Creation is the first action in the history of salvation; once it was over, God stopped work, and he was then able to make a covenant with his creatures.'” (Ross)

And Carr states, “This day is the point to which the whole seven-day scheme has led. God does not command the sabbath, but he does rest (Heb. 'shabat') on the seventh day and bless it, weaving the seven-day rhythm into creation.”

“God's creation moves to a climax not in the making of humanity, but in rest and celebration (Gen 2:1-3). The days of actual work are called 'good,' but the day of rest and reflection upon the good is called 'holy' (2:3).” (Hamilton)

Kaiser: “All had been completed. Everything had been done. It was all 'good'; in fact, it was all 'very good' (Gen. 1:31). Every function, every being, and every blessing necessary to carrying out life and its joys were now at hand.”

“Genesis 1:31 has God looking at what he had done and finding it 'very good'...'very good' means sharing in God's one goodness!” (Collins)

The Role of Genesis 2:4

As alluded to above, there is some doubt as to how this verse functions in the scheme of things, i.e. whether it best fits with the previous section or with the following one. There are at least four hypothetical possibilities: (1) it is a superscription to introduce the rest of the material in Genesis 2; (2) it acts as a subscription to close out what has preceded; (3) the first part of the verse closes out the previous material while the second half introduces what follows; or (4) Verse 2:4a introduces what follows in Chapter 2 while 2:4b closes out the creation story in Genesis 1:1-2:3.

Possibility #1

The first usage of toledot (“generation(s)”) in Genesis does not actually occur until Gen. 2:4a, where there is the question of whether it signals the beginning or conclusion of a passage. Since most subsequent occurrences of this marker appear to begin new sections, the majority of commentators feel that the word functions in the same manner in this verse.

For example, Carr states that 2:4a is “probably not the conclusion of the Priestly creation story, but a separate superscription introducing the following material, as elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 5:1; 6:9; 10:11).”

“Many scholars have identified the boundary of the book's opening unit as extending to 2:4a rather than 2:3, primarily based on vocabulary typical of the priestly stratum. Yet, the clause 'This is the story of' (2:4) is used consistently elsewhere in Genesis at the beginning of new movements in the narrative. As Wenham points out, 2:4 also has a tightly knit chiastic structure quite distinct from 2:1-3. Furthermore...elements of 2:1-3 provide a closing to an inclusio [a set of bookends] opened at 1:1. For these reasons, the unit should be marked as extending from 1:1 to 2:3...” (G.H. Guthrie)

And Childs overstates his case drastically when he says that “the first occurrence of the formula in 2.4: 'these are the generations of the heavens and the earth...' serves as a superscription to the account which follows and can, under no circumstances, either be shifted to a position preceding 1.1, or be treated as a subscription to 1.1-2.4a.” Thus, consider the following information:

A dissenting view was voiced by Wiseman, who cited Babylonian cuneiform evidence that toledot might have a retrospective function as a colophon instead. One literary observation possibly supporting such a use, at least in Gen. 2:4b, is that the chiastic pair “heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1) ---------earth and heaven (Gen. 2:4b)” may be intended to serve as an inclusio for the first major section of the book. However, there are alternative explanations for this phenomenon and a more elaborate inclusio exists between Gen. 1:1 and 2:1-3.

Turner also brings up caveats. Besides agreeing with Wiseman regarding the function of toledot at Gen. 2:4a, he points out, “Additional uses of the formula or equivalent occur, which summarize (Gen. 10:32) or reiterate (Gen. 25:13; 36:9) a toledot already introduced, but these do not have a structuring function.” This last assertion needs a little clarification considering that Gen. 36:9 can be seen, along with 36:1 to mark the beginning of two A units in the genealogy section Gen. 36:1-43, and this is a definite structuring function, though not in the same manner as most of the other toledot introductions.

        A. The descendants of Esau (36:1-5)

                B. Narrative Unit (36:6-8)

        A'. The descendants of Esau (36:9-43)

Turner also notes that 5:1 departs from the traditional toledot formula by saying “This is the book of the descendants of...” So we certainly cannot make any hard and fast judgments ahead of time regarding the exact manner in which these formulae should function.

Possibility #3

B.W. Anderson says of 2:4b-3:24, “This is a different tradition from that in 1.1-2.4a, as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events, e.g. man is created before vegetation, animals, and woman.”

At this point, you may be tempted to agree with the conclusion of Ellison: “Whether v. 4 is taken as the conclusion of the former story [Possibility #1]...or as the introduction to the second story [Possibility #2]...is of little importance...In fact (in opposition to MT [i.e. the standard Hebrew text]), Skinner, Speiser, NEB, JB, and GNB divide the verse between the two stories [in agreement with Possibility #3]...“It does not seem to make much difference to our understanding.” Ellison may well be correct, but in fact, he has left out one more possible way to look at this swing verse 2:4, as unlikely as this last theory may seem to be.

Possibility #4

As you can see from the above comments, there appear to be equally good reasons behind these first three views. And one way in which to at least partially agree with all three of them is to propose a rather counter-intuitive fourth possibility.

In the first place, it is almost universally recognized that the parallels between Gen. 1:1-2:3 and 2:5-25 are so strong that a two-part organization to these combined chapters seems inevitable, whether one treats the second half as a reiteration of the first creation or a special creation in a special location. By viewing it in this manner, the structural function of Gen. 2:4 becomes obvious and explains why the function of this swing verse here is so controversial. This key verse contains two lines:

    “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” (v. 4a)

    “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...” (v. 4b)

Note the chiastic (i.e., mirror-image) elements within these semi-poetic lines. This verse takes the form of introverted parallelism found quite often in the Psalms. And this even extends to the reversed order of the two elements “heavens and earth” in the last line – a sure sign of an inclusio marking out the borders of this one verse as a literary unit in its own right.

                                              Figure 2: The Structure of Genesis 2:4

These are the generations (toledot) of

        the heavens

                and the earth

                        when they were created.

                        In the day that the LORD God made

                the earth and

        the heavens.

One unusual feature of this verse is that its first line appears to point forward to the rest of Gen. 2 as similar occurrences of toledot do. However, Gen. 2:4b looks backward to the very beginning of Genesis where the same phrase is used with another reversal of the same “heaven and earth” elements. Thus viewed, the structural function of ellah toledot here is neither as an opening nor closing phrase. Instead it is part of a hinge verse securely tying together the two halves of Gen. 1-2 in an interlocking pattern. Similar examples of such “reversed” hinge verses and sections appear elsewhere in the Bible, such as in seen, in a slightly different manner, the structure of the book of Daniel.

Thus, J.L. Collins states, “The most perplexing anomaly lies in the fact that the division on the basis of form and date does not coincide with the division on the basis of language.” In other words, why is Dan. 1 in Hebrew instead of Aramaic as are the other court stories of Daniel, and why isn't Dan. 7 in Hebrew with the other visions of the second half of the book? The answer to the second question at least is seen in the overall structure of the book, which is composed of two entirely different types of literature. Figure 3 shows how Chapter 7 serves to tie Parts I and II together by utilizing the language of the bulk of Part I while taking the literary form of Part II.

                                         Figure 3: Overall Structure of the Book of Daniel

                I. Court Stories (Daniel 1-6)

                                Chapter 1 in Hebrew

                                        Chapters 2-6 in Aramaic

                II. Prophecies (Daniel 7-12)

                                        Chapter 7 in Aramaic

                                Chapters 8-12 in Hebrew

What is the relationship between Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:5-25?

Assuming now that Genesis 2:4 acts as a swing verse in one manner or another between the longer sections on either side, that still leaves open the question as to whether (1) these are two varying, and differing accounts of the same creation event or (2) the bulk of Chapter 2 describes events subsequent to those in Chapter 1.

View #1

Ellison feels that these are two versions of the same creation event, not from different sources but written with two completely different perspectives in mind, 1:1-2:3 being from God's standpoint while 2:4-25 treat it from man's viewpoint.

Hamilton distinguishes these two parallel accounts in a different manner: “Both the OT and other ANE [i.e. Ancient Near East] literature know of only four methods of creation: by speech, by action, by sexual activity, or by combat with forces of evil. Gen 1 highlights the first of these, while 2:4-25 focuses on the second of these.”

As a key similarity between the two, Vorlander points out, “In both accounts of creation (Gen. 1:1ff; 2:4b ff.) the creation of man is the high-point.”

“If we turn to chapter 2, we immediately recognize that we are being given a complementary, and perhaps alternate, account of certain aspects of creation. The beginning of verse 4 seems at first to be merely a summary of what we have already been told...But then we read further...and the more we read, the clearer it is that the creations of the fifth and sixth days of chapter 1 are being reformulated, with a different order and with a different emphasis.” (Gros Louis)

At this point we should point out that although both Vorlander and Gros Louis feel that this is to some extent an alternative account of creation from that in Chapter 1, one states that the emphasis is the same in both while the other says that there is a different emphasis in Chapter 2.

And we could add the opinion of Van Leeuwen, who sees the relative emphases in these parallel accounts in yet a different manner: “If the portrait of creation in Gen 1:1-2:3 emphasizes God's sovereign transcendence as he orders creation by separations, 2:4-25 complements the former text by its picture of Yahweh's creative activity as immanent...Moreover, in Genesis 2, the emphasis is not on the separations in the cosmic order, but on the bonds that connect man and soil..., man and women, God and humans..., and humans and animals...”

Freitman makes this same point using another observation: “The OT begins with reference to Elohim rather than Yahweh (Gen 1:1); this may indicate that it more readily carried a universal sense for that audience than the personal name Yahweh. The addition of Yahweh to Elohim, 'LORD God,' in Gen 2:4-3:23 may be meant to claim that this universal creator God is none other than Israel's personal God.”

View #2

In favor of the second creation accounts covering later historical events, scholars have often pointed out that a common literary Hebrew pattern was to broadly describe an event and then proceed to go into increasingly more detail. This can be seen in the creation story with a general introduction given in Gen. 1:1, followed by more details in 1:2-2:4a, and finally zeroing in on a particular geographical location and human couple in 2:4b-25.

Kline: “Since the genitive in this formula [2:4] is uniformly subjective, the reference is not to the origin 'of the heavens and the earth' but the sequel thereof, particularly the early history of the earthlings. The first part of this verse, therefore, must be taken not with the preceding but the following account, which is not, then, presented as another version of creation.”