DID HOMOSEXUALITY CAUSE THE FALL OF ROME? (LUKE 13:4-5)

 The fall of Rome is generally dated to 476 AD when the invading Germanic troops deposed the last of the Roman emperors. Much harder to pinpoint, however, is why that powerful empire fell.

An Italian scholar has recently made the unusual proposal that its fall was due to the introduction of homosexual practices into the Roman Empire by the defeated Carthaginians following Rome's conquest of that northern African empire. He believes that practice subsequently became so widespread that it caused a population decline which weakened the Roman world to the point that it could be easily conquered by the Huns.

First, let's look at some problems with this thesis, which include the following:

Carthage was defeated in 146 BC. It is highly improbable that any event separated in time by over 600 hundred years from the actual fall of Rome could be considered as directly responsible for it.

The thesis assumes that homosexual activities were largely unknown in the ancient world before a few such deviant practitioners introduced it to others. Actually, numerous examples of Greek artwork going back as far as 500-400 BC picture homosexual scenes, and the Romans had much better opportunities to be exposed to that sexually lax culture than to a few Carthaginians.

Adding to the above improbability was the fact that Rome absolutely despised all the immoral practices of the Carthaginians, including the giving of human sacrifices to their deity. Therefore, after its capture, all the populace of their cities was dispersed to other countries and their fields sowed with salt so that the culture would never arise again. To suppose that some of these displaced and disgraced “pagans” would have had the clout to influence the widespread Roman Empire is laughable.

Also, there is no hard evidence that the Carthaginians ever condoned homosexuality in the first place. It is actually unlikely due to the fact that Carthage was under the influence of the Persians for centuries and Persia had a long history of anti-homosexual tradition.  

Rome, on the other hand, even before conquering Carthage, condoned homosexual relations of men with participants of lesser social status (slaves, captives, freedmen, etc.) although they did not tolerate it among military personnel, unless the man was the active partner in the relationship.

Among Romans, the practice of homosexuality among the men did not at all displace their attraction to women. And carrying on their bloodline remained of prime importance to the men. It was a common saying at the time that women are for bearing children while boys are for love.

There was indeed a precipitous population decrease in the Roman Empire beginning at the latter part of the 2^nd century AD. But the reasons had nothing to do with the rise of homosexuality in the Empire. Among writers of the later Roman Empire, there was sharp disagreement as to the actual causes of the west's decline. In general, the pagans blamed the Christians for weakening the moral fiber of the men, and vice versa. And this divide is still present with those such as as the noted historian Edward Gibbon in his massive treatise on the subject making the case for the fall of Rome being primarily due to the negative influences brought about by the rise of Christianity. But far more likely causes have been identified, including a series of plagues, unfavorable economic conditions, climate change, over-reliance on slave labor, constant bombardment from hostile armies, and corrupt or incompetent government officials. There has even been a credible minority of scholars who feel that it was the lead content of Rome's drinking utensils and water supply which caused a decline in the general vitality of the populace.

Conclusion

We should become well aware of the trend in history and human nature to put the blame on others when tragedy strikes. Without denying that God can punish a nation or group of people for their immoral behavior if He wishes, we should also recognize that such blame-setting is often quite selective and one-sided. It was not that long ago, for example, that Jerry Falwell placed the blame for the flooding of New Orleans on the gross immorality of the inhabitants of the French Quarter. Now I am certainly not going to say that there is no such problem there since I have witnessed it personally, but such self-appointed “spokesmen for God” conveniently ignore the fact that the French Quarter was one of the areas of New Orleans that was actually spared from the worst of the damage.

And I am sure that there will be Christians who say that the bombing of the Twin Towers was God's judgment on all those politically liberal New Yorkers. At the same time, it is interesting that the yearly death and destruction caused by tornadoes and hurricanes in the so-called Bible Belt of America are never attributed to any sins that those Christians might have committed or any political party they may have supported.

As usual, the New Testament gives us the best counsel on such issues. Jesus presents two pertinent illustrations followed by a general message to all believers in Luke 13. The first one concerns some Jewish inhabitants of Galilee who were executed by Pilate, and the second example was an incident in which eighteen people were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them. After each of these historical examples, Jesus asks his audience, “Were those individuals worse sinners than any other Jews at the time?” And then he concludes with words we should all keep in mind when we are tempted to point a finger at others as sinners because of some tragedy which occurred in their lives: “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did.”

We should always judge ourselves rightly before attempting to judge others. And when doing so, we should also keep in mind Paul's teachings in Romans 1. After zeroing in on homosexual activity as being unpleasing to God in verses 26-27, he goes on with a litany of twenty-one equally condemned sins in verses 28-31. We may pat ourselves on the back since we have never even have been tempted to engage in homosexual activities, but I would guess that few of us are completely free of having been a gossip, envying someone else, being boastful, etc., etc. We should read that list carefully and repent of our own sins rather than going around attaching blame to others. If we don't, we are no better than Job's not-so-helpful friends.

BREAKING VOWS (NUMBERS 30)

As Wenham says, “In times of crisis men turn to God in prayer. And their prayers often take the form of vows...Many examples are found in the Scripture...But when the crisis passes and the prayer is answered, there is a temptation to forget the vow. Ecclesiastes warns: 'When you vow a vow to God, do not delay paying it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you vow (5:4; cf. Dt. 23:21-23)...But sometimes the vows could not be literally fulfilled.” Thus the need for the regulations in Numbers 30 arose.

There are a few problem issues concerning the legislation in this short chapter. I will briefly address them one at a time.

Definition of a Vow

“Vows either took the form of a promise to give something to God, usually a sacrifice, or a pledge to abstain from something.” (Wenham)

“The practice of making promises or vows to God seems ancient, both in Israel (Gen. 28:20-22) and in the rest of the ancient Near East. Vows may be positive promises to do or perform something (Judg. 11:30-31; 1 Sam. 1:11), or they may be negative promises to abstain from something (Num. 6). In general, the Hebrew word that encompasses both kinds of promise is neder. The present text uses neber only to express the positive vow. The negative vow is expressed, uniquely in ch. 30, by 'issar.” (Ashley)

Wakely points out that the noun 'issar is found only in this chapter and occurs seven times as 'issar and four times as 'esar...The vow is one of abstinence, i.e., it is a negative promise to abstain from something.

Negative View of Women

This is perhaps the harshest criticism levied against Numbers 30, with feminist scholars accusing the Jews of treating all women as if they had no sense and needed to have their every decision approved by either their father or husband. But as Stubbs says, “the ability of husbands and fathers to limit their wives' or daughters' religious commitments – and the portrayal of women as apt to make rash vows – does not seem to match well with the New Testament's trajectory toward the full equality of women.”

Ashley adds, “Ch. 30 reinforces the right of women to make vows to Yahweh, and limits a husband's right to void a vow by requiring that his objection be made when he first hears of his wife's vow and not after a long period of reflection.”

Evans has the same opinion on the subject. “Women were seen as having the right and the ability to make vows and were held fully accountable for the fulfillment of any vows they might make (Num. 30:3-16). The only exception to this was if a father or husband specifically overruled a vow. Thus..., there is recognition within the text of the realities of a patriarchal society alongside the recognition of women as independent and responsible beings.”

Wakely has even more to say on this subject, including the following: “A man was considered to be legally responsible for his own actions, and any vow made by him was automatically binding (Num 30:2). The situation was different in the case of women. Only the vow of these women in positions of independence (the widow and the divorced women) were unconditionally binding (v. 9). The majority of women had no independent right to make a vow...According to L'Heureux, the implication of Num 30 seems to be that, generally speaking, women had to be protected against their own lack of responsible judgment. A more likely explanation is that, given the economic dependence of women on men in ancient Israelite society, it was felt necessary to protect fathers and husbands from excessive commitments made by women who were not ultimately responsible for finding the resources necessary to fulfill those commitments. Another possibility is that this legislation was designed to prevent women from undermining the authority of men by, e.g., vowing away a child without the consent of its father.”

Two Old Testament examples add to our understanding of this ruling. The first one is found in Judges 11-12 and concerns one of the Hebrew judges, Jephthah, who rashly promised to devote to God the first thing that greeted him on his way home if he could win a key battle. Unfortunately, that happened to be his daughter, who was then doomed to death (or to eternal virginity, according to which scholar you listen to). This clearly illustrates that you can't accuse only women of being liable to make unthinking vows with which they must follow through.

The second pertinent story is that of Hannah, who vowed to give her first child to the LORD if she could just become pregnant (I Samuel 1:11). Later she did in fact have a son, but only offered him to the LORD after her husband had ratified her vow (see vv. 21-23).

Contradiction by New Testament Teachings

Kotva discusses the apparent complete repudiation of oath-taking in NT passages such as Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12. “Martin Luther rejected an individual's initiating an oath but taught that the state's command to swear must be obeyed...Most commentators do not believe that Jesus abolished oath-taking. They point to Matt. 23:16-22, where Jesus does not explicitly reject oath-taking but instead attacks a corrupt oath-taking system in which swearing by symbols for God's name were claimed to be nonbinding. Commentators also point to Paul's taking of various oaths and vows (2 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8) and to Heb. 6:13-20, where the practice is cited without criticism...What most commentators agree on is that in requiring of us a simple yes or no, James is calling us to straightforward and truthful speech at all times.”

Stubbs agrees with Kotva on this point when he says, “His [i.e. Jesus'] words point to one principle that guides the Numbers passage: followers of God must be people of integrity, people whose word is truthful and trustworthy.”

Placement of this Chapter Within Numbers

Ashley admits, “The connection of ch. 30 with its context is not immediately obvious...”

Stubbs speculates: “Given that Numbers gives prominent attention to both vows (6:1-21; 15:3,8; 21:2; 30:1-16) and laws concerning women (5:11-31; 27:1-11; 30:1-16; 36:1-13), one wonders if there is a deeper significance to the placement of this passage...”

And Wenham says, “Finally, one should ask why this group of laws is placed here.” He feels it has something to do with the fact that “vows were usually sealed with a sacrifice.” And this was the specific topic of Numbers 28-29. I believe that Figure 1 below provides a much fuller rationale since most of Numbers 30 deals with regulations protecting women, the subject which ends both the opening (A-C) and concluding (A'-C') series of three sections as well as in the exact center of the overall unit.

                                                 Figure 1: The Structure of Numbers 26-36

A. The Tribes Numbered (26:1-56)

B. Levites Numbered (26:57-65)

C. Inheritance Laws for Daughters of Zelophehad (27:1-11)

D. End of Moses' Leadership (27:12-23)

E. Final Legislation Before Crossing Jordan (ch. 28-29)

F. Women's Vows (ch. 30)

E'. Final Narratives Before Crossing Jordan (ch. 31-32)

D'. Summary of Moses' Leadership

A'. The Tribes' Inheritance (33:50-34:29)

B'. Levites' Inheritance and Cities of Refuge (ch. 35)

C'. Inheritance Laws for Daughters of Zelophehad (ch. 36)

 

   Figure 2: The Structure of Numbers 30

    1. “This is what the LORD has commanded” (v. 1)

            2. Men's vows unbreakable (v. 2)

                    3. Girl's vows breakable by her father (vv. 3-5)

                            4. Girl's vows breakable by her fiancee (vv. 6-8)

            2'. Widow's and divorcee's vows unbreakable (v. 9)

                    3'. Wife's vows breakable by husband without penalty (vv. 10-12)

                            4'. Wife's vows breakable with penalty (vv. 13-15)

    1'. “These are the statutes which the LORD has commanded” (v. 16)

And as you can see in Figure 2, Ashley is correct when he states, “The binding nature of the male vow [appearing only in v. 2] is not the point of the present law...but only a principle against which the issue of vows for certain classes of women may be approached.”

This symmetrical organization also addresses a concern pointed out by Ashley, namely, “A few scholars have concluded that this verse [i.e. 9] is a later interpolation or gloss [which]...interrupts the sequence of vv. 6-8 and 10-15.” That criticism is only valid if one expects a strictly logical presentation of ideas in the Bible, which is not always the case.

 

MIXED METAPHORS IN THE BIBLE

 Andrew Wilson has written an interesting article in the recent Christianity Today magazine in which he starts out by saying that “figures of speech influence how we think about the subjects themselves – probably more than we realize. They constrain our thinking, for better or worse.”

Thus, he gives the example of the various examples of imagery used to characterize the people of God: salt of the earth, light of the world, city on a hill, a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a field, a garden, branches on a vine, sheep in a fold, crops at harvest, warriors in battle, citizens of heaven, the bride of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Spirit. “Each metaphor highlights different aspects of what it means to be God's people as well as the privileges and responsibilities we carry as a result. We need them all. If any of them is missing, we will quickly become imbalanced in ways that threaten to damage or divide.”

Wilson then zeroes in on two specific images of the church to illustrate his point. It is pictured in the Bible as both a body (Romans 12:4-5; I Corinthians 12:12-31) and a household (Gal. 6:10; Ephesians 2:19; I Timothy 3:15). In a body, each component of it is necessary in order for the whole to function adequately. The important implication of that imagery is to stop anyone thinking that they are independent from the others or superior or inferior to the others.

But from the household metaphor we learn that there is a certain type of order and structure to be maintained, and therefore it may be up to some within the household to shoulder more responsibility than the others.

Both images need to be kept firmly in mind at the same time. Otherwise the church may descend into chaos (the danger of the body metaphor taken to an extreme) or become a rigidly authoritative to the point where only one or two people in the church run the whole show (the danger of the household metaphor only).

Wilson also applies these two metaphors to the question of the role of women in the church. I Timothy 2:11-12 appears to strictly limit women's participation in church life whereas Paul in I Corinthians 14:26 has them prophesying, offering prayers, and teachings. The first passage reflects the image of the church as a household while the second one is based on the idea of the church as a body.

One can also look at the three “lost” parables recorded in Luke 15 as another example. First we are given the parable of the lost sheep as an example of God's love for each single one of us. But taken by itself, it could be misinterpreted as the Gospel of Thomas does, namely that the one sheep was more beautiful than all the others and that was why the shepherd lavished all his care on him to the detriment of the 99 who were just left to fend for themselves while the shepherd went off and ignored them. And that concept appears to be reinforced by the moral of the story: “There will be more joy in heaven over the one sinner who repents than over the 99 righteous who needed no repentance.”

The second parallel parable is shorter and describes the woman who finds her missing coin and restores it to the other nine of hers. She rejoices with her neighbors over her good fortune just as the the angels rejoice over one sinner who repents.

Thirdly, we are given the most elaborate, and famous, example of all in the parable of the lost son.

Just look at what we would be left without if any of these three stories were missing. Taken to its extreme, I have at least twice in my church life witnessed a misapplication of the lost sheep parable. One occurred at a congregation in which the youth pastor spent so much time trying to win over one rebellious teenager who occasionally attended the youth group that he totally ignored the rest of the junior high and senior high sons and daughters of regular church members that were in the group. If he had followed the example of the lost son instead, he would have gone out of his way to assure the loyal attenders of the group that they were valued as well.

A second example occurred in a very small start-up church I attended. The unofficial leader of the congregation had attended seminary and had made friends with a man who was a very nominal member of another church. That man's wife preferred to attend our services instead and so the man did everything he could to sabotage our church. But our church leader was so intent in trying to win his friend that he sided with him instead of with my wife and myself over a trumped-up charge made by the friend. As a result, we were forced to leave that church without comment rather than cause a church split which the congregation could not afford.

The second parable, that of the lost coin, is incomplete in itself since a coin has no volition in itself. So perhaps the only takeaway message we can safely glean from it which is not found in the other two is that we should share the good news of the gospel with others.

We get by far the fullest story from the longer parable of the prodigal son, which addresses the issue of the older brother, who is assured by the father that he is also well appreciated and will inherit all that the father has as well as having the blessing of never having to leave the father's house to suffer the way his errant brother has.

Wilson's conclusion can best be summarized by the sentence he gives right after the title of his essay: “A right understanding of the church depends on keeping the whole spectrum of biblical images in view.”

PROVERBS: KING JAMES TRANSLATION -- PART 2

In continuation of a review of phrases in the King James Version of Proverbs which happen to be used as chapter titles in Ashes to Ashes by Emma Lathan, here are those given in the last half of Proverbs.

Proverbs 18:8; 26:22 – The Words of a Talebearer

What exactly is a “talebearer”? Is it someone who tattles on someone else, a professional storyteller, a liar? Modern translations clarify the underlying meaning of the Hebrew word nirdan as “gossip” (TEV), “slanderer” (AB) or “rumor monger” (Living Bible).

Proverbs 20:17 – Bread of Deceit

This misleading translation is better rendered as “bread gained by fraud or deceit” since there is nothing deceitful about the bread itself. Murphy notes that there is an untranslatable catchword tying together verses 16 and 17 formed by the Hebrew 'rb, which can mean either “sweet” or “surety.”

Proverb 21:9 – A Brawling Woman

There are several probable problems with this rendering of the original Hebrew text. To start with, the modern image conjured up by “brawl” is a physical fight without any rules and perhaps involving more than two parties. Secondly, the NEB translates the end of this verse as “than to have a nagging wife and a brawling household” in place ot NRSV's “than in a house shared with a contentious woman.” Thirdly, Whybray offers “a shared house”, “a spacious house” and “an alehouse” as possible alternative translations for “a brawling household.”

Proverbs 22:5 – Thorns and Snares

Martin says that “the wicked shares the difficulties of the sluggard (15:29), though 'thorns' is a rare word that may mean 'hooks' and so (with 'snares') symbolize the difficulties in which he is caught, for all this scheming.”

Waltke devotes a number of words discussing this phrase, arriving at his own translation of “snares, the bird-trap sort.” He points out that the word “and” is found nowhere in the Hebrew text and therefore would have to be supplied in order to translate this phrase as any A+B combination. A second problem arises with the word sen, which is uncertain in meaning. One scholar changes the word to sammim 'traps' while another one substitutes sepunim 'hidden.' 'Thorns and snares' comes from seninim 'thorns' in Numbers 33:35 and Joshua 23:13. He mentions that several other possibilities have been suggested in the literature.

Proverbs 22:28; 23:10 – Remove Not the Old Landmark

I have witnessed demonstrations in which people in a city protest the removal of a historical building and fight to preserve it for posterity. But that is not the sort of landmark that is in mind here. As Martin says: “Boundary markers [a superior translation] were important in the ancient world, as witnessed by the Israelite Law (Dt. 19:14; 27:17; and see Prov. 15:25)...The Heb. word is generally used for boundary, but this could be marked in various ways – by a cairn of stones (Gen. 31:51), a stone (Jos. 15:6) or a hedge (Isa. 5:5). There might also be other prominent features by reference to which boundaries were determined. 'set up by your forefathers': shows respect for ancient agreement and settlement.”

Waltke notes that this “refers to the time when Joshua distributed the land by casting the sacred lot (Joshua 14-19)...Throughout the ancient Near East people had a great respect for private and tribal boundaries so essential for a family's life.”

Modern counterparts are the survey markers put into the ground to designate the legal edges of one's property, but in ancient times rocks generally served the same purpose. The main problem, as you can imagine, came about if you had an unscrupulous neighbor who would secretly move the rocks a little at a time until he illegally gained property that was rightfully yours. That is the background to this saying.

Proverbs 23:28 – Transgressors Among Men

The whole verse in the KJV reads: “She [i.e. the strange woman] also lieth in wait as for a prey, and increaseth the transgressions among men.”

Transgressors (bogedim) is translated more accurately as traitor or the disloyal by Waltke. He says, “'Bagad expresses the unfaithfulness of a person to an existing and established relationship. Specifically, the people in view are the men and women 'who abandoned' their heritage of having a relationship with God and with their leaders.” Thus, the RSV translates the verse as “She lies in wait like a robber and increases the faithless among men.”

However, The Jerusalem Bible takes a different interpretive stance and reads, “Yes, like a robber she is on the watch and many are the men she dupes.” And their footnote to this verse adds, “Lit. 'she increases dupes (corr.' Hebr. 'deceivers') among men'.”

Proverbs 25:6-7 – The Place of Great Men

This location is where, according to the author, a person should not deign to stand. The best commentary on this passage is found in Luke 14:8-11 where Jesus counsels people not to push themselves forward by taking the best seats at a banquet or royal occasion. The possible embarrassment resulting from that hubris is that you may be asked to vacate your seat in order that a more honored guest can take your place. Instead, you should humbly take a less desirable seat and leave it to your host to elevate you to a more honored place if he wishes.

Waltke pictures a slightly different setting for this saying: “In the place has the more restricted sense of the court or some other place where influential people congregate. Great refers to people of rank and influence (see 18:6). Do not stand (see 12:7) cautions the courtier, who alone could face this temptation, not to take up a position with men and influence.” In other words, do not consider yourself higher than you really are.

Proverbs 25:21-22 – Coals of Fire

This is probably one of the most recognizable phrases in Proverbs due to its being quoted by Paul in the Greek version to teach that the best way to overcome evil is with good (see Romans 12:17-21). However, that meaning is not exactly obvious to most readers. Waltke concludes after a page and a half of discussion on the subject: “Some think that heaping coals of fire on a person's head is a form of punishment and of appeasing one's need foe vengeance, but the parallel, 'the Lord will reward you,' negates that interpretation...Most interpreters agree that 'coals of fire' is a morally good deed, one pleasing to the LORD.”

Proverbs 26:1 – As Snow in Summer

The comparison here is between getting snow in the summer and the honoring of a fool. Buzzell says, “Snow in summer or rain in harvest is is inappropriate, highly unusual, and potentially damaging to crops. Putting a fool in a position of honor (cf. 26:8) is inappropriate (cf. 19:10) and may injure others who follow him as a model.”

Proverbs 27:23 – Be Thou Diligent

The KJV “Be thou diligent to know the state of the flocks, and look well to thy herds” is replaced by Waltke with the less stilted “Be sure you know the condition of your flocks, pay attention to [your] herds.” But the general meaning remains the same in each rendering.

Proverbs 27:24 – Riches Are Not Forever

This proverb certainly contradicts the title of the James Bond novel “Diamonds Are Forever.” But to what exactly does forever refer? Waltke explains that it “could refer to an individual's lifetime (cf. Exod 19:19; 21:6), but the parallel shows that it refers to the farthest, distant time in the sense of unceasing.”

The parallel to which he is referring is the second line of the verse, which reads, “and does a crown endure to all generations?”

Proverbs 29:9 – There is No Rest

Martin labels this verse as a “contribution to the paradox of 26:4,5. 'goes to court' means a legal case , and the proverb suggests it is a waste of time prosecuting a fool, because 'there is no peace', either in the hearing or, more likely, no satisfactory end to the case.”

Alternatively, RSV translates the whole verse as “If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.” As an alternative to “quiet,” it also can mean “no satisfaction.” This translation thus partially agrees with Martin except for the proposed setting of the proverb.

Proverbs 31:15 – She Riseth Also

The general meaning of this proverb is clear: “The figure connotes that in keeping with her character she puts the well-being of the household before her own comfort.” (Waltke)

The only real problem with the KJV is the addition of “also,” which is not present in the Hebrew original. Its presence can cause an undue association with the more famous “the sun also rises” in Ecclesiastes 1:5.

PROVERBS: KING JAMES TRANSLATION -- PART 1

Although some people swear by the KJV, some of the wording has not stood up to the test of time since 1611 when it was first published, As a random test of this statement, I was reading a mystery story by Emma Latham called Ashes to Ashes, in which each chapter title came right out of the book of Proverbs, as written in the KJV. This was quite appropriate to the subject of the mystery, which involved the potential sale of a parochial school, since in a sense Proverbs served as a sort of primer for Jewish boys.

Here are the first half of those phrases from Proverbs with comments regarding the King James translation. The second half of chapter titles will be discussed in a subsequent post.

Proverbs 1:21 – The Chief Place of Concourse

Hulst discusses the translation “concourse” as coming from the root verb hama(h), meaning 'to make a noise.' “The word probably indicates the busiest places in town, and thus the translation can be 'where the busiest (streets) begin'...Others render 'above the bustle', but this is an unlikely translation in view of the first word bro's 'at the beginning', or 'at the head', or 'on the top'. In place of the Hebr homiyyot, the LXX [Greek Septuagint] read homot 'walls'. The RSV has accepted this change and rendered 'on the top of the walls'.”

Thus, we have a number of potential problems here caused by a rare word of unknown derivation in conjunction with the textual issue as to whether the Hebrew or Greek text is the most reliable. In addition, the modern definition of “concourse” is a large space in front of or inside a building, such as an airport concourse.

Proverbs 5:14 – In the Midst of the Congregation

This is where the author has been disgraced in some way. If any of us were asked where this might be located, I am sure the answer would be, “At a church service.” However, Walls sets us straight by explaining that “the phrase...is viewed as a corporate designation for Israel as the people of God, and the fact that the sin was committed in the midst of such a people would constitute an aggravation of it (cf. Heb. 12:15).”

Proverbs 8:14 – Counsel is Mine

Since the verse goes on to add “sound wisdom” and “insight” to God's attributes, this phrase stands as a good translation unlikely to be as misunderstood as the use of “counselor” in Proverbs 11:14, discussed below.

Proverbs 8:33 – Hear Instruction, and Be Wise

The whole verse concludes with “and do not neglect it” according to NRSV. This seems like such a simple verse that one wonders how there could possibly be any problems with its translation. However, it turns out that the original Hebrew is not that easy to decipher. Waltke notes that several letters in the original may have dropped out accidentally and need to be restored; Scott translates it as “Give heed to instruction and reject not wisdom,” leaving out “be wise” altogether; and the Jerusalem Bible somehow feels the need to rearrange the order of the poetic lines so that v. 33 is sandwiched between the first and second lines of v. 34 in order to make sense out of the whole. Fortunately, the general idea of the verse is conveyed in all of these variations.

Proverbs 10:26 – Vinegar to the Teeth

This is an example of emblematic parallelism in which a figurative expression such as above is compared to a literal situation, in this case to show what the author feels about a lazy employee, in other words “an irritant.” However, some people may not see what is wrong with vinegar at all – what about vinegar and oil dressing? The answer lies in the lack of dental care during those days. Thus, it probably refers to the great pain caused when an acidic substance such as vinegar hits a broken or diseased tooth. This is explained in the Syriac version of Proverbs.

Proverbs 11:14; 24:6 (cf. 15:22) – A Multitude of Counselors

The only possibly confusing thing regarding this translation is that “counselor” immediately conjures up images of a school counselor, a marriage counselor, or a lawyer. And it is actually in that last sense that my mystery story uses it. However, in each of the three verses cited above, this phrase occurs in one line of a two-line proverb and can be seen to be parallel to those who give guidance in general. Thus, most readers would probably not be misled by this translation.

Waltke explains: “Counselors (yoles) is a technical term from a root that means “to determine,' plan,' or 'advise.' Any competent person, male or female...could act as a counselor in a specific case (cf. 12:20). In a multitude (berob) denotes the many whose arguments and counterarguments guarantee that their agreed-upon plan will not miscarry but succeed in spite of danger...The proverb counters the danger of caucus-dominated political practices.” Thus, he notes, “Significantly, Proverbs always represents counselors as in a group (11:14; 15:22; 24:6).”

Proverbs 11:25 – The Liberal Soul

In view of the current preoccupation with political differences, it is no doubt best to entirely avoid the use of the word “liberal” here. In addition to that problem, Whybray employs the more appropriate and usual translation of “generous man” and points out that the phrase in Hebrew literally denotes the 'person of blessing.' “This phrase could equally mean 'a person who has received divine favor'.”

Proverbs 14:2; 28:6 – Perverse in His Ways

This property of those who despise the LORD has alternatively been rendered as “devious in conduct” (NRSV, NIV), “a degenerate life” (The Message); “sin” (Living Bible), “paths are crooked” (JB), and “immoral man” (AB). Probably the best translations are those which do not appear to point to sexual perversions only.

And the safest approach is to note that both the verses in Proverbs in which this word appears are in the form of antithetic parallelism. In other words, “perverse in his ways” is the opposite of “walking uprightly” and “walking in integrity.”

Proverbs 15:1 – Grievous Words

Walls translates it in the singular as “a harsh word” and explains that the adjective in the Hebrew suggests one that hurts others. By contrast, the word “grievous” in today's parlance tends to indicate sadness instead because of the verb “grieve.”

Proverb 15:17 – A Stalled Ox

The King James Version of this whole verse reads, “Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.” This is probably an incomprehensible statement to most people, conjuring up the vision of an ox who has wandered out on the road and stops there, snarling up traffic until someone kills him and drags him home to eat.

Scott notes that although a great number of Old Testament proverbs have entered into the popular parlance, others such as this one, “might have done so had the terms in which they are put been less strange to our ears.” Thus, the pretty much incomprehensible KJV starts to make sense only when we realize that a “stalled”ox is one which was purposely left in his stall to fatten up for food, rather than one slaughtered after spending its life working in the field. It is a “fattened ox” which was fit for a royal banquet.

“The NIV renders the only other occurrence of the verb 'abus [fattened'], which is used in connection with the fowl on Solomon's table, by 'choice' (1 K. 4:23).” (Waltke)

Conclusion

Note that most, but not all, of the above translation difficulties stem simply from the way the English language has changed over the more than 400 years since the KJV was published.

WHERE IS "ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST" FOUND IN THE BIBLE?

 

The short answer to that question is, “It isn't.” But that would not make much of a blog post if I just stopped there, and the fact is that this popular saying is not entirely unrelated to the Bible. That exact phrase comes from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer for the dead and reads, in context, as follows:

“Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother here departed: we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be like unto his glorious body, according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.”

The biblical reference in the above is primarily to two passages in Genesis, 2:7 and 3:19. In the first passage, God forms (not creates) man from the dust of the ground. From a scientific viewpoint, this might be equated with what is called prebiotic evolution – the posited and speculative natural process of transforming inorganic matter, the building blocks of life including simple compounds from carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus, calcium, etc. – into more complex, self-replicating units. But then due to the sin in the Garden, mankind is doomed to eventually decompose back into inorganic matter, as stated in Genesis 3:19.

The interesting thing about these two words in Hebrew is that when that language was originally written there were no vowels, only consonants. And thus, both words were represented by the same consonants – 'pr. But when vowels were latter added, it became obvious that two slightly different concepts could be in mind, with 'apar representing “dust” and 'epar meaning “ashes.” Thus, they form a sort of natural rhyming pair.

But there are further biblical references actually tying together the words “ashes” and “dust,” and these may also have been in the minds of those who penned the Book of Common Prayer. The combination of the two words actually appears in four places in the Bible – Genesis 18:27; Job 30:19; 42:6; and Ezekiel 27:30. Many of the comments by scholars cross-reference these four occurrences, and so I will just quote from them in a somewhat random manner rather than attempting to separate them according to the primary biblical passage in mind.

Hayden: “Humiliation or contrition is expressed with this term [i.e. ashes]. Job says, 'I am reduced to dust ('apar) and ashes ('epar)' (Job 30:19; cf. 42:6)...Self-abasement is the theme of three passages [containing 'dust']: Abraham says he is nothing but dust and ashes (Gen 18:27), Job repents in dust and ashes (Job 42:6), and one who wishes to seek God should bury his face in the dust (Lam 3:29)...'Apar is used 12x of the material from which the human body is composed and to which it will return (Gen 2:7; 3:19; Job 4:19, 8:19; 10:9; 34:15; Ps 103:14; 104:29; Eccl 3:20; 12:7).”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “Since the word ashes is literally an image of complete waste, it also lends itself to use as a metaphor for weakness, ephemerality and emptiness...This same connotation underlies the use of ashes in expressions of intense grief and loss. The often repeated phrase 'in sackcloth and ashes' paints a vivid picture of mourning women and men in torn clothing, lying or kneeling on the ground as they heap ashes and dust upon themselves (2 Sam 13:19; Esther 4:13; Is 58:5,61:3; Jer 6:26,25:34; Ezek 27:30)...Job's initial cry of mourning, 'I have become like dust and ashes,' later becomes a prayer of confession, 'I repent in dust and ashes' (Job 30:19; 42:6). In other biblical prayers of both confession in 'sackcloth and ashes' (Dan 9:3-5; Jn 3:6; Mt 11:21;Lk 10:13) and petition (Gen 18:27), the image of ashes is always a moving reminder of the human condition before God.”

Hartley: “After emaciating Job's body, God has cast him into the mire to disgrace him. Job has been made to feel that he is merely dust and ashes (cf. 2:2; 27:16; 42:6). He is not thinking that God has soiled him indelibly (cf. 9:31), but rather that God has so discredited him that he has no honor left.” However in Job 42:6, “Job abases himself and recants, confessing himself to be no better than the dust and ashes on which he has been sitting. Job has come to a true assessment of himself before the holy God, as indicated by the similarity of his words to those of Abraham when he interceded for the sparing of Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of the righteous left in those cities.”

van Rooy: “The head played an important role in the mourning rites of Israel. The first rite was usually to throw dust, soil, or ashes on the head (Josh 7:6; 1 Sam 4:12; 2 Sam 1:2,15:32; Job 2:12; Lam 2:10, Ezek 27:30).”

Few of the above scholars bother to comment on Ezekiel 27:30, in which the sailors grieve over the loss of Tyre, perhaps because the words “dust” and “ashes” are separated by a line from one another. The NRSV translates these two poetic lines as an example of incomplete, synonymous parallelism:

    “They throw      dust on their heads and

              wallow in ashes.”

However, a probably better rendering is suggested by the Anchor Bible, which translates it as:

    “They will throw                       earth on their heads,

                     dust themselves with ashes.”

In either case, the two verbs should express the same sort of action. And as Greenberg points out, that poses a problem with the NRSV: “Throwing earth on one's head (Josh 7:6; Job 2:12) and dusting oneself with ash (Jer 6:26) were conventions of grief. The tradition vacillates regarding the sense of [the verb] htpls,” which may be translated by 'spread under', 'sprinkle themselves', or 'rub themselves'. “Medievals and many moderns have fixed on 'wallow,'… though since it is poured on the crown [of the head] it is hard to imagine the crown wallowing.”

Block adds that Ezekiel “describes in detail the verbal and nonverbal gestures of mourning (cf. 26:16) by the seamen: a loud and bitter outcry, throwing dust on their heads (cf. Josh. 7:6; Job 2:12; Lam. 2:10), wallowing in ashes (Mic 1:10; Jer 6:26; 25:34), plucking out the hair, etc.”

So it appears that there are two basic contexts in which “dust and ashes” appears in the Bible – as an expression of grief and a humbling of oneself in the presence of God. It is interesting that both of these appear in the book of Job.

REVELATION 16:12-14

 

Revelation 16:12-14

The individual units within this chapter are fairly easy to delineate due to the series of seven angels with their bowls of wrath. And there is a verbal similarity between the first and last of these bowls in that both contain the words “a loud voice from the temple,” “earth,” and “his (God's) wrath.” In addition, the two longest sections, those devoted to the third and sixth angels, appear to have similar internal organizations, as shown below:

    Third angel (vv. 4-5a)

        1. Words of the angel (vv. 5b-6)

            2. Response to the angel (v. 7)

    Sixth angel (vv. 12-14)

        1. Words of Christ (v. 15)

            2. Response of the kings (v. 16)

Note the other similarities between these two units. They are the only ones of the seven in the chapter to contain the word “river(s).” The first of these two sections ends as does the beginning of the second, with the only occurrences of “God the Almighty” in the chapter.

Also, the third angel's section is unified by the repeated words “blood” (vv. 4,6a,b) as well as “You are just, O Holy One / O Lord (v. 3)...your judgments are true and just (v. 7).”

With that in mind, look next at the repeated language in the section concerning the sixth angel: “assemble” (vv. 14,16) and “kings from the east” (12) / “kings of the whole world” (v. 14).

Since the repeated words in vv. 4-7 are all used with the same referents, one may rightly suppose that the “assembling” in verses 14 and 16 refers to the same event. But is the same true of the the kings mentioned in verses 12 and 14? That is the question I was curious to explore. However, trying to find any sort of consensus among commentators on this subject proved to be futile. As Walvoord explains, “There has been endless speculation about 'the kings from the East.' with many expositors trying to relate them to some contemporary leaders of their generation. A survey of 100 commentators of the Book of Revelation reveals at least 50 interpretations of the identity of the kings of the East.”

And this whole issue is somewhat bound up with endless geographical, historical, and Old Testament prophetic issues which together impact on our understanding. So the best I can hope to do is to simply present a range of opinions, presented roughly in order, beginning with the strictly literal and ending with the highly symbolic.

Phillips says that “the revived Roman Empire commanded by the beast...is now in turmoil, and his power in the east has dried up, making it possible for China, India, Japan and other eastern powers to unite...The way of the kings of the east is prepared, and at long last the awakened millions of Asia see their way clear to avenge themselves on the hated powers of the west.” Similarly, he feels that demons will rile up the other nations, all against God.

Walvoord: “The simplest and best explanation, however, is that this refers to kings or rulers from the Orient or East who will participate in the final world war...In the light of the context of this passage indicating the near approach of the second coming of Christ and the contemporary [written in 1983] world situation in which the Orient today contains a large portion of the world's population with tremendous military potential, any interpretation other than a literal one does not make sense.”

Beale critiques this literal understanding: “In the OT God is always the one who dries up the water, whether for redemption or judgment. Therefore, the final defeat of the wicked forces (16:14,16) stands no less under divine direction (not permission) than do their prior attempts to destroy God's people. John understands this pattern typologically and universalizes it. Babylon now represents the world system (as in Jewish writings generally)...And just as Babylon has become universalized and become symbolic..., so the Euphrates cannot be a literal geographical reference to the Euphrates in modern Iraq, Syria, and Turkey but must be figurative and universal...the acknowledgment by some futurist commentators that Babylon symbolizes latter-day Rome is inconsistent with their typical literalist approach to the beast and to this very passage, where they understand the Euphrrates and the kings from the east to be literal...In fact, 'the kings of the east' may be synonymous with 'the kings of the whole inhabited earth.' The universal effect is also apparent from 13:13 and 19:19-20, where both 'kings of the earth' and idolatrous 'inhabitants of the earth' are deceived.”

Beale and McDonough: “The OT prophesies that this judgment [against Babylon] would include the drying up of the Euphrates River (Isa.11:15; 44:27; Jer. 50:38; 51:36; cf. Zech.10:11). The prophecy was fulfilled by Cyrus who diverted the waters of the Euphrates (cf. Isa. 44:27-28)...Against this back- ground, it can be seen that the Battle in Revelation will end in the absolute destruction of all the opponents of God...The nations are deceived to think that they are gathered together to exterminate the saints, but they are gathered together ultimately by God in order to meet their own judgment at the hands of Jesus (19:11-12).”

I heard a recent sermon in which the pastor expressed the belief that the kings of the East must represent the forces of God's people since in the OT God's drying up of the waters always occurred in order to aid them in some way. However, as Beale says above, that sort of miraculous action on His part can stand for judgment as well as redemption. The same was true in the crossing of the Red Sea by the fleeing Israelites, an action which not only redeemed them from captivity but also brought judgment down on Pharaoh and his army.

Bruce: After the blowing of the sixth trumpet four demon-angels bound at the Euphrates frontier were released to invade the Roman Empire. Now, across the dry bed of the river, the kings from the East (a reference to the Parthians and their allies) may invade the Roman provinces unimpeded.”

That same idea is echoed by other commentators. Thus, the footnote in the Jerusalem Bible says, “Kings of the East were the Parthian kings, dreaded by the Roman world.” And Ruiz states that these kings are “probably a reference to the Parthians who would be led by Nero, restored to life.”

But for a different understanding, Beagley says,”When the sixth angel pours his bowl on the river Euphrates, its waters dry up (Rev 16:12), thus eliminating the barrier that afforded protection to Israel from invasion by the enemies to the north.”

And Hendricksen has an even different slant on the identity and target of these Eastern forces: “John sees that the sixth bowl is emptied upon the Euphrates River. This river represents Assyria, Babylonia, the wicked world.When the river is said to dry up, the road is prepared so that all the antichristian powers can make the attack against the church.”

But Beagley feels that Armageddon is “probably a reference to Jerusalem; (Rev 16:12-16).”

Beasley-Murray notes that the kings of the east “are further described in 17:12,13; they put themselves at antichrist's behest (17:17), ravaging the harlot city and war with the Lamb (17:14).”

Payne sees parallel accounts in Rev 9:13-21 and 16:12-14,16 with the large army of horsemen in 9:16 corresponding to the frogs in 16:13-14.These “suggest demonic legions” whose purpose is to gather the kings of the world together for war (v. 14). He then states that it was to this same end that the 6^th angel had dried up the Euphrates in v. 12. But he never equates the two armies of kings or tries to show the correspondence between the two, if there is one.

“Just as the OT is at variance with oriental views of divine kingship, so the NT is opposed to Hellenistic and Roman ideas of this kind: the earthly king is not an incarnation of the deity, since no one but God or the Messiah can occupy such a position...The OT attitude to the great kings is found again in the NT with regard to the 'kings of the east' (Rev. 16:12): the supremacy of God is asserted by making them a rod in his hand, only to destroy them at the last day if they do not submit to him in obedience (Rev 17:2ff.; 18:3ff.' 19:18ff.; 21:24).” (Klappert)

But the question still remains – Are they a willing, unwilling, or unwitting rod? The final reference to kings in the Bible is found in Revelation 21:24 where the kings of the earth will willingly bring their splendor into the heavenly Jerusalem. However in the New Testament, “human kings are usually seen as setting themselves against Yahweh and his anointed one...Such kings are known as...'kings of the whole world' (Rev 16:14).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Then Morris points out an interesting phenomenon: “By appealing to contemporary fears [concerning the Parthians] he [John] is making the point that at the end of time the divided forces of evil will engage in a terrible conflict. Curiously, having told us that the way will be cleared for mighty potentates to march westward John does not follow up the thought. He does not speak of the kings [of the East] as using the way prepared tor them. In fact he does not mention them again.”

Ford first reviews what others have to say about the sixth bowl: “Allo and others think the effect of this sixth bowl represents the various forces that cause the social and political machinery of the [Roman] Empire to crumble and thus render it defenseless before the barbarian invasion. Cambier adopts an eschatological interpretation; he sees the demons gathering 'the kings of the universe' for the battle with the Lord (vs. 14) as symbolic of the end of the world.”

Next Ford expresses her personal view. And since she feels much of Revelation was written by John the Baptist, it is understandable that her opinion is that the judgments of the bowls are against unbelieving Israel. Thus, “the irony of the sixth bowl lies in the fact that on at least two occasions waters 'stood still' so that the Israelites could pass over safely...All these incidents profit Israel and bring disaster to their enemies, but the author of Revelation predicts the exact opposite. The Euphrates is dried up so that the way will be clear for an invasion from the east.”

Mounce has the most to say on this subject among the commentaries I consulted. Here are just a few of his comments:

First, he states, “The Euphrates marked the eastern boundary of the land given by covenant to Abraham and his seed (Gen 15:18; Deut 1:7-8; Josh 1:3-4). It also separated the Roman Empire on the east from the much feared Parthians. Then he echoes some of the above scholars in feeling that there is irony in this passage in that this drying up of the river will actually aid the enemy, concluding: Whatever the ultimate reference the historical context of John's imagery favors the interpretation of the kings as Parthian rulers.” And if so, then that would fit in with the legend that a revived Nero would command their troops in attacking Rome. However, “some confusion results from the fact that this tradition is partially intertwined in Revelation with an older tradition that portrays a final assault on the people of God by the united kings of earth (Joel 3:2; Zeph 3:8). The kings of the East (vs. 12) who will lay siege to Rome (17:15-18 and chap. 18) are distinct from the kings of the whole world (vs. 14) who will wage the final war against Christ and the armies of heaven (19:11-21...)...The closest literary parallel is Isaiah 11:15-16, where the River (Euphrates) is smitten into seven channels so men may cross dryshod and a highway leads from Assyria to Israel for the returning remnant (cf. Jer 51:36; Zech 10:11; II Esdr 13:47).”

Conclusion

As you can see, there are so many possibilities given here based on numerous parallels in the Bible as well as historical sources that anyone who claims to have the authoritative last word on the subject should be listened to with great suspicion. And that comment applies, to a somewhat lesser extent, to the rest of the book of Revelation as well. The safest course is probably to glean from the book possible life application lessons for ourselves (and there are such to be found) and leave the exact details of future events firmly in God's hands.

PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP, CONTINUED (MATTHEW 18:12-14; LUKE 15:4-7)

 I once attended a church where the pastor delivered a sermon on the Good Samaritan at least once a year. But there is really nothing excessive about that practice since Jesus' stories are so open-ended that they continually challenge readers to draw out new insights and applications in them. So I am using that as an excuse to put together this third posting on the story of the lost sheep recorded twice in the gospels (For your information, the first two posts are titled “Parable of the Lost Sheep: Luke 5:4-7” and

“Is Anyone So Righteous That They Don't Need to Repent?”) The following are rather random, but still pertinent, comments gleaned from the scholarly literature that were not included in those earlier essays.

Donahue explains: In their transmission the parable received different applications and interpretations...parables originally addressed to opponents are directed to the church (Matt. 18:1, 12-14; Luke 15:15:2-7).”

Cochran: “Many scriptural texts run counter to utilitarian reasoning. The dominant witness of the NT is that all humans are equal and all life is worth preserving...Jesus interacts with social outcasts (Matt. 9:10-13; Mark 2:13-17; Luke 5:27-32; 19:1-10; John 4:7-39), treats children with special care (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17), and praises the actions of a shepherd who leaves ninety-nine sheep in order to find the one that is lost (Matt. 19:10-14; Luke 15:3-7). The idea that the good of some persons can be sacrificed for the sake of a greater number of people is at odds with these texts' emphasis upon care for all persons.”

“In the parable of the Lost Sheep (15:4-7) the description of the shepherd who goes after the one lost sheep (15:4) echoes Ezek. 34:11-12, 16...As Jesus' audience consists of the Pharisees and scribes who complain about Jesus welcoming and eating with sinners (15:2), he challenges them to understand themselves as shepherds. The Pharisees' and scribes' lack of concern and mercy for sinners echoes Ezek. 34...The emphasis on joy in heaven over the repentance of one sinner in 15:7 may echo Ezek.18:23: 'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the LORD God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?'” (Pao and Schnabel)

“When people receive the word (Mt 13:20) and discover the kingdom (Mt 13:44), they respond with joy, just as the shepherd rejoices when he finds a lost sheep – a transparent metaphor for the Father who does not want any of 'these little ones' to be lost (Mt 18:12-14).” (Green)

“God deals mercifully with the lost; everything depends upon that. There is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents (Lk. 15:7, 10, 23). Indeed the whole of Lk. 15 with its parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son presents Jesus calling upon men to rejoice with him over the lost returning to the Father (15:6,9,32).” (Beyreuther and Finkenrath)

Goetzmann says that “the predominantly intellectual understanding of metanoia as a change of mind plays very little part in the NT. Rather the decision by the whole man to turn round is stressed. It is clear that we are concerned neither with a purely outward turning nor with a merely intellectual change of ideas...However absolute the call to repentance, it was a message of joy, because the possibility of repentance exists. Because God has turned to man.., men should, may and can turn to God. Hence conversion and repentance are accompanied by joy, for they mean the opening up of life for the one who has turned. The parables in Lk. 15 bear testimony to the joy of God over the sinner who repents and call on men to share it.”

Murray disagrees somewhat with Goetzmann, at least in his definition of what a 'change of mind' means. “In the New Testament the terms 'repent' (metanoeo) and 'repentance' (metanoia) refer basically to a change of mind. It is all-important to note this significance. For repentance consists in a radical transformation of thought, attitude, outlook, and direction. In accordance with the pervasive Old Testament emphasis and with what appears also in the New Testament, repentance is a turning from sin unto God and His service.”

Lunde says, “Jesus' demand for repentance stresses God's covenantal grace, for he is its fulfillment and embodiment...Appropriately then, joy and celebration are often associated with repentance in Jesus' proclamation, evincing the grace which is its context (Matt. 13:44; 22:1-10; Luke 5:27-29; 19:6,8...)”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “In the NT the figure of one hundred vividly conveys the sense of a complete number. In Jesus' parable of the lost sheep (Mt 18:12-14; Lk 5:4-7), when one sheep out of a hundred wanders off, the number of those remaining seems lacking and incomplete by comparison...To grasp the power of a hundred as a image of completeness, one need only consider hypothetical variations on the parable. If Jesus had told a story of a man with ninety-nine sheep who loses one and is left with ninety-eight, the sense of completeness in the numbers would be substantially less, as would the rhetorical power of the parable.”

Conversely, another article in the same source states: “The quality of being 'one'...expresses the uniqueness of human beings. The worth of a single person in the eyes of God is expressed by the parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin (Lk 15:1-10). Here God's preference for the unimportant, the sick, the sinner is stressed even more than in the OT.”

REVELATION 15 VIEWED THROUGH DIFFERENT LENSES

 

Revelation 15 viewed through different lenses

There are some superficial readers of Revelation who immediately come to the conclusion that it consists of the ravings of a mentally unbalanced person or someone high on drugs. But the problem isn't that this book is totally disorganized. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is so highly organized and packed with ideas, allusions and images that it only appears to be confusing. So I thought it might be instructive to show how a variety of perspectives can begin to bring out some of the richness of the book. As a relatively easy example I picked the shortest chapter in Revelation, ch. 15, to demonstrate my thesis above.

Textual

You can't even begin to study this chapter or any other one in the Bible without first having confidence that you are reading a translation based on a reliable Greek text. And the problem is that there are literally thousands of early manuscripts (i.e. handwritten documents) to compare with one another using generally accepted criteria to determine which reading is the more authentic when the words disagree with on another on occasion. This is the job of textual critics who attempt to carry out this task in an objective manner.

It turns out that the Greek wording in at least four verses of Revelation 15 is somewhat in doubt.

Verse 3: The phrase “king of the ages” is found in some early manuscripts and “king of nations” in others. Comfort opts for the former, feeling that “nations” was added by some scribes due to that word being in the very next verse. By contrast, Metzger prefers “nations” over “ages” for two reasons: (a) “ages” probably came from recollection of I Timothy 1:17 (“To the king of ages...be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”) and (b) “nations” makes more sense in the context. There is additional support for Metzger's view found in the “Literary” section below.

Verse 4: According to Metzger, there are actually six variant readings in the first line of this verse (“Lord, who does not fear”), most adding “you” somewhere in the verse, “feeling the need of an object for the verb.” Such additions are not really needed to clarify the thought in the line.

Verse 6: The textual note in NRSV mentions that some early manuscripts have the angels robed in “stone” (lithon) in place of “linen” (linon). Metzger rejects “stone” as making no sense at all (but see below for another view).

Doctrinal and Symbolic

vs. 1: They are called the last plagues in this verse “because they bring to completion the wrath of God.” (Beagley)

vs. 2: “The use of nikao (Rev 12:11; 15:2; Rom 8:35-37) confirms that 'overcoming' is best understood individually, ironically, and as an inaugurated event, not merely as a future reality on a corporate level. The ironic, or paradoxical, meaning of nikao is modeled after that of Christ's eschatological conquest (Rev 3:21).” (Beale)

vs. 3: “The name of Moses is conjoined with that of Christ because a similar, though greater, deliverance has been wrought from a similar, though greater, foe.” (Beasley-Murray)

“Wrath against apostate Israelites because of idolatry is the focus in Deut. 32 as here judgment on apostate Christians together with the nations is in view.” (Beale and McDonough)

“Every believer is a priest in his or her own right, but collectively they are a kingdom. Christ is the king (Rev 9:11; 15:3; 17:4; 19:16), and the people over whom he rules are a kingdom of priests (Rev 1:6,9; 5:10; 11:15; 12:10).” (Giles)

Arnold comments on verse 3: “The one God is unequalled in power and sovereignty. He is therefore acclaimed pantokrator, 'all powerful.' The epithet appears nine times in the Apocalypse (e.g., Rev 4:8; 11:17; 15:3...).”

“John likes to use the phrase 'the Lord God'...This phrase comes up particularly in contexts in which prayer or praise is being offered up to God, and it is sometimes combined with the term pantokrator ('almighty'; Rev 15:3; 19:6; 21:22) to indicate the magnitude of God's sovereignty.” (Witherington)

“All ten uses of truth language in Revelation are with the adjective alethinos. Often the adjective describes the activities or characteristics of Jesus or God as true. In Revelation 3:7,14 Jesus is spoken of as the 'true one' and 'true witness' respectively. In Revelation 6:10 the Lord is praised as 'holy and true'; in Revelation 15:3 'just and true are the ways of the Lord God'; in Revelation 16:7 and Revelation 19:2 God's judgments are 'true and just.'” (Reed)

vv. 3-4: Wu and Pearson comment: “Hymn singing is an important element in Christian worship, being a spiritualized form of sacrifice replacing animal sacrifices of temple service...The content of these hymns is mainly descriptive praise directed toward God or Christ and blended with motifs derived from the OT...”

vv. 3-5: Seifrid states, “The churches stand in the relation to the risen Lord that he stood to the Father in his earthly ministry...They are martyred for their witness (Rev 6:9-11; 12:10), just as he was for his (Rev 1:5). And they likewise share in his triumph (Rev 7:17; 15:3-5; 19:1-20:15).”

vs. 4: “God, as holy, stands apart from and opposed to sin and evil...he alone is able to administer justice and judge rightly.” (Hawthorne)

Similarly, Newman says, “Three times in Revelation (Rev 16:5,7; 19:2; cf. Rev 15:3) it is said of God that his judgments are 'just' (phikaios).”

vs. 5: Beasley-Murray notes that the opening up of the temple in heaven “emphasizes that the judgments about to be executed are the expression of God's righteousness.”

vv. 5-8: The “heaven beyond the material heaven is portrayed as a temple (cf. Rev 11:19; 15:5-8), of which the earthly one is but a shadow and copy (Heb 8:2,5; 9:24).” (daSilva)

vs. 7: Newman says, “The seven bowls are full of God's anger (Rev 15:7; 16:1), and only when the bowls are emptied shall God's anger cease (Rev 15:1). God's anger and wrath, however, should never be construed as indiscriminate vengeance. Revelation asserts that God's judgments are always 'just and true' (Rev 16:5; 19:2).”

vs. 8: “Long deferred though God's judgment may be, when once it is begun it proceeds with terrible swiftness. The seven receptacles of His wrath are not narrow-necked 'vials', from which the contents trickle slowly, but wide, shallow bowls, whose entire contents splash out immediately when they are upturned. But while the strange and swift work is going on, the sanctuary is inaccessible; the meaning may be that the time for intercession is past.” (Bruce)

Newman says, “Revelation combines theophanic, royal and prophetic imagery in the description of the eschatological, heavenly temple that will be filled with the smoke 'from the glory of God and from his power...'”

Davies states that “whereas Hebrews' use of temple imagery is primarily concerned with the redemptive historical accomplishment of Jesus' entrance into the holy of holies, Revelation has a focus upon the heavenly temple as the place of God's abode (Rev 15:8), the place from which the earth is governed and judgment emanates (Rev. 14:15,17; 16:1,17). Yet it is also the place of safety for the saints (Rev 3:12; 7:15).”

Historical

Few scholars zero in on this important aspect of the visions in Revelation. However, Webb looks at the book from the perspective of historical events surrounding the author at the time of writing.: “The intensity and scope of the suffering in Revelation clearly transcends that of 1 Peter...From the perspective of the Apocalypse, much of the persecution was due to a political movement to enforce the cult of the emperor worship..Christians appear to have been forced into economic hardship, ...imprisoned...or slain for their faith...as a result of their refusal to participate in the emperor cults (cf. Rev 13:14; 14:9,11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4).”

Prophetic

Walvoord, writing from a dispensational premillenial viewpoint says of verses 1-2, “This description of praise to God and prediction of universal worship is in keeping with many other Scriptures and relates, of course to the second coming of Christ and worship of God by the entire world in the millennial kingdom...The awful hour of wickedness and blasphemy against God, which will characterize the period leading up to the Second Coming will be followed by a full vindication of God's judgment and holiness in the next period.”

“The first exodus, out of Egypt and out from under Pharaoh's tyrannical power, will be recaptitulated by divine design in a final, end-time exodus of God's people out from under the tyrannical oppression and rule of the 'beast' over the world.” (Beale and McDonough)

Beasley-Murray comments on the parallel passages 6:1-8:15; 8:6-11:19; and chapters 15-16: “These three series of judgments in Revelation have been interpreted as following in chronological sequence...There is, however, one major feature of the three series of judgments that makes this interpretation difficult to accept: each of the three series concludes with a description of the day of the Lord.”

“Given...frequent references to the judgment as something in the past [i.e. in Revelation 6:16-17; 14:7; 14:15; 15:4; 16:17; 18:10], it is understandable how it might be argued (as by Hanson) that the judgment which comes to Babylon (Rome!)...refers to the processes of history and not only to the final eschatological act. As Hanson puts the key point: 'This is not to say that the wrath has no reference to the end of hisory; but it never refers purely to that end. It is always a process; sometimes a process viewed as culminating in the end.'” (Kreitzer)

“There have been numerous interpretations of how the seals, trumpets and bowls relate to each other, some interpreters seeing them consecutively and others with various degrees of overlap, some more and some less literally, but in any event in the end Babylon is destroyed (Rev 17:1-18:24), making way for the return of Christ.” (Porter)

Intertextual

The great correspondence between the whole of Revelation and the Old Testament is in evidence also in Rev. 15. Since Ford feels that John the Baptist wrote the book, she is a good resource for pointing out some of the parallels between Revelation found both in the Greek version of the OT and the writings between the two Testaments. Just some of these are given below:

Revelation 15:                          Other Writings

vs. 1a “plagues”                       Exodus 11:1-9

vs. 1b “wrath” (thumos)           Leviticus 26:28

vs. 2b heavenly “fire”              Ezekiel 1:4,13,27

vs. 2a “crystal sea”                  I Kings 7:23-26

vs. 5 “tent of witness”              Exodus 33:7; Josephus Antiquities 4.100, 1-2-3

vs. 6 “stone”                            Ezekiel 28:12-13, if “stone” is the reading rather than “linen”

vs. 7 “golden bowls”               Exodus 27:3; Numbers 7: I Kings 8:3; Antiquities 3.150

vs. 8 “filled with smoke”        I Kings 8:10-14; II Chronicles 7:2-3; Ezekiel 10:3-4

Bruce points to some additional correspondences within the poetic center of the chapter:

vs. 3a “song of Moses”                                          Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 32

vs. 3c “Lord God Almighty”                                 Isaiah 6:3

vs. 3b “Great and amazing are your deeds”          Psalms 104:24; 11:2; 139:14

vs. 3c “king of the ages”                                       Jeremiah 10:10

vs. 3b “just and true are your ways”                     Psalm 145:17

vs. 4 “you alone are holy”                                    Psalms 86:10; 99:3,5,9

Some additional parallels have been pointed out between Revelation 15 and Exodus 15 by commentators:

vv. 1,7 “wrath/fury of God”                                  Exodus 15:4

vv. 2 “sea”                                                             Exodus 15:4

vv. 4,8 “glorious(ly)”                                            Exodus 15:1,6

v. 7 “forever and ever”                                          Exodus 15:18

Ethical

Most commentators are so busy trying to make sense out of Revelation from a prophetic viewpoint that they totally ignore the practical and ethical implications underpinning the whole book. The most important of these is perhaps the call for Christians to remain faithful to their call even in the face of opposition. This sort of loyal and steadfast behavior will also have a profound effect on those who observe your actions under trial. Kim states that “the church is empowered by the Spirit of prophecy (Rev 11:3-6; 19:10), and its faithful witness to the kingship of the true God and the Lamb unto death among all the nations brings about the conversion of the nations from idolatry to the worship of the true God (Rev 11:13; 15:2-4). Thus God's kingship is made effective over the nations at present through the church's witness.”

Literary

This short chapter breaks down into an ABA' type structure when the verses are separated by genre:

A. Prose: Revelation 15:1-2

        B. Poetry: Revelation 15:3-4

A'. Prose: Revelation 15:5-8

I have chosen to include the prose introduction of verse 3a in the middle section, although one could just as easily have it conclude the first section. Reinforcing these tripartite divisions are the following verbal parallels between A and A:;

“and...I saw...in heaven” – verses 1 and 5 This pair occurs at the respective beginnings of sections A and A'.

“seven angels with seven plagues” – verses 1,6, and 8

“the wrath of God is ended (v. 1) // “the seven plagues...were ended” (v. 8) These two phrases serve to conclude sections A and A'.

In addition, it is characteristic of chapter 15 to utilize the same Greek words exactly twice. Most of these duplications have the effect of strengthening the topical unity that exists within each of the three major units. Thus we see “sea of glass” appearing twice in Section A (both in v. 2), “song” two times in B (both in v. 3), and “nations” also in B (vv. 3 and 4). And acting as a bridge connecting all three units together is the following word chain: “name” in verses 2 (A) and 4 (B) as well as “glory/glorify” in v. 4 (B) and v. 8 (A').

Toward the start of this post, I mentioned that Comfort rejected the word “nations” in v. 3, feeling that it was added by some scribes due to that word being in v. 4 as well. But we can see from the above examples that such doubling of words was fully in keeping with the author's practice elsewhere in the chapter.

LEAVING IT ALL FOR GOD

There have been several times in the Bible where a person or group was forced to leave their home and all or some of their possessions in order to travel to a strange place. In this context we might think of Adam and Eve being kicked out of the Garden of Eden due to their disobedience, Jacob fleeing from Esau, the Israelites during the Babylonian Exile, or the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod's wrath. But even more instructive are those biblical examples and teachings regarding similar renunciations which were undergone on a more or less voluntary basis.

Abraham (Genesis 12)

In the New Testament, Abraham is held up as the paragon of faith who left all he knew and followed God's command. While that may be true to a great extent, we must also keep in mind that the Bible does not hesitate to point out his quite human failings as well in his somewhat later life.

As we read his story, it should raise some red flags immediately. The first question is why was his father Terah heading toward Canaan in the first place, and if that was his destination why did he stop at Haran? This is, by the way, where Abraham will later send his servant to find a wife for Isaac. This indicates that Abraham took some but not of all his relatives with him. Laban for example still lived in Haran. And there is a third question that arises if you look at a map of the region. Haran is not on the road from Ur to Canaan. The traditional site of Ur in Southern Mesopotamia is quite a bit in question and scholars now think it was in northern Mesopotamia instead, partially because that would place it on the trade route to Canaan.

The NIV translation of Genesis 12:1 reads, “God had spoken...” This would bring it in line with Genesis 15:7 and Nehemiah 9:7, which say that God brought Abraham out from Ur of the Chaldeans. We have to go to the NT to get some clarification. In Stephen's speech in Acts 7:2-4, he says: “The God of glory appeared to our ancestor Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia before he lived in Haran. After his father died, God had him move from there to this country in which you are now living.”

So the new scenario that I hadn't appreciated before now is that God appeared to Abraham while he was still in Ur living with his father. And apparently he told his father about the vision, which is why Terah headed off to Canaan. But he stopped at Haran instead, and Abraham stayed with him until his father died. So what do we think about Abraham's actions? Was he disobeying God's word or just honoring his father by his actions? Have any of you experienced similar spiritual quandaries between honoring your parents and going where you feel God wants you to go? Donald Barnhouse said, “The world has many a halfway house on the road to God's will.”

Lot and His Family (Genesis 19)

One could argue that they really had no choice except to leave Sodom as it was about to be destroyed. That may be true, but it is obvious that Lot's wife was leaving her heart there, and thus she shared in the destruction. And concerning their daughters, it has been said that their subsequent actions in relation to their father demonstrated that they may not have been any longer in Sodom, but Sodom was still in them.

Israelite Slaves (Exodus-Deuteronomy)

There is also a salutary message here for all of us in this often-told story. The Israelites are subjected to increasingly harsh conditions by Pharaoh, being forced to engage in backbreaking labor and whipped if they do not obey. It is no wonder that they rejoice in joining Moses in a flight from Egypt to escape such servitude.

But it isn't long at all before they begin to grumble against Moses, and implicitly against God Himself, for the wilderness conditions they find themselves in. They are constantly on the move and must rely on the quite limited diet that God provides for them every day. It is not the amount of food they are complaining about, but the fact that they can no longer enjoy the sort of variety they had while in Egypt. In Numbers 11:5 they say, “We remember the fish we ate in Egypt that cost nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic.” Of course, they fail to mention that this food did not at all come without a price, but was earned by the sweat of their brow. They also conveniently forget two key facts in their complaints: (1) they were more than happy to leave Egypt in the first place due to the harsh working conditions and (2) their exodus was not just away from one place but also, and more importantly, would lead them to a land designated by God for their own possession.
Unfortunately, most of us are similarly short-sighted and want to know what God has done for us lately.

Ruth and Naomi

I see the book of Ruth as a contrast between these two women. Naomi and her family leave Bethlehem as soon as things get a little difficult during a time of drought and head for a pagan land where they feel they will have greater material blessings. Instead, she loses her husband and both sons and reluctantly decides to head back to Bethlehem to see if things have picked up there since she left.

At this point she dissuades her two daughters-in-law from following her, thinking only of the better chance they may have getting new husbands from among their own people. But she totally leaves out of the equation the spiritual blessings they might have if they follow her.

One of the women does remain where she is out, but Ruth decides to be loyal to Naomi. To make a long story short, Ruth ends up marrying a wealthy landowner in Bethlehem and, much more importantly, founds a family that will ultimately result in the birth of Jesus Himself.

So whereas Naomi and her husband decided to trade in a somewhat difficult life among God's chosen people for the hope of something better, Ruth left her own prospects among her own people to follow a totally unknown future in a strange land with an elderly mother-in-law to care for. But she was blessed in every way for doing so, especially in the fact that she became the ancestress of Jesus Himself.

Elisha (I Kings 19:19-21)

Elisha is plowing in the field when Elijah calls him to follow him. But first, Elisha asks to be able to say goodby to his parents, a request to which Elijah agrees. In addition, Elisha takes the time to slaughter his yoke of oxen, boil them, and feed the people. He is thus burning his bridges behind him, but that action will eventually lead him to take Elijah's place as God's spokesman.

There is one confusing comment by Elijah in these verses that needs clarification. At the end of v. 20, Elijah says to Elisha, “Go back again; for what have I done to you?” Stinespring explains that this phrase should be understood to mean: “Go, and return to me, for I have done something very important to you [i.e. in putting my mantle over you].”

Christ (Philippians 2:5-8)

Here we have a poetic description of the ultimate example of someone who literally had everything in the universe to lose including equality with God the Father. However, He voluntarily gave it all up our behalf when he agreed to be born as a mere human being into a poor family in a backwater village of a small country. Not only that, but he realized when he lowered himself that his fate on earth was to be abandoned by almost all his friends and tortured on a cross until dead.

The Apostles' Call

Matthew gives us a concise description in 4:18-22 of the call of the fishermen Simon Peter, Andrew, James and John. They all “immediately” left their nets behind to follow Jesus, and in addition the last pair of brothers left their father as well.

Levi/Matthew the tax-collector left his booth, his source of livelihood, immediately upon Jesus' call. (Matthew 9:9)

Christ's Teachings to Others and Their Responses

Matthew 8:18-22 // Luke 9:57-62

These parallel passages begin using practically the same language with a would-be follower asking Jesus if he can wait until he buries his father before leaving with Jesus. Jesus rather harshly replies: “Let the dead bury the dead.” Commentators have speculated that either (a) the seeker was saying that he needed to wait until his father died or (b) this referred to the custom of collecting the bones of a dead person after one year and reburying them in an ossuary. If it is the first case, then the person was begging for perhaps years more before he would be ready to make such a drastic move. If it is the second case, then there was absolutely no urgency involved at all and the man was simply making a flimsy excuse.

Luke appends the story of another man who wants to first say goodbye to his parents, and adds Jesus' words – “No man, having put his hand to the plow and looking back is fit for the kingdom of heaven.”

Pao and Schnabel: “In these verses many commentators have...detected the presence of Elijah traditions...Verse 59 echoes the story of I Kings 19:19-21, where Elijah allowed Elisha, who was plowing at the time, to bid farewell to this family before following him.The significance of this passage is further supported by the wording in 9:61-62, where the phrase akoloutheso soi ('I will follow you')...appears with arotron' ('plow' [9:62; cf. erotria, 'he was plowing,' in 1 Kings 19:19]). The contrast between Jesus and Elijah not only highlights the unique authority of Jesus but also points to the eschatological urgency in Jesus' ministry.”

Matthew 19:16-22 relates the familiar story of the rich young man who came to Jesus seeking eternal life. Although the man was obviously well acquainted with the Law and obeyed it scrupulously, Jesus asks him to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor and follow him. At that, the man “went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.”

Luke 14:15-24

Jesus tells a parable of a rich man who decides to give a feast and invites all his friends to attend. However, they each give lame excuses as to why they will be too busy to come. So he has his servants go out on the streets and bring in the poor and handicapped instead. As you can see, this is not really a case of people being unwilling to give up everything to enjoy the heavenly feast. Instead, they were not even willing to give up anything at all. In its context, this parable probably does not really address individuals' unwillingness as much as it applies to the nation of Israel as a whole. And correspondingly, those who were next invited to the feast represent the Gentiles. A more specific lesson to individuals follows.

Luke 14:25-33

This is a similarly difficult teaching addressed to the general crowd. Jesus begins by stating that those wishing to be his disciples must “hate” their immediate family members and then concludes by telling them that they must renounce everything they have. Most commentators will point out that this is a Hebraic idiomatic way of saying they must love Him more than they do their family.

Paul (Philippians 3:4-8)

Paul begins by giving the Philippians his work resume, which includes his previously prestigious position in Israel as a Judaean Pharisee blameless under the law and well known as a persecutor of the heretical sect of Christians. He follows it by saying, “But whatever gain I had, I count as loss for the sake of Christ...For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ...” This RSV version is a rather polite rendering of the original Greek since the word translated as “refuse” can have an even harsher meaning. Vine explains that “skubalon denotes refuse, whether (a) excrement, that which is cast out of the body, or (b) the leavings of a feast, that which is thrown away from the table.”

Prophecies
There are several places in the Gospels where Jesus warns His followers of what will happen in the future:

Matthew 10:34-39

Here Jesus warns that his followers will probably not enjoy peace on this earth but will experience rejection from their own family. Nevertheless, “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.”

Tilden says, “Jesus sees that the acceptance of his message with its promise also brings seeming destruction (v. 34). Only those who in faith accept the threat of destruction will find life (v. 39; 5:11-12; 16:24; Mk. 8:34-35; 10:29-31; Lk. 9:24-25; 14:27; 17:33; Jn. 12:25).

Matthew 24:15-18; Luke 17:32-33

Here we have another teaching, this time given to Jesus' disciples, about leaving it all to follow Him. However, this time the Day of the Lord is the time frame being referred to. When that occurs, they are to (a) not go down to gather their belongings if they happen to be on their rooftop and (b) if they are not in the field (plowing?) they should not turn back. As a final warning, he says, “Remember Lot's wife.”

Conclusion

At one point the apostles begin to wonder if it was such a good idea after all to throw in their lot with Jesus. His reply to them serves as a good reminder to all of us:

“”Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake, will receive a hundred times more and will be given eternal life.” (Matthew 19:29 // Mark 10:29)