PSALM 33

Many Christians go to the Psalms to find comfort since the psalmists have a way of echoing the various feelings we have as we go through life. But it is selling the psalms short to think that they are only the uncontrolled outpourings of some overly emotional authors. Although they may very well speak to our emotions, the composition of each one of these is done quite carefully, as is the compilation of the entire Psalter. I have demonstrated the latter fact in my post titled “Psalms: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”

But before even going into the individual verses within Psalm 33, there are first some general items to discuss. Anderson alludes to two of the most perplexing overall issues when he states, “Some scholars have seen a connection between the twenty-two verses of this Psalm and the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet...yet this similarity may be more of a coincidence than a deliberate feature of the style. The Psalm has no title, but LXX [the Greek version] attributes it to David. This may be either a later addition, or it could have been accidentally omitted from M.T. [the accepted Hebrew text].”

Concerning the first point, Baigent agrees: “There is no evidence that the twenty-two verses were intended to correspond to the twenty-two letters of the Heb. alphabet (cf. Ps. 34).” What both Anderson and Baigent are referring to is the fact that in other places in the Old Testament, such as Psalm 94, poems are structured as alphabetical acrostics in which each of the 22 verses in the composition starts with a consecutive letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

But not all scholars agree, and it does seem rather a coincidence that the very next psalm in the collection (Ps. 34) is a true alphabetic acrostic, even though Ps. 33 does not contain that same regular progression of letters, and thus would be classified as a non-alphabetic acrostic. To me the deciding factor in favor of using that last label for our psalm in question comes from considering the overall structure of Psalms 1-41, often called Davidic Psalms due to the authorship assigned to 39 of them.

Figure 1: Structure of Psalms 1-41

A. Introduction (Ps. 1-2)

B. Seven Psalms of David, ending in an acrostic (Ps. 3-9)

C. Bridge (Ps. 10)

D. Psalms of David (Ps. 11-32)

C'. Bridge (Ps. 33)

B'. Seven Psalms of David, beginning with an acrostic (Ps. 34-40)

A'. Conclusion (Ps. 41)

Note the strong correspondences between the parallel psalms 10 and 33: (1) They are the only two in that collection which are not assigned to David in their superscriptions. (2) And whereas Psalm 10 is an incomplete alphabetic acrostic, Psalm 33 is, as I have stated, a non-alphabetic acrostic. As to the bridging function mentioned in Figure 1, Ps. 33 shares connections with both psalms 32 and 34.

M'Caw and Motyer note that Ps. 33 “picks up part of the concluding sentence of the previous psalm, but unlike it, is not a personal record of experience. It is a corporate expression of praise and worship marked by balance of thought and symmetrical structure.” More on that last thought below.

Holladay also remarks that Ps. 33 “seems to have had a peculiar relaton to Psalm 32 (one notes the likeness of 32:11 and 33:1).”

And, as mentioned earlier, Pss. 33 and 34 share an alphabetic connection.

These two commentators also provide some very helpful hints in constructing the organization of Psalm 33:

1. “The introduction (vv. 1-3) and the conclusion (vv. 20-22) are clearly distinguished from the body of the poem.”

2. “In the body of the psalm are two sections, vv. 4-12 and vv. 13-19, the first of which deals with God the Ruler, and the second with God the Judge.”

3. “Throughout all, He is faithful and steadfast to what He has spoken.” (vv. 4-5) And the same idea reappears in vv. 18-19: “The fundamental principle is simply that of the Lord's faithfulness.”

Supplementing the above three observations are the following: “steadfast love” appears in vv. 5 and 18; “heaven(s)” occurs in vv. 6-9 as well as vv. 13-15; and vv. 10-12 and 16-17 convey the thought that the nations and rulers by themselves are helpless.

Putting all these similarities together, it is extremely easy to reconstruct the overall symmetrical organization of this psalm, contra Jacobson's comment, “The structure of the poem is debated.”

                                                Figure 2: The Structure of Psalm 33

    A. Introduction (vv. 1-3)

            B. God's Faithfulness (vv. 4-5)

                    C. God as Creator (vv. 6-9)

                            D. The Helplessness of Nations (vv. 10-12)

                    C'. God as Creator (vv. 13-15)

                            D'. The Helplessness of Rulers (vv. 16-17)

            B'. God's faithfulness (vv. 18-19)

    A'. Conclusion (vv. 20-22)

The division into the above sub-units finds some confirmation in the scholarly literature. Thus, Anderson breaks the psalm into five units: verses 1-3 (A), 4-9 (B-C), 10-12 (D), 13-19 (C'-D'-B'), and 20-22 (A'). The RSV comes up with a slightly different combination of the groupings in Figure 2: vv. 1-3 (A), vv. 4-5 (B), vv. 6-7 (first half of C), vv. 8-9 (last half of C), vv. 10-12 (D), vv. 13-17 (C'-D'), vv. 18-19 (B'), and vv. 20-22 (A').

In addition, Freedman has done an extensive analysis of the number of syllables and stresses in each section of this psalm. Of most interest are the following results:

Verses         Section in Figure 2     # of Syllables     # of Stresses

1-3                 A                                  18                      48

20-22             A'                                 19                      49

4-5                 B                                  13                      32

18-19             B'                                 11                       32

Note how well the first two and last two sections of Figure 2 match up in this regard.

With all that as introduction, here are a few select comments relating to the individual sections:

Section A

Holladay: “binginot...is found in the superscriptions of Psalms 4, 6, 54, 55, 67, and 76. The NRSV rightly translates 'with stringed instruments, ' that is, various types of lyres or harps (compare 33:2-3).”

Regarding v. 3, Ryken asks, “Why does the psalmist command us to 'sing a new song' to the Lord? Don't the old songs express the truth adequately? They do, but they also gradually lose their power through sheer repetition and familiarity.”

However, Anderson says, “The reference to the 'new song' (verse 3) is occasionally taken to mean that it was intended for the ritual of the renewal of creation at the turn of the year, but it could also be linked with the renewal of the Covenant.”

Section B

“'He loves righteousness and justice'; i.e. loves to perform righteous and just deeds (cf. 99:4; Jer. 9:24). This may also imply that God is concerned both to do and to uphold righteousness and justice. 'Righteousness' (sedakah) is a term of relationships denoting that kind of conduct which serves to maintain the established ties.” (Anderson)

Section C

In regard to verse 6, “The psalm's emphasis on creation is unique, as Diane Jacobson notes, because 'it alone among all the psalms, speaks of God's creation by word.'” (R. Jacobson)

Baigent explains that verse 7 “could refer to the waters above the sky-vault (Gen. 1:7) poetically viewed as an ocean, or to the separation of waters from dry land (Gen. 1:9f; 7:11; Ps. 78:15). Some see the reference to Yahweh's mastery over the primordial sea...”

Section D

The Greek Septuagint adds to the conclusion of v. 10, “and he rejects the plots of princes.”

In verse 12, “the relationship between God and the people is stressed rather than any particular quality of the people. The nation is not even named! It is not called Israel, merely the nation whose God is the LORD. The point scored, again, is that it is the relationship with God that defines the people – the people do not author their own identity. They are those who have been chosen (bahar).” (Jacobson)

Section C'

Anderson states, “Yahweh is not an 'absentee landlord', but he is acquainted with everything that goes on in his world. Being the creator of all, he rules over all, and sees all...God, being the creator of men's minds, is the only one who knows what is in the heart of man (i.e. what determines his actions), and therefore he is able to judge between appearance and reality (cf. I Kg. 3:9).”

Section D'

Jacobson notes that in this section, “the theme changes to 'what saves,' or perhaps better, 'in whom can one trust?'...The theme of what saves is introduced with the stark declaration: 'There is no king who is saved by the greatness of his army.' The force here is dual – both that armies and military might cannot save, so trust not in their empty promises, and that kings themselves, mortal men, cannot save....the king is cast as the leader who in turn needs a leader, the king who in turn needs a lord – the Lord. The term saved (yasa) does not refer to spiritual, eschatological salvation, but to deliverance from earthly threats. That term, along with two synonyms, occurs a total of five times in...vv. 16-7.”

Section B'

Towner notes the similarity between I Timothy 3:11 ('what persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from them all') and Ps. 33:18b,20. He adds, “The theme of 'deliverance' begins in Ps 33:5, but Paul seems to have made his entrance at the point where it is applied specifically to the Lord's intervention on behalf of 'the righteous' in 33:18-20. Thus he makes explicit his interest in a theology of suffering built on the OT theme of the righteous sufferer.”

Section A'

The word nepes “refers to the total human being in both physical and psychological manifestations ...The word may be used not only of the will of an individual but of the will of the whole community: in Ps. 33:20 we read, 'Our nepes waits for Yahweh; he is our help and shield.” (Holladay)

 

JOHN 12:1-11

 

John 12:1-11

There are many ways in which one can divide up the Gospel of John, but let us just look at one particular passage in the first eleven verses of John 12, all taking place on the sixth day before the Passover. This was soon after the raising of Lazarus when that event was still fresh in the mind of those in the vicinity.

And as we reach here the half-way point in this book, we are overwhelmed with the many foreshadowings of Jesus' coming death and resurrection. See, for example, the dual reference to Lazarus' rising from the dead, specific mention of Judas' coming betrayal, description of Judas' greed which is part of the motive for his betrayal, Jesus' foretelling of his death in both verses 7 and 8, and the plan of the chief priests to kill Jesus. All of this is intended to prepare us for the second half of John's Gospel, which is devoted to the Savior's coming death.

Let's first take this narrative in a strictly chronological manner:

The Setting: John 12:1-2

Hendricks notes that Jesus chose to return to the vicinity of Jerusalem, specifically Bethany, in spite of the plot against his life mentioned in the previous chapter (see verses 53 and 57).

Metzger explains the controversy among scholars as to whether the phrase “who had died” to describe Lazarus in v. 1 was in the original. Early manuscripts are divided on this point, and that is reflected in the modern translations, most of whom delete these words as being redundant in light of the subsequent words stating that he was risen from the dead.

Mary's Action: John 12:3

Mary's anointing Jesus' feet with nard is described in this verse. Raymond Brown says, “This action is closely paralleled in Mark 14:3-9; Matt 26:6-16, where at Bethany two days before Passover an unnamed woman pours ointment on Jesus' head...Luke 7:36-50, another parallel, is a penitential scene set in Galilee where a sinful woman weeps over and anoints Jesus' feet. As with Mark/Matt, it is set in the house of Simon. In no Gospel account is Mary Magdalene the agent, despite artistic imagination.”

Ellis adds, “It has even been suggested that Simon was the father of Martha, Mary and Lazarus.”

Guthrie: “There are many similarities between John's and Luke's narratives, but it is unlikely that the two women concerned should be identified.”

As for the ointment used in the anointing, Blum states, “The pure nard was a fragrant oil prepared from the roots and stems of an aromatic herb from northern India. It was an expensive perfume, imported in sealed alabaster boxes or flasks which were only opened on special occasions.” And many commentators give the information that the worth of the nard in this case amounted to almost a year's wages for a laborer.

Judas' Response: John 12:4-6

Culpepper concentrates on the various literary devices John utilized in his Gospel, especially his use of irony. Thus, he says regarding this passage, “Judas protests the waste of precious ointment at the proleptic anointment of Jesus for his burial, yet Judas bears a heavy share of responsibility for that burial. His pretense is concern for the poor, but he was pilfering from the common purse (12:4-6). Then by an irony of events, the other disciples think Judas has gone out to 'give something to the poor' when he slips off into the night to betray Jesus (13:29). From another vantage point one can see that he gave more to the poor than they realized.”

Jesus' Reply: John 12:7-8

There are various ways of understanding the Greek wording in v. 7. For example:

    “The purpose was that she might keep it for the day of my embalming” (AB)

    “Let her keep it till the day when she prepared for my burial.” (NEB)

    “Against the day of my burying hath she kept this.” (KJV)

    “She's anticipating and honoring the day of my burial.” (The Message)

    “She did it in preparation for my burial.” (Living Bible)

Thus, the implication may have been that she (a) was doing it, knowingly or unknowingly, in anticipation of his approaching death, (b) she made a big mistake since she should have saved it until his actual death, or (c) she is being warned to save what still remained for his embalming.

Guthrie says in support of (a), “In light of Mk. 14:8, it is better to understand the meaning as...Mary's present act was in fact anticipatory of His burial.” And “Torrey makes the words a question: 'should she keep it for the day of my burial?'” (Morris)

Verse 8 has caused even more concern. That is mainly due to the fact that when Jesus states, “You always have the poor among you,” He almost sounds as if he is being more hardhearted than Judas in regard to His attitude toward those disadvantaged people (cf. verse 6). Scholars have tried to explain Jesus' words in various ways:

D.G. Miller simply states, “Such spontaneous love [as Mary demonstrated] will not neglect the poor.”

“The response to Judas's objection by Jesus in 12:8...probably involves an allusion to Deut. 15:11: 'There will always be poor in the land.' Jesus' point is that under normal circumstances concern for the poor has its place, but these are not normal circumstances.” (Kostenberger)

Hoppe: “Too often, texts such as Deut. 15:11...have been read as evidence that poverty is part of the natural order of things. But when these texts are read against the wider backdrop of the entire biblical tradition, it becomes clear that not poverty but mutual concern and support are to be the normal pattern of the community's life.”

“In short, the Scriptures are clear in that love of neighbor is among God's top priorities for humankind, but they offer no explicit policy prescriptions for modern nation-states.” (Blanchard)

Action of the Populace: John 12:9

The “great crowd” of the Jews comes to see both Jesus and Lazarus. “Lightfoot thinks that the unusual expression [in quotes] may be meant to recall the crowd of 6:2,5..., for that crowd had followed Jesus in Galilee and sought to make Him king.” (Morris)

And Borchert explains that unlike the meaning of the term 'Jews' elsewhere in the New Testament to imply Christ's enemies, that is not the case here.

Response of the Chief Priests: John 12:10-11

Verse 10 “is an important reminder than an evil thought or deed does not usually remain an isolated event, and those involved in such evil matters are generally forced further into evil in order to 'clean up the loose ends.'” (Borchert)

Morris expresses the same thought in different words: “It is interesting to reflect that Caiaphas had said, 'It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people' (11:50). But one was not enough. Now it had to be two. Thus does evil grow.”

Concerning the word “depart,” Morris states, “The verb is common in John. It may be used here with something of the meaning 'depart from one's allegiance' (i.e. to the chief priests).”

And Borchert adds, “The combination of the words 'departing' and 'believing' could well have also been viewed by the evangelist as a proleptic portrayal of what would happen in the conflict between the early Christians and the synagogue. The preaching and ministry of the early believers led to the departure (exclusion) of Jewish believers/converts from their cradle of Judaism into the fold of the Christian church.”

An Alternative Organization

However, if one wishes to take a more literary approach to divisions within this short unit, the following is another way to look at the verses. Notice the totally symmetrical arrangement.

Figure 1: The Organization of John 12:1-11

A. Jesus “came” to a dinner at the home of Lazarus “whom he had raised from the dead” (vv. 1-2a)

     B. Lazarus was at the table and Martha served (v. 2b)

          C. Mary anoints Jesus' feet with pure nard (v. 3)

              D. Judas complains the money should have gone to the poor (vv. 4-5)

                  E. Judas' real motive (v. 6)

        C'. The nard was meant for Jesus' burial (v. 7)

            D'. “You always have the poor with you” (v. 8)

A'. Crowd “came” to see Jesus and “Lazarus whom he had raised from the dead” (v. 9)

    B'. Chief priests decide to kill Lazarus as well as Jesus (vv. 10-11)

Some verbal parallels are shown in Figure 1 in quotation marks. In addition, we should note that Lazarus is only mentioned four times in the passage, at sections A, B, A', and B'.

ROMANS 2:1-11

Kasemann, as well as other scholars, recognizes the first eleven verses of ch. 2 as a discrete unit of thought with the basic principle that before God the Judge “there is no respect of persons.” There are two good reasons for delineating this section in that manner. Firstly, it begins, as do many individual units in Paul's writings, with a direct address to the audience: “O man.” And secondly, there are exactly seven (a number standing symbolically for perfection or completion) appearances of the Greek root krino in this passage in words such as “to judge,” the judge,” and “judgment.” This latter observation not only defines the limits of the unit but also provides us with the key topic holding it together.

Another characterizing feature of this passage is the number of dualities expressed within it:

        good and evil deeds

        Jew and Greek

        God's judgment vs. man's judgment

        glory vs. wrath

And as Kasemann notes, also defining the limits of this literary unit is the bracketing concept of God being no respecter of persons. It first appears in verse 1 with its universal address to “whoever you are” and finally it caps off the passage with a straightforward statement of God's impartiality towards all in v. 11.

To burrow down further into the makeup of this passage, we can break down into smaller units which each possess a measure of literary symmetry. These units are given below accompanied by comments from scholars who attempt to flesh out their meaning.

Romans 2:1-4

    1. “whoever you are” (v. 1)

                2. “you say” (v. 2)

    1'. “whoever you are (vv. 3-4)

        a. “Do you imagine?” (v. 3)

        b. “Do you despise?” (v. 4a)

        c. “Do you not realize?” (v. 4b)

This section starts out with the contention that those who cast blame on others are actually condemning themselves in the process. Several commentators point out that this statement doesn't necessarily mean that the self-appointed judges have committed the exact same sins as those they are judging, only that they are both equally guilty before God.

In reading this passage I am reminded of a classic political cartoon by Thomas Nast dating from the 1800's in which he pictures the infamous politician Boss Tweed and his cohorts standing in a circle and answering the caption “Who stole the people's money?” by each pointing to the person on his right. In that way, the blame inevitably goes back to the original source, Tweed himself.

Davidson and Martin: “Paul's style of writing, in which his argument takes on an imaginary disputant with whom he conducts a running debate, is fashioned on the 1^st century literary convention known as diatribe. This method of writing explains the question-and-answer procedure of...[verses 3 and 4] as Paul has alternately in view both a Jewish religionist and a pagan moralist, each of whom adopted a stance of moral self-congratulation and criticism of the failures and foibles of 'lesser breeds' who respected no moral code. The apostle turns upon this proud display by exposing its underlying error.”

Romans 2:5-6

        1. “You are storing up wrath for yourself (v. 5a)

                2. when God's righteous judgment will be revealed (v. 5b)

                2'. He will repay (v. 6a)

        1'. according to each one's deeds.” (v. 6b)

Man's actions in 1 and 1' are matched by appropriate responses by God in units 2 and 2'.

Brauch: “God's wrath [vv. 5a, 8b] is difficult both to understand and to believe. For some, the idea of a wrathful God has been a roadblock to faith...The Bible speaks about God's nature, work and purposes in terms analogous to what we know and experience as human beings. This is by necessity. God's absolute nature is not open to finite creatures But a corollary of this way of speaking about God is the resistance to ascribe to God human attributes of feeling which we perceive as negative...Wrath is clearly one of these...It is important to note here that wrath is God's personal response to sin, though unlike that of the various divinities of Greco-Roman religions and myths God's wrath is never capricious, vindictive or malicious.”

One other sometimes contentious point arises from these verses, at least in the mind of dispensational premillennialists. Witmer states, “the phrase 'the day of God's...judgment' (Rom. 2:5) taken by itself may seem to lend support to the idea of a single general judgment of all humanity. However, the Scriptures [of which he cites none] do not support such a concept.” I would have to take great issue with that contention since the singular “Day of the Lord” or “Judgment Day” is mentioned numerous times in both the OT and NT. The only group opposing that concept comes from some of the premillennial interpretations arising from John Darby in the 1800's. The most complicated, but still commonly believed, of such schemes of future events involves no less than seven separate “last” judgments occurring over a thousand-year period.

Romans 2:7-10

    1. to those who by doing good seek glory and honor and immorality (v. 7a)

        2. he will give eternal life (v. 7b)

            3. for those who obey not the truth but wickedness (v. 8a)

                4. there will be wrath and fury (v. 8b)

                4'. there will be trouble and distress (v. 9a)

            3'. for everyone who does evil (v. 9b)

                    5. the Jew first and also the Greek (v. 9c)

        2'. but glory and honor and peace (v. 9a)

    1'. for everyone who does good (v. 9b)

                    5'. the Jew first and also the Greek (v. 9c)

Notice how the key words found in the opening of this unit are repeated at the end. The concept that people will be judged by their works (vv. 1 and 9b) has been treated with varying degrees of criticism over the years by those who rightly believe in salvation by faith not works. Below are a few ways of dealing with these verses in light of that doctrine:

Allen starts out by reminding the reader: “The Christian is not exempt from a trial of works (14:10ff; 2 C. 5:10; Jn 5:19).” He then quotes C. Hodge as stating, “The righteous will be rewarded not on account of but according to their works. Good works are to them the evidence of their belonging to that class to whom for Christ's sake eternal life is graciously awarded.” So neither of those two firmly evanglical scholars feel that this verse should pose any problems.

Towner similarly begins by noting that being repaid according to one's deeds is found in the LXX [i.e. Greek] version of Ps. 27:4; 61:13; Proverbs 24:12 as well as II Timothy 4:14; and Matthew 16:27. He then proceeds to explain that “the standard of judgment that ensures impartial justice consists precisely of the deeds of the one judged (cf. 2 Cor. 11:15; I Pet. 1:17; Rev. 2:23; 18:6; 20:12-13).”

But the commitment of the dispensational premillennial branch of Christianity to strict adherence to the doctrine of salvation by faith alone is certainly not satisfied with the above arguments based on a more or less literal understanding of verses 6, 7 and 10, as evidenced by Witmer's words. In the first place, he translates v. 6 as “On that day 'God will give to each person according to what He has done' (quotation of Ps. 62:12 and Prov. 24:12).” The capitalization of the bolded word is either a convenient typographical error or a purposeful move on Witmer's part to subtly insinuate that people will be treated according to God's, rather than their own, works. And in fact, the two OT citations he mentions both confirm that we will be judged by our works.

But, of course, that OT theology is not nearly so cut and dried, and Witmer goes on to say, “A person's habitual conduct, whether good or evil, reveals the condition of his heart. Eternal life is not rewarded for good living; that would contradict many other Scriptures which clearly state that salvation is not by works, but is all of God's grace to those who believe.”

Two final comments on vv. 9-10 are in order:

    “It is perhaps significant that the Gk. words for trouble and distress [see v. 9a] occur three times in the LXX of Dt. 28:53ff in a curse on those who break the covenant-law. Paul is reminding the Jew of what he already knew but liked to forget. If the Jew's ancient priority of privilege counted for anything, it meant priority of responsibility (cf. Am. 3:2). (L.C. Allen)

    Elliott remarks on the repeated phrase in verses 9 and 10: “The Jew is first in salvation (1.16; 3.1-2), therefore also in responsibility.”

Romans 2:11

“Because God exercises impartiality in judgment (Rom 2:11), Jew and Gentile alike both face the prospect and the possibility of salvation through Christ.” (Travis)

“On two occasions he [Paul] asserted as axiomatic that God shows no partiality (Rom 2:11; Gal 2:6), the second of which deals with the apostolic office. The idea definitely excluded any notion of favoritism with God, which would not be in keeping with absolute justice.” (Guthrie and Martin)

“For Paul it is axiomatic that God is fair and would never do anything that shows partiality (Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25). Consequently, election does not mean that some people cannot come to God for salvation, nor that those who are elected are singled out on the basis of any virtue they possess.” (Elwell)

PROGRESSIONS IN EXODUS 20

 

I am always amazed at the new things I learn about the Bible even at my advanced age. Here is a quick insight that came from Sunday's sermon at Anacortes Christian Church.

The Ten Commandments outlined in verses 1-17 can be viewed as two progressions operating in different directions. Verses 1-11 demonstrate a forward advance in which one begins with belief in one God and ends up receiving life:

    Have no other gods before God (1-3)

        Do not worship idols (4-6)

            Do not take God's name in vain (7)

                Keep the Sabbath (8-11)

                    Honor your parents (12a)

                        Long life (12b)

However, if one starts out as if he or she is the ultimate god, then that can only lead ultimately to death, perhaps of others, but certainly spiritual death for oneself:

    Coveting everything for oneself (17)

        Bearing false witness (16)

            Stealing (15)

                Committing adultery (14)

                    Death (13)

There are additional correspondences between these two halves of the Ten Commandments, and they are presented almost a perfect in a mirror-image arrangement to one another. Thus, we might note that:

    The first series above consists of mainly positive admonitions while the second one contains all negative commands.

    Worshiping God is the opposite of worshiping oneself (coveting).

    Both the taking the name of God in vain and bearing false witness are sins of the mouth.

    Honoring one's parents and avoiding adultery are both necessary in order to preserve the proper family bonds.

Actually, the only thing which prevents this whole passage from being a perfect chiastic (i.e. mirror-image) construction is the lack of any obvious correspondence, negative or positive, between keeping the Sabbath and stealing (taken as kidnapping by some commentators). I will leave that as a challenge for my readers to see if you can find any such relationship between the two commandments.

READING I TIMOTHY 4

 

There are different ways of approaching any portion of Scripture, so what follows is only a rough guide using this particular portion of I Timothy as a typical example.

Genre

Perhaps the first step is to firmly keep in mind what sort of literature you might be reading – for example, is it in the Old Testament or New Testament? What is the basic genre of the book – poetry, historical narrative, personal letter, etc.? All such parameters will have a drastic effect on how you understand what you are reading. For example, if you approach Leviticus as if all the regulations applied literally to Christians today, you will end up contradicting Jesus on a number of points. Similarly, trying to treat the Psalms as you would a historical narrative will end up misleading you entirely as to what is being conveyed.

In the case of I and II Timothy, they are obviously personal letters to an individual from Paul containing instructions on how he should conduct his ministry. Thus, we should keep in mind that although these teachings may indeed have applicability for today, the ideas expressed in them do not necessarily follow any chronological progression or hold prophetic clues as to future events, citing just two examples. But we should expect that a variety of topics may be included in those Pastoral Epistles, treated one topic at a time and perhaps given in some sort of logical order.

Section Limits

That leads us to the next step – ensuring that we have a complete intended section of the book in front of us covering what the author wishes to say on a given subject. One might naively expect that we can simply rely on the chapter divisions in our Bibles to take care of this point for us. However, those were invented by a single person in the Middle Ages and should only be treated as a rough approximation of the thought divisions that Paul had in mind when writing.

Thus, in properly dividing up a book such as I Timothy into major sections, there are other things we can use as guides to those divisions. Often, there are tell-tale signs as to when a given section begins or ends. For example, a direct address to the original readers such as “Dear children” often means the start of a new section just as a doxology usually means the end of a passage. In the specific case of I Timothy it turns out that we have few such guideposts to help us. As Lea and Griffin state, “Formal divisions of the letter are difficult to make, for we pass quickly from one exhortation to another.”

The opening and closing points of the whole book are of course rather obvious, but within the bulk of the letter there are few such possible pointers to go by. For example, the word “now” starts chapter 4, which some commentators feel is a clue that a new subject is beginning. But not everyone agrees that it serves that function.

So turning to another obvious method of dividing the letter, one can simply look for drastic changes in subject matter. And here we are given some definite help in our task. I Timothy 3:1-13 obviously are concerned specifically with the qualifications for church offices while Chapter 5 treats of administrative and pastoral counseling issues. That leaves 3:14-4:16 as our best guess as to a discrete section. And we will see confirmation of that decision in noting the number of times the subject of pastoral teaching and preaching pops up in that passage.

Paragraph Divisions

The next challenge is to further divide up our determined passage into sub-units equivalent to today's paragraphs. Again, we might think that we would only have to look at our English translations, which are already divided in that manner, unless one is consulting the King James Version or NASB, for example. But, as with current chapter divisions, any such modern divisions should be taken with a grain of salt.

The NRSV, which I have before me, recognizes the following units: 3:14-16; 4:1-5; 4:6-10, 4:11-16. NIV, RSV, and TEV agree with those dividing points. NEB and The Message differ only in that they further divide the final unit into 4:11-14 and 4:15-16. And The Jerusalem Bible only has the following paragraphs: 3:14-16; 4:1-11; 4:12-16. The Living Bible paraphrase is divided as follows: 3:14-15; 3:16; 4:1-5; 4:6; 4:7-10; 4:11-13; 4:14-16. Nevertheless, this rough consensus gives us a starting point to work from, recognizing that further study may necessitate some minor changes.

Flow of Thought

Lastly, comes the hardest part of the task. And here commentators are quite divided in their approaches. The liberal scholarly school tends to look for awkward shifts of language or thought as tip-offs that different authors or editors were involved in the composition of the book. By contrast, more conservative commentators search for examples of overall unity in a given passage of Scripture, assuming that there will be such unity. But even those scholars are divided into two general classes: (a) those who assume a logical progression of thought and (b) those who look for a more literary unity based on phenomena such as inclusions, chiasms, parallel arrangements, and specifically repeated language. I will admit that I personally, though no trained scholar, tend to side with the latter group.

With that in mind, the next thing I would personally look for is to see if there are any correspondences between the individual paragraphs in terms of either subject matter or specifically repeated language. Starting with the logical approach first, one can label the individual paragraphs in terms that approximately describe their respective topics. Thus, we arrive at the following:

    3:14-16 Paul hopes to come soon but may be delayed; his instructions are designed to give Timothy teaching on how to behave in the church body; ending with a poetic hymn

    4:1-5 He warns against deceitful teachers and teachings

    4:6-10 Next he tells Timothy to put these instructions before the church; shun myths; train yourself in godliness; the hope of believers

    4:11-16 Finally, he says that these are indispensable teachings; Timothy should let no one despise his youth; and to do that he should set a good example before others. Finally he exhorts Timothy to, until Paul arrives, place close attention to himself and the teachings in order than he might will save himself and his listeners

One thing we can see immediately is that this entire passage is permeated with the idea of teaching. Thus, we have the following synonyms: instructions (3:14), proclaimed (3:16), teachings (4:1), instructions (4:6a), words (4:6b), teach (4:11), speech (4:12), public reading, exhorting and teaching (4:13), the gift? (4:14), and teaching (4:16). Along with that, we have exactly seven appearances of Greek words in 3:14-4:16 based on the Greek root pistis (such as faith, believe, believer). All of this repetition helps to confirm that 3:14-4:16 is a discrete section clearly distinguished from what preceeds and follows, as well as outlining the major subjects in the passage.

As to the individual units in this passage, the subject matter summarized above by itself does not really help us much in detecting an overall plan or train of thought. For that we need to break down the four major blocks of teaching down into smaller units. The only sure thing we can state at this point is that the two mentions of Paul's absence from Timothy and desire to be with him soon may represent parallel units. With that in mind, it turns out that an overall plan for this unit can be easily constructed:

                                       Figure 1: Literary Structure of I Timothy 3:14-4:16

    A. Paul's temporary absence and written instructions (3:14-16)

            B. Negative forces to resist (4:1-3)

                    C. Positive teaching (4:4-5)

                            D. Effect of sound teaching on others (4:6)

                                --------

            B'. Negative forces to resist (4:7)

                    C'. Positive teaching (4:8-10)

                                --------

                                    E. Conclusion: necessary teachings (4:11)

                                --------

            B''. Negative forces to resist (4:12a)

                    C''. Positive teaching (4:12b)

                                --------

    A'. Paul's temporary absence and written instructions (4:13)

            B'''. Negative forces (4:14)

                    C'''. Positive teaching (4:15-16a)

                            D'. Effect of sound teaching (4:16b)

As you can see above, this demonstrates that there is not a linear development of ideas, but instead a totally symmetrical arrangement in which the main point actually appears in the center (4:11), not at end of the passage. However, that is not to disparage the great importance of units D and D', which occur at the culmination of the series ABCD and A'B'C'D', thus pointing out the final effect which sound teaching has on others as well as on the teacher.

A shorthand version of Figure 1 would thus look like the following, a very common arrangement found throughout the Bible and known as chiasmus or a chiasm:

    Unit I (3:14-4:6)

            Unit II (4:7-10)

                    Unit III (4:11)

            Unit II' (4:12)

    Unit I' (4:13-16)

At this point, a reality check is in order by considering some of the specific words and thoughts which are repeated within this passage to see if they help confirm the plan in Figure 1. The results are summarized below:

    “word(s)” (4:9, 12b)                         II and II'

    “these things” (3:14; 4:11,15)          beginning, center, and conclusion of passage,

                                                             inclusio (i.e. set of bookends) for I

    “piety” (3:15; 4:7,8)                         inclusio for whole passage

    “living /God” (3:15b; 4:10)              inclusio for whole passage

    “attend to” (4:13,14,16)                    unification of I'

Lastly, we should now return to the various divisions suggested in the translations for comparison. Here we see that the proposed divisions and subdivisions in Figure 1 above have both similarities to and differences from the various translations. Specifically, it may help explain why the Jerusalem Bible connects v. 11 with the preceding verses while other versions feel it starts a new section. One sees this same disagreement in scholarly commentaries on verse 11, which reads, “These are the things you must insist on and teach.” (NRSV) According to my scheme, it belongs to neither verses but represents a section unto itself. Partial confirmation of that conclusion is found in the literature:

    Knight: “V. 11 is a transition verse and could be taken as the conclusion of what precedes or as the beginning of this section [i.e. 4:11-16].”

Hanson: “The verse is one of those linking phrases whereby the author holds together his varied material.”

Ward: “These things broadly covers the contents of the epistle.” Note above that this phrase is the second of three such occurrences in this passage, the other two located at the beginning and conclusion.

Towner: “The dual imperative, 'Command and teach these things,' creates the almost formulaic link...between a preceding apostolic statement and a parenetic section calling the coworker into action as a teacher...Together these two terms, overlapping to some degree, summarize the actions Timothy would take to apply the sort of apostolic discourse given in response to specific doctrinal and ethical errors or more generally to community needs (6:2).”

We can now look at the overall flow of logic in this passage, which proceeds from the ends toward the middle instead of from beginning to end.

Units I and I' lay out the important reasons for Timothy's teaching ministry in the church.

Units II and II' draw his attention to the various pitfalls he must avoid and ways in which he can do that.

Unit III (4:11) serves as even more than a “link,” “summary,” or “transition” verse. Instead, it is the central point of the passage and could be considered as its topic sentence.

EIGHT ACCOUNTS OF ONE SIEGE (II KINGS 18-19)

It is an old truism that history was written by the victors. But in the case of Sennecherib's siege of Jerusalem in 701 BC, there was no clear winner, and thus we see a number of variant accounts of that event by both interested parties and bystanders. So let's first take these sources one at a time before deciding if any consensus can be achieved as to the actual facts by considering all of them together.

Micah 1-3

The least specific of the writings concerning the time period of the Assyrian invasion are found in these verses, perhaps prophetically written before the attack on Jerusalem. Mobley says, “Micah offered a theological interpretation of the dizzying events near the end of the eighth century: the fall of Samaria, the expansion of Jerusalem fueled by emigrants from the north, and the international situation made unstable by an aggressive superpower, Assyria.”

Regarding the actual invasion, he notes that the towns listed in verses 1:10-16 “in southwestern Judah lay along the path of the Assyrian king Sennacherib's campaign in 701...although the specific locations of several are unknown.”

II Kings 18:13-19:37

Here we have the most complete account of the events during Sennacherib's campaign against Judah. I will summarize this extended passage before comparing the next two versions below against it.

18:13-16 Sennacherib of Assyria takes some of the major cities of Judah before coming to Jerusalem. King Hezekiah sues for peace by giving all the gold and silver tribute that Sennacherib demands. At this point there is the decidedly minor view of Millard that Hezekiah only promised payment to Assyria but had not yet delivered it. And that is the reason for the siege being continued.

18:17-37 However, Sennacherib instead sends for some of his chief officers, one of whom, the Rabshakeh, proceeds to intimidate and demoralize Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with his speeches.

One challenge to the Israelites that is made by the Rabshakeh in v. 32 I find especially interesting: “Chose life and not death!” This is practically a parody of Joshua 24:15 – “...choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

It is especially ironic in that the Rabshakeh follows his challenge by trying to point out the superiority of his gods to the God of Israel, the reverse of Joshua's comparison of the people's previous deities with the Almighty God.

19:1-7 Hezekiah turns to Isaiah, who tells him: “Behold, I will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.”

This is somewhat a difficult passage. Cogan and Tadmor state: “The content of the report is not stated, but whatever it might have been, Sennacherib is pictured as behaving differently than expected, and it is this divinely contrived rumor which will be his undoing. In 1 Kgs 22:20-23, [to cite a parallel example] a 'lying spirit' in the mouths of 400 prophets leads Ahab to his death at Ramoth-gilead.”

19:8-19 More intimidation proceeds from Sennacherib via a letter, but Hezekiah takes the letter with him to the temple and prays to God for help.

19:20-34 God, through Isaiah, responds first with an extended poem followed by a sign indicating that a remnant will survive this crisis. More specifically, He states that the Assyrian forces will not enter the city at all, but will return to where they came from.

19:35-37 Finally, we learn that the angel of the Lord slew most or all of the Assyrian army camped around Jerusalem while Sennacherib returned to Assyria where he was murdered by two of his sons while praying to his god Nisroch.

II Chronicles 32:1-22

Here we are given a mostly parallel account to the narrative in II Kings except for the following points:

Omitted from Chronicles is the initial tribute given to Sennacherib from the temple and treasury.

Included in Chronicles but not found in Kings are the preparations made by Hezekiah for the siege.

The two accounts of the Rabshakeh's psychological warfare are quite different in each version, but both cover basically the same territory. However, whereas there is no reply given to the blasphemous words of the Rabshakeh in the Kings narrative, the Chronicler feels compelled to add a theological defense of God in verse 19: “And they spoke of the God of Jerusalem, as of the gods of the peoples of the earth, which are the work of men's hands.”

Of the two accounts, only Kings tells of the heavy involvement of Isaiah and his prophecy of what will eventually happen to Sennacherib.

Both versions record Sennacherib's death using basically the same language.

So the main difference from the Kings narrative is the Chronicler's slightly greater emphasis on the sanctity of the temple and defense of the only God and a concomitant de-emphasis on the role of the prophets. Both of these tendencies are seen elsewhere in comparison of these two sources.

Isaiah 36:1-37:38

This large passage in Isaiah is duplicated identically in II Kings 18-19, with one minor exception. Isaiah has omitted the fact, recorded in II Kings 18:14-18, that Hezekiah stripped nearly all the valuables from the temple and gave them to Sennacherib in an attempt to appease him. This is the same omission found in the II Chronicles version.

Assyrian prisms

Nogalski explains that this story appears on three different prisms that have been discovered – all reading practically the same. These were actually written soon after the events themselves (700-691 BC) and thus one might feel that they would contain the most accurate record. However, we must also weigh in the fact that most ancient cultures tended to gloss over their military failures or ignore them altogether. In Egypt, for example, all monuments of the period of Hyksos rule over their land were destroyed or defaced after that alien group was conquered.

The Jews, by contrast, for the most part had no problem whatsoever airing their dirty linen before the world in their holy writings, as is quite obvious to anyone reading the Old Testament historical books. The reason was that they put no ultimate trust in their military or political leaders, believing that only God Himself deserved that sort of devotion.

In any case, Cogan and Tadmor say, “It has been noted that source A [i.e. II Kings 18:13b-16] agrees in great measure with Sennacherib's own account of his Judean campaign.”

Nogalski states, “Sennacherib's account adds historical context, but it does not mention massive casualties to Assyrian troops. Sennacherib's account attributes his decision to attack Judah to Hezekiah's rebellion...Sennacherib claims to have withdrawn from Jerusalem only after Hezekiah paid him a large tribute.”

Herodotus

As a Greek historian who could be considered a fairly disinterested party to any conflicts between Israel and Assyria, his account is of special interest to us. But we need to also keep in mind that his writings on the siege came almost 200 years after the events themselves and may have relied on faulty information.

Wiseman quotes this historian as writing of a plague “of field mice which by night devoured all the quivers and bows of the enemy, and all the straps by which they held their shields...next morning they commenced their fight and great numbers fell as they had no arms with which to defend themselves.” That account may sound ludicrous in that such a insignificant event could have had such disastrous effect on the final outcome of a battle. But remember Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Serious historians have proposed that the deciding factor causing the French army to retreat was the fact that the metal buttons on the soldiers' uniforms were made of an alloy which became extremely brittle in cold weather, causing the buttons to break. Thus, the French troops found themselves fully occupied in just trying to keep their pants from falling down and their winter jackets from gaping open.

It appears that Herodotus got his information from an Egyptian tradition of an invasion of rats causing both the flight and death of the Assyrians. And as Ellul says, “Now we know that antiquity was already aware of the relation between rats and plague.”

Sirach 48:18-21 and Josephus, Antiquities x. ch. 1

Here are two more extrabiblical sources to consider, although they come from much more recent dates than the OT accounts:

“In his days Sennacherib came up and sent the Rabshakeh; he lifted up his hand against Zion...Then their hearts were shaken and their hands trembled, and they were in anguish, like women in travail. But they called upon the Lord is who is merciful...and the Holy One quickly heard them from heaven, and delivered them by the hand of Isaiah. The Lord smote the camp of the Assyrians, and his angel wiped them out.” (Sirach 48:18-21) This basically follows the biblical account.

Josephus gives us a much longer narrative which I won't bother to quote. But he specifically adds that Sennacherib double-crossed Hezekiah after the latter gave him the large tribute by rescinding his promise to remove his troops from around Jerusalem. There are a number of other emendations to the biblical narrative that Josephus adds to flesh out the story.

Cogan and Tadmor call both of the above versions “later theological rationalizations of the miraculous deliverance.”

Conclusions

Nogalski states that “The three biblical examples [other than Micah] share a common source, but each account has been altered for its literary position.” Two controversial issues in these passages are discussed below.

Cause of Death for the Assyrian Troops

Considering the various versions above, the most likely scenario is that rats invaded their camp, spreading a plague which caused the army's retreat. In the Bible, plagues are always attributed to the direct act of judgment of God on disobedient people.

Timing of Sennacherib's Death

He adds that “the biblical accounts imply that Sennacherib was killed immediately after he returned from his campaign against Jerusalem. In reality, while Sennacherib was eventually assassinated by two of his sons, he continued to rule for another twenty years after the siege of Jerusalem ended.” Thus, Nogalski appears to pose a major challenge for those expecting a literal fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.

Since Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah all record Sennacherib's death using basically the same language, I will quote the slightly fuller II Kings account so that you can decide for yourself if Nogalski's assertion is correct:

“So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned and dwelt at Nineveh. And as he was worshiping in the house of Nisrock his god, Adram-melech and Sharezer, his sons, slew him with the sword, and escaped into the land of Ararat.” (II Kings 19:36-37a)

Ellul notes the irony in that the king's god could not even protect him as he was worshiping in its very temple.

As to the so-called contradiction here with historical sources which had him dying 20 years after the failed siege, most commentators don't even bother mentioning it since (a) there is no indication in the biblical texts as to how many years intervened between the king's return and his eventual death and (b) such telescoping together of events separated widely chronologically is a standard fixture of both biblical narratives and prophecies.

House, for example, states: “In other words, Isaiah's predictions are not just short-term in nature, they also cover long-term events. Thus, God is in control of all occurrences.” (House)

 

LAYING ON OF HANDS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Laying on of Hands in the Old Testament

Those in Pentecostal churches may associate the laying on of hands with the receiving of the Holy Spirit or being “slain in the Spirit” while other Protestant groups think of it in the context of ordaining a person into full-time Christian service or appointing people as deacons or elders (see Acts 6:6; 13:3; I Timothy 4:14; Hebrews 6:2). But we rarely think of that practice in relationship to the Old Testament. It turns out that laying on of hands was also a part of Jewish ceremonies, but in that context it sometimes served a somewhat different purpose.

Here is a brief survey of those OT passages, starting with a general overview by Schutz: “Alongside this [the Day of Atonement ceremony of Leviticus 16], though more rare, is the laying on of hands as an act of blessing (Gen. 48:18; Isa. 44:3). It is no doubt closely related to the ritual of laying on of hands on the occasion of a man's installation in an office (Num. 27:12ff, etc). The laying on of hands means, therefore, if one compares the two very different acts of removal of sin and blessing, that there passes to the one on whom hands are laid the particular quality of the one who performs the act. He passes on his special blessing or burdens the scapegoat with the burden which he himself had carried.”

Genesis 48:8-20

The context here is the blessing by the aged Jacob of all his descendants. However, in blessing Joseph's sons he purposely places his right [i.e. favored] hand on the younger son Ephraim and his left hand on the older son Manasseh. Joseph objects but Jacob explains that the “younger brother shall become greater than he, and his descendants shall become a company of peoples.”

Hamilton points out: “The subtlety of Jacob naming Ephraim ahead of Manasseh back in v. 5 slipped by Joseph unnoticed, even though Jacob named his own children chronologically – Reuben, then Simeon.” He also notes, “The act of hand imposition in this incident is conveyed by the verb sit (vv. 14,17) and by the verb sim (v. 18), both of which mean 'put, place.' In contrast, throughout priestly literature, whenever there is a laying on of one hand (Lev. 1:4) or of both hands (16:21), the verb that is consistently used is samak. It is possible that sit/sim and samak are synonyms. But it is also possible that sit/sim may refer to laying one's hands on the head of another lightly, while samak implies the use of more pressure.”

Leviticus 1:4

Banwell: “The touch of a person's hands was held to communicate authority, power, or blessing, the right hand being more significant in this respect than the left, but both hands were often used (Gn. xlviii.13,14; Dt. xxxiv.9). Note especially the laying of the hands of the worshiper on the head of his sacrificial beast, where the communication of authority probably signified identity with the offering (Lv. 1.4).”

Milgrom gives a Jewish perspective on this verse: “The explanations of this rite fall into four categories: (a) transference of sin to the animal...or of ownership to God...; (b) identification 'intended to penetrate the animal with the soul of the offerer' (Dussaud), or the animal, turning into smoke, brings the offerer nearer to God...; (c) declaration, to enable the offerer to declare its purpose...or his innocence...; (d) ownership...” He eliminates all possibilities except the last one, although others could well question his reasoning in reaching that conclusion.

Leviticus 16:20-22

“The clearest expression of the imagery of atoning sacrifice appears in the legislation of the Day of Atonement...First, Aaron sacrifices for himself and his house so he can continue the ceremony without fear of judgment (Lev 16:11-14). Second, he offers the sin-offering of a goat for the congregation of Israel (Lev 16:15-19). Third, Aaron lays his hands on a second goat (a scapegoat) and sends it outside the camp to die (Lev 16:20-22). The first goat is sacrificed. This act symbolizes the divine side of atonement: God's holy justice is satisfied...The second goat represents the human side of atonement. The sins of the people are transferred to the goat by Aaron's hands...This twofold imagery helps to resolve a long-standing theological controversy over the imagery of atonement...Expiratory views of atonement focus on sacrifices as the way to free people of sin and its defilement. Propitiatory understandings of atonement present sacrifices as the appeasement of divine wrath. The symbolism of two goats on the Day of Atonement indicates that both concepts are essential...” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Leviticus 24:14

This passage presents the specific case in which a people heard someone utter a curse using the Lord's name. Wenham says, “It was not simply uttering the holy name of Yahweh (the Lord) that constituted the offense, as Jews often hold, or cursing by itself. It was using the Lord's name in a curse that merited the death penalty...Blasphemy brings guilt on those who hear it as well as on the blasphemer himself. To rid themselves of this guilt the hearers had to lay their hands on the blasphemer's head (v. 14). His subsequent death [by stoning] then atoned for his own and his hearer's sin.” Rooker echoes this opinion almost word for word.

Most Christians, including myself, might take issue with the comment that the rite atoned for the blasphemer's sin. But that is probably due to a confusion regarding (a) which of the two above-mentioned understandings of atonement one is thinking of and (b) the great difference in OT and NT views of life and death (There are arguably less than a handful of OT verses expressing the idea of eternal life and death). Thus, we would probably say that God's wrath brought about by the blasphemer's sin has been satisfied by the offender's physical death in that He no longer needed to wreak his vengeance on those who had heard the blasphemy. However, that does not at all imply that the offender himself is now back in God's good graces and will enjoy eternal life with Him.

Numbers 8:10ff

“This section [i.e. Numbers 8:9-13] clarifies the parallel between the Levites and the animal sacrifices...Beginning in v. 10b the procedures for offering both the Levites and the animal sacrifices are given in parallel form: hands are laid on the offerings (vv. 10b, 12a), a proper person offers the sacrifices (vv. 11a, 12b), and the outcome of the offerings is given (vv. 11b, 12c). The laying on of hands possibly denotes the identification of the Levites with the people and the animal sacrifices, but more probably denotes the substitution of the one for the other.” (Ashley)

Numbers 27:12-23

“Despite the difference in authority between Moses and Joshua, there was a real continuity between them expressed symbolically by the laying on of Moses' hands (18,23). In this symbolic gesture Joshua was identified with Moses and made his representative for the future...the closest parallel to the imposition of hands on Joshua is the ordination of the Levites (8:10ff), when the Israelites appointed them as their substitutes in place of their first-born children.” (Wenham)

Deuteronomy 34:9

This verse reads, “And Joshua, son of Nun, was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him, and the Israelites obeyed him and they did what the Lord had commanded Moses.” This refers back to the event in Numbers 27:18, which, however, seems to read as if Joshua already had the spirit before hands were laid on him. The difference between the two accounts may lie in the fact that, as Levinson states, “In Num 27.18, Joshua already possessed an undefined 'spirit' (often associated with prophecy or possession)." This may, therefore, be different from the specific 'spirit of wisdom' which Deuteronomy mentions.