"NAME" IN REVELATION 2-3

 

                                                   A New Name (collage )

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

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

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

        B. A new name written (2:17)

                C. Condemnation (3:1)

                        D. Those Worthy (3:4)

                C'. Condemnation (3:5a)

                        D'. Those Worthy (3:5b)

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

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

Below are some thoughts from biblical scholarship on this subject:

Sections A and A'

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

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

Sections B and B'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sections C-D and C'-D'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROMANS 5-8 ORGANIZATION

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

Figure 1: The Structure of Romans

I. Greetings (1:1-7)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Christ’s Death (ch. 5)

B. United With Christ (ch. 6)

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

B. Dying to the Law (ch. 7)

A. Life in the Spirit (ch. 8)

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

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

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

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

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

I'. Greetings (ch. 16)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                    VIIA. Chapter 5

VIIB. Chapter 6

                                                            VII'B. Chapter 7

                                    VII'A. Chapter 8

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

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

VIIA and VII'A (Romans 5 and 8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Suffering–hope–Spirit (5:3-5)

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

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

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

2'. Suffering–hope–Spirit (8:18-27)

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

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

VIIB and VII'B (Romans 6 and 7)

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

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

B. ANSWER – “Certainly not!” (6:2)

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

A. QUESTION – “What then..?” (6:15a)

B. ANSWER – “Certainly not!” (6:15b)

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

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

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

B. ANSWER – “Certainly not!” (7:7b)

A. QUESTION – “Has then..?” (7:13a)

B. ANSWER – “Certainly not!” (7:13b)

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

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

More substantial thematic similarities have been noted in the literature:

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

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

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

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

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

   The law is not evil (6:14; 7:7)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amos 5:21-27

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

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

Isaiah 1:10-20

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

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

Psalm 51:16-17

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

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

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

Modern Application

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

I THESSALONIANS 2:14-16 WAS PAUL ANTISEMITIC?

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

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

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

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

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

A. Thanks to God (2:13)

        B. persecutions (2:14-16)

                C. “brothers” (2:17a)

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

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

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

        B'. persecutions (3:3-4)

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

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

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

                C'. “brothers” (3:7a)

        B''. persecutions (3:7b-8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

TEN LEPERS CURED (LUKE 17:11-19)

The center sections of Luke's Gospel can be shown to have the following mirror-image relationship to one another.

V. The Kingdom of God (8:1-56)

VI. Jesus and the Disciples (9:1-50)

VII. Jesus causes division (9:51-10:42)

VIII. Blessings and curses (11:1-12:34)

VII'. Jesus causes division (12:35-13:21)

VI'. Jesus and the Pharisees (13:22-16:31)

V'. The Kingdom of God (17:1-18:17)

Thus we see a parallel between the section in which this miracle story appears and Luke 8. Confirming this relationship are the following similarities:

Parallel                                     Section V                     Section V'“

doing” what is commanded     8:21                              17:10

healing of non-Jews                8:26-39                         17:11-19

worship at Jesus' feet              8:35,41                          17:11-19

faith saves                               8:48                               17:19

turning back                            8:55                               17:4,31

And then if one looks at the breakdown of Section V' itself, another set of parallels is revealed:

A. To the disciples: causing little ones to sin (17:1-4)

B. On faith and a humble attitude (17:5-19)

C. To the Pharisees – Kingdom signs (17:20-21)

                                    C'. To the disciples – Kingdom signs (17:22-37)

B'. On faith and a humble attitude (18:1-14)

A'. To the disciples: let the children come (18:15-17)

This arrangement, in turn, is partially confirmed by two verbal parallels between B and B':

“ten” (17:12) and “tenth” (18:12)

“have mercy on us” (17:13) and “be merciful to us” (18:13)

Historical or Imaginary?

Next it is necessary to deal with the issue as to the historicity of this miracle story. Fitzmyer says, “R. Bultmann went so far as to call the story 'secondary,' being of Hellenistic origin...and nothing more than an 'imaginary' transposition of Mark 1:40-45 'in which gratitude and ingratitude are depicted on one and the same dramatic canvas.'”

And concerning Luke 17:19 in particular, Marshall adds, “Most commentators regard the verse as a schematic, redactional addition; it may well be pre-Lucan, but this does not solve the problem whether it is secondary to the original story. It is, however, an integral part of the story, since the whole point of the second part of the story lies in the relationship of the man to Jesus, and not simply in the fact that he gives thanks.”

Applications

Rather than concentrating on a detailed, verse-by-verse exposition of this story, let us consider its practical implications for us. After all, the analysis above places this narrative in parallel arrangement with 18:1-14, which is a teaching section, not a collection of miracles. As Ellis says, “With this real-life parable Luke emphasizes once more that the grace of God and the powers of the new age can be experienced in two ways, in their true meaningfulness or in vain...this is the fourth healing included in the 'teaching division'...In each case the theme of the episode is not the miraculous act [in itself] but the teaching-word arising from it.”

This is an important point since in my teaching ministry over the years I have run into Christians who, when discussing biblical miracles, have said in effect, “Yes, it is a miracle, and I believe in miracles. So what is there to discuss? Now let's go on to some application sections of the Bible instead that have more pertinence for me today.” In fact, each one of Jesus' miracles contains a valuable lesson.

Since there is an obvious contrast between the nine lepers and the one who returned, before delving into that contrast we should point out that the nine were not without their good points. In the first place, like good Jews, verse 13 indicates that they stood far off, as required by the law (Numbers 5:2-3; Leviticus 13:46,48; 14:1-3). Secondly, and of even more importance, was the fact that in the following verse they headed off to their local priests (again as required by Jewish law) relying on Jesus' word that they would be healed, and it was only when they were on their way that they noticed that healing had actually occurred.

Fitzmyer points out that “the Lucan Jesus does not counsel against the Mosaic Law.” This definitely speaks to those who believe that they have reached the point of perfection where they are beyond any law.

So what was the problem with the nine Jewish lepers? Marshall says, “The story does not necessarily imply that the other nine lacked faith; the point is rather that faith was incomplete because it did not issue in gratitude.” There was a rather sad example of such a person in a Sunday school class I attended years ago. He prided himself on his faith, which he felt was far superior to that of the rest of us in the class. He was of the “name it – claim it” school of belief and actually told us that God has no choice but to forgive us for anything we do. All we have to do is search the Scriptures for an appropriate promise and quote it back to God without confessing or repenting and we will be automatically forgiven. Gratitude did not come into the picture at all.

Ellis defines “faith” in v. 19 as “not a merit achieved but a grace manifested. Therefore it does not demand thanks but is thankful.”

Geldenhuys states, “Although the other nine had also received their healing, they had no further connection with Him, owing to the superficiality of their faith (which was merely a belief in 'miracles') and their ingratitude...The contrast of nine with one further expresses the pathos, for the nine were presumably Jews, members of the house of Israel. Obedient enough to carry out Jesus' injunction to present themselves to the priest, they were well physically...but have missed the greatest moment of their lives.”

Kistemaker echoes the above thought: “The faith of the nine Jews was superficial and vanished once they were healed. They had faith in miracles but only momentarily. They were ungrateful and at the same time unwilling to risk becoming followers of Jesus. And last, they used Jesus for their own physical interests and after that had no further need of him.” That last point should speak to followers of the “prosperity gospel” which tends to stress all the good things here on earth that are just waiting for a believer if he gives enough money to the church first.

So what did the Samaritan leper receive that the others didn't?

“The return of the one leper implies his conversion to Jesus. Luke uses a form of the vb. hypostrephein, a favorite [of his].” (Fitzmyer) Craddock: “When Jesus says, 'Your faith has made you well' (RSV), the blessing certainly refers to some benefit other than that which all, including the other nine, had received earlier. The verb translated 'made well' is the same word often translated 'to be saved.'”

There is second valuable lesson to be gained from this story. The particular leper colony in this story consisted of both Jews and Samaritans. As Kistemaker says, “As patients suffering of the same disease, national differences were set aside. That is, the colony housed Jews as well as Samaritans, who in isolation sought and needed each others' company.”

And getting back to the narrative, note that the Jews separated from the Samaritan once they were healed and no longer needed to band together. I have noted this tendency in the Christian church today. When my family and I lived in the Northeastern U.S. years ago, we looked for a congregation belonging to the tradition in which we had been raised. But that particular tradition had long ago split into three separate denominations which had virtually no contact with one another other. However, in the Northeast it was almost impossible to even locate an evangelical church of any denomination. At last we came upon a tiny start-up church with only about a dozen members. It turned out that between them we had people who came from all three branches of that same movement. But in this relatively “hostile” environment all of these members were willing to set their differences aside (which seemed rather minor compared to the beliefs and practices of the other denominations in that area) and work together.

The same pattern has unfortunately haunted the Christian church throughout the ages. At first the fledgling groups of believers consisted of communities in which both Jews and Gentiles banded together against a pagan world. Then once they were officially blessed by the head of the Roman Empire, they grew in numbers to the point where they began to see enemies everywhere, even among fellow believers who differed from them somewhat in worship style and stressed different doctrinal points. At that point, bloodshed would ensue between the different branches of Christianity with one or both sides willing to kill in order to eliminate the “heretics” and defend their own version of Christianity.

If you investigate the other miracle stories in the NT, you will find similarly valuable lessons for your life.

I JOHN 3:1-9 CAN A BELIEVER SIN?

 

` I John 3:1-9 Can a believer sin?

This passage is an excellent illustration of John's rather convoluted writing style which is awfully hard to follow since the same themes appear and reappear in different combinations, circling around, and seemingly going nowhere. It is best seen by the sort of diagramming shown below:

        A. Love is given by the Father (1a)

                B. We are children of God (1b)

                        C. The world does not know us or God (1c)

Beloved (2a)

                B. We are God's children (2b)

                        C. What we will be is not revealed (2c)

                        C. We know when he is revealed we will see him (2d)

                                D. All who hope will be pure (3)

                                D. Who sins is guilty of lawlessness (4a)

                        C. You know he was revealed (4b)

                                D. to take sins away (4c)

                                D. In him is no sin (4d)

                B. No one who abides (5a)

                                D. in him sins (5b)

                                D. no one sins (6a)

                        C. who has seen him or known him (6b)

                B. Little children (7a)

                                D. Everyone who does right is righteous as he is righteous (7b)

                                D. Everyone who sins (8a)

                B. is a child of the devil (8b)

                                D. For the devil sinned from the beginning (8c)

                        C. The Son of God was revealed to destroy the devil (8d)

                B. Those born of God (9a)

                                D. do not sin (9b)

                B. God's seed abides in them (9c)

                                D. They cannot sin (9d)

                B. because they are born of God (9e)

So, you can see from the above that this whole passage presents a number of variations on only four basic themes (and their opposites): God's love (A), being a child of God or the devil (B), revelation so that something can be made known (C), and sin/sinlessness (D).

Of all these verses, perhaps the hardest to understand is the last one, I John 3:9, in which it is strongly stated that a believer does not and cannot sin. That statement certainly seems to run counter to our personal experience and to our observations of other believers.

I knew one young man in our Sunday school class who announced the fact that he was incapable of sinning and was planning to be a preacher without taking any seminary classes since he didn't need them. He took a very Pharisaical attitude toward the rest of us who hadn't arrived at his high spiritual plane, but on occasion when he didn't have anything better to do he deigned to teach our class as long as it was convenient for him. But he made it obvious to us that he felt it was like casting his pearls before swine, and so he soon gave up trying. His idea of preparing for a lesson was to pray for 10 minutes before the class with a similarly enlightened friend and from that point on let the Spirit guide his lips. He once volunteered to lead us in a study of the Book of Romans, but after six weeks he hadn't even addressed Romans 1:1. Instead he bored us endlessly with stories of how God had enlightened him while he was weeding his garden.

So as you can tell, I am a bit up in the air as to what John had in mind. Here is what a few scholars have to say that may help us to clarify this verse:

Kistemaker notes that “John writes not 'able not to sin, but 'not able to sin.' Some grammarians take the present infinitive to be durative [i.e., denoting or relating to continuing action]; others understand it as a state. That is, a Christian sins but he cannot be called a sinner. He belongs to Christ who has redeemed and sanctified him and who has destroyed the devil's work.”

Bruce states that “the new birth involves a radical change in human nature; for those who have not experienced it, sin is natural, whereas for those who have experienced it, sin is unnatural – so unnatural, indeed, that its practice constitutes a powerful refutation of any claim to possess the divine life. John's antitheses are clear-cut. While they are to be understood in the context of his letter and of the situation which it presupposes, any attempt to weaken them out of regard for human infirmity, or to make them less sharp and uncompromising than they are, is to misinterpret them. True interpretation must allow an author to mean what he says, even if that meaning is uncongenial to the interpreter.”

“Acting sinfully is the inherent activity of those who belong to the devil's family, just as doing what is right is the inherent activity of those who belong to God's family. The fact that some people commit sin, not by choice but because they are what they are removes them (in the thought of late antiquity) from the category of blame, but not from the category of guilt. They are destructive and bear the consequences of their destructive actions. Correspondingly, those who are born of God can claim no credit for doing what is right; they cannot sin. This extraordinary, artificial division of mankind into those who are bound to sin and those who cannot sin must be regarded as a debater's device against his opponents. It was no doubt the dissidents who first made the claim that their anointing released them from the normal standards of what is right for, whatever they did, they could not sin.” (Grayston)

Thompson does not go into any detail in her explanation other than to say that “when Jesus' work both opposes and destroys sin, how can those who are born of God dwell in it? John continues with the explanatory statement that they cannot sin because God's seed remains in [them]. Exactly what this seed is does not receive further explanation, and it has puzzled commentators. Obviously we must take it here in a metaphorical sense. Some have suggested that it means the Holy Spirit; others, the Word of God; and others, that it means both.”

“John's point is clear: there is not a single regenerated person who lives a life of habitual sin. As in v. 6, the writer's use of the present tense accentuates that the child of God does not continually engage in sin. John is not suggesting the believer is completely free from sin, but that the Christian's life is not characterized by sin, which is the mark of the follower of Satan..” (Akin)

Marshall says, “He [i.e., Paul] takes up the idea of being born of God, which was introduced in 2:29, where it was said positively that those who do what is right demonstrate that they are God's children. Later on we shall be told that God's children are characterized by love for one another (4:7), belief in Jesus (5:1), and victory over the world (5:4). Now the same point can be made negatively: a person who is born of God does not sin. John makes his statements in absolute terms...There are no shades of grey here: it is a case of belonging to the light or the darkness, to God or the devil, to righteousness and love or to sin.”

Raymond Brown does the most thorough job in discussing this verse in over ten pages in his Anchor Bible commentary. For one thing, he notes the great similarity between four statements made in I John:

    No one who abides in Him commits sin (3:6a)

    No one begotten by God acts sinfully (3:9a)

    He [who is begotten by God] cannot commit sin (3:9b)

    No one begotten by God commits sin (5:18a)

On the other hand, such definite statements as these appear to be contradicted by a number of comments made elsewhere in this same letter. You may want to read these, which are found at I John 1:8a,9,10; 2:1-2; and 5:16. Brown says, “No other NT author contradicts himself so sharply within such a short span of writing, and inevitably much scholarly energy has been devoted to proving that no contradiction exists.” He then groups such explanations into seven different categories, which I will attempt to briefly summarize below:

    Two different authors must have been involved in writing this letter.

    Two different types of audience are being addressed.

    Two different groups of adversaries are being contradicted.

    Only certain types of sin are in John's mind, not all sins.

    Only certain elite Christians cannot sin.

    John speaks on two levels: a real or pastoral level and an ideal level.

    John is addressing two different time periods: at the point of an individual's conversion and conditions in the Last Days.

But Brown then raises rather strong objections to each of these seven proposals without really coming to any firm conclusion as to which, if any, comes the closest to the idea John had in mind. We must keep in mind that John, in his writing, has been characterized as a dualist. That is, he tends to think in terms of absolute right and wrong – you are either of God or opposed to Him with no shades of gray in between.

PSALM 32

This is one of those psalms which has a superscription attached to the beginning, in this case reading “Of David. a Maskil." The first of these notifications can be taken as meaning that David was the author of it or that it was written in the style of David. The second word is a Hebrew one indicating knowledge, in other words, a Wisdom Hymn. But other scholars over the years have given different labels to the class of literature indicated here. These include Penitential Psalm and Psalm of Thanksgiving. Holladay notes that this same superscription appears in a total of thirteen different psalms and says, “Scholars have suggested in view of the meaning of the verb associated with this word, that it means a 'didactic song'...or else an 'artistic song'...”

My own feeling is that some scholars go overboard trying to pigeonhole portions of Scripture into discrete categories and proceed to argue among themselves as to who has done the best job of classification. This is like putting pins into specimens of insects and affixing them to a board in neat and orderly rows. Hardly my idea of the Bible as the living Word.

Related to the background issue of class of psalm is the question of the context in which it was sung or recited by ancient Jews. Anderson feels it is the psalmist's song of thanks in Temple worship, possibly “connected with the bringing of sin offering or with the rites of purification (cf. Lev. 4:27-5:19; 14:1-57).”

I always begin my studies of any discrete portion of Scripture by looking at the way it is divided up into separate paragraphs, or sub-sections. Again, as with trying to label passages in the Bible, one must stay humble in doing so. But the fact is that just relying on one particular English translation to properly “divide the Word of God,” those sub-sections may lead you astray in your understanding, as the following examples demonstrate:

Source                                Separate Paragraphs

Living Bible                      1-2; 3-5;              6; 7-9;          10-11

M'Caw & Motyer              1-5;                     6-11

Baigent, Anderson            1-2; 3-5;              6-7;      8-9;  10-11

NIV                                   1-2; 3-4; 5;          6-7;      8-10;     11

NEB                                  1-2; 3-7;                           8-11

JB                                     1-2; 3-4; 5;           6-7;      8; 9; 10; 11

RSV, NRSV, TEV            1-2; 3-4; 5;           6-7;      8-9; 10-11

In this particular case, there is a lot more agreement than one usually gets from such a comparison. But even in this case, you can see that The Living Bible is alone in lumping together verses 7-9 as a discrete section. And then the analyses by New English Bible and M'Caw & Motyer are so broad in scope as to be practically useless as a sure guide to the flow of the psalm.

Fortunately, in the case of Psalm 32, we have an added guide as to some of the paragraph divisions in that there is the strange word word “Selah” appearing at the end of verses 4, 5 and 7. Kselman's comments are typical of most commentators in considering it “a Hebrew term, of unknown meaning, appearing only in Psalms (and the psalmic Hab 3). It often separates subunits of psalms, and is most likely a musicological term [i.e. it may cue performers to play at that point].” Others feel that a pregnant pause is to be observed when reading or singing. In either case, we are safe in using it to discard the proposed breakdowns above by The Living Bible, Baigent, and Anderson since they happen to ignore those dividing indicators.

That leaves us with a reasonable consensus of vv. 1-2; 3-4; 5; 6-7; 8-9; and 10-11. With that in hand, the overall symmetrical arrangement of Figure 1 can be constructed as a possibility.

                                           Figure 1: Literary Structure of Psalm 32

    A. Opening Address to Audience (1-2)

            B. Psalmist's Initial Condition (3-4)

                    C. Forgiveness Following Confession (5)

            B'. Psalmist's Subsequent Peace (6-7)

    A'. Closing Address to Audience (8-11)

                        1. Contrast 1 (8-9)

                        2. Contrast 2 (10-11)

Note that this results in the sort of literary symmetry found throughout the Bible, in this case taking the form of what is technically called a chiasm, a mirror-image configuration. Also note that Figure 1 is perfectly consistent with the broad outline found in NEB. Additional confirmation that Section C (v. 5) is the intended point of emphasis for the whole composition is the comment of Seifrid. He calls the confession of sins in Psalm 32:5 “a central theme of the psalm.”

In addition, Figure 1 clearly indicates that there is a purposeful contrast between the author's pitiful condition before confession (B) and his greatly improved status afterward (B'). Another form of symmetry consistent with Figure 1 is seen in the fact that B-C-B' is the center section addressed to God, leaving the opening (A) and closing (A') to be directed toward the psalmist's audience. And a third point of symmetry is found in the occurrence of the divine name YHWH only in the opening, closing, and center sections of the poem.

As a final indicator of literary structure there is a common Hebrew technique known as “inclusio.” That term simply means that the starting and concluding verses of a passage of Scripture act as boundaries with similar language or theme. Thus, in this case we can consider the comments of Anderson regarding these two points in Psalm 32:
On v. 1: “This joyful exclamation is based on personal experience but has a universal application.”

On v. 11: “This joyful service of God is not an optional extra, but it is of the essence of all true service.”

And Tanner adds, “The true happiness of vv. 1-2 can only be found in the Lord who forgives and restores God's own. Just as in Psalm 1, this psalm makes a way of life outside of trust in God the foolish choice.”
So the psalm begins and ends on a note of joy.

As with many passages in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, Psalm 32 is not free from problems in establishing the original text or in interpreting it properly. Thus, we run into the following uncertainties:

Verse 4 – Hulst explains, “The word lasad occurs also in Num 11:8 where it means a kind of cake or dainty. Here, the word apparently means 'sap, marrow, juice'. (= 'my life-moisture'), if the text has been handed down correctly. The verb hapak means 'to be changed, turn', and is probably best rendered here 'to dry up'. The translation, however, is not certain.”

Verse 6 – A footnote in NRSV points out that the phrase they translate as “at a time of distress” reads in the Hebrew “at a time of finding only.”

Verses 8-9 – Tanner points to an additional translation difficulty for verses 8-9 in that the identity of the speaker is not clear. It could be the Psalmist or God. Thus, “The argument [for God] is twofold. First, it is common form for an oracle to follow thanksgiving, and second, the I and singular you language exclude the 'they' from vv. 6-7 from being the focus here. However, psalms often change from the plural to singular person and back again without explanation. Second, Psalm 51 makes the same move, going from forgiveness to warning others so they will not follow the same path.”

NEB actually omits the last phrase in v. 9 as being intrusive since its meaning is in doubt.

Use in the New Testament

 “Paul cites 32:1-2 in Romans 4:7-8 using the interpretive principle called 'building a father from two passages.' In this particular case the uncircumcised Abraham (Gen. 15:6) and the circumcised David (Ps. 32:1-2) establish the general principle that the righteousness of God is graciously given to the circumcised Jew and to the uncircumcised Gentile apart from works...” (Holladay)

And Seifrid states, “Paul differs from the Hebrew Scriptures in shifting the singular forms in the first verse [Ps. 32:1] to a plural..., and the psalm itself shifts to a plural in its final verse (32:11). The introduction of the plural into the first verse of the citation therefore makes the universality of the psalm explicit and invites the readers to find themselves in the experience of David...”

Conclusion

“In the psalm the forgiveness of sins brings healing to both body and mind, deliverance in times of distress, and the guidance and loving care of the Lord (Ps. 32:3-11)...It is the forgiveness of sins which effects all the benefits that Ps. 32 describes.” (Seifrid)

And as Tanner puts it, “This psalm celebrates what is the very heart of the Christian tradition, God's grace and forgiveness that allows for us to know true happiness...Psalm 32 gives us just that opportunity to be glad and rejoice and shout, for God does reckon us righteous!”

"IT WAS GOOD" (GENESIS 1; I TIMOTHY 4:1-5)

To introduce this subject, I will quote Gordon: “At six points in Gen 1 God reviews what he has created and finds it 'good' (vv. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25), and then characterizes the completed work of creation as 'very good' (v. 31). This is the 'craftsman God' who, in the way of the human artificer, stands back to look at what he has made and declares his satisfaction with it (cf. Isa 41:7...).”

At this point it should be noted that any of the many times in the Bible when the number seven is mentioned or a key word or phrase appears exactly seven times in a passage, it symbolically indicates perfection or completion.

It is easy for us to understand why God would declare His work to be complete at that point, but there would be many critics and skeptics who would raise some questions as to how perfect that creation actually was. For example, if the original creation was perfect, why was their an evil serpent in it; why would God put a tree in the garden of Eden and then forbid Adam and Eve to eat of it; why wouldn't the first human couple obey God if they were perfect; what kind of perfect paradise would require its inhabitants to work, etc.? To understand those questions, I will rely on a host of scholarly commentators to put in their two cents worth.

Ross: “After the creation of light God announced his evaluation: it was good. The idea of the word 'good' (tob) is that the light is useful, fitting, and healthy. That which is good is conducive for and enhances life...” Hamilton translates tob as “beautiful.”

Wenham: “God the great artist is portrayed admiring his handiwork...This very common Hebrew adjective ['good'] has a broad range of meaning, as does the English term. Primarily, it draws attention to an object's quality and fitness for its purpose. But the Hebrew term as used by the Israelites is more closely related to the mind and opinion of God than is the English word. God is preeminently the one who is good and his goodness is reflected in his works.” And then regarding Genesis 1:31 specifically, Wenham says, “The harmony and perfection of the completed heavens and earth express more adequately the character of their creator than any of the separate components can.”

Collins: “This pericope has God seeing what he made, that it was 'good' – that is , pleasing to him, answering his purpose...the fact that 2:18 has God saying that something [namely, Adam's aloneness] is 'not good' therefore stands out.” Note the emphasis on how God views the situation rather than how man, with his imperfect understanding of the situation views it. We see the same thing in reverse elsewhere in the Old Testament when it is said that God brings about evil. In that case, it means evil in man's eyes even though it might eventually bring about good from God's viewpoint. One prime example would be the death of Christ on the cross. Or we might remember what Joseph said to his brothers after he had revealed himself to them: “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.”

Barker: “God declares in Genesis 1:31 that the creation is very good. There is no strife, enmity or sin in the creation, hence there is rest.”

Osborne: “This does not mean that creation is good in itself; rather it is a divine judgment about creation. The creature is good by virtue of its standing in appropriate relationship to its creator. Thus the divine perspective which enables God to make this judgment is not that of detached contemplation but that of active engagement.”

Merrill: “The statement that summarizes the creative work of God – including the creation of humans, declares that 'God saw all that he had made, and it was very good (Gen 1:31). Though the Heb. phrase tob me'od, very good, does not inherently convey the idea of sinlessness, its use in a creation prior to the first temptation and disobedient act distinctly favors such a conclusion...”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “The fact that God personally brings the material world into being and labels it 'good' and 'very good' stands in marked contrast to later Greek and other philosophical and theological perspectives, which view the material realm as intrinsically evil and morally suspect. But that simple observation hardly does justice to the enthusiasm with which God views the work he has done. God's declaration is both a benediction and an expression of joy. Good means 'It's wonderful!' Very good is equivalent to saying, 'It's perfect!”

Ellison says that “when it is applied to God's judgment, it means conformity to His will.”

Carr: “Where individual elements of creation were 'good' (v. 4, 10, etc.), the whole is very good, perfectly corresponding to God's intention.”

And looking forward instead of backwards here, McMickle says, “One could argue that what God is seeking to accomplish in salvation history is to return the whole of creation to the place where God can look at it, both in terms of the environment and in terms of human relationships with God and with each other, and once again say, 'It is very good.'”

I Timothy 4:1-5

Paul in the New Testament picks up on this OT theme and utilizes it to make a particular ethical point to his audience. As Collins states, “Paul uses the term good, found in the Septuagint of Genesis 1, and seems to have thought that the creation retains its goodness even after man's fall into sin...To affirm that the creation is 'good'...is to affirm that God takes delight in it and that man at his best will do so as well.” He notes that the phrase 'and behold' in Genesis 1:31 “invites one to see the scene from a participant's perspective.The reader is to experience something of God's own delight in 'everything he had made.'”

Thus in this specific instance, Towner notes how Paul in vv. 3-4 utilizes the principle of the goodness of God's creation to counter those leaders who would prohibit the eating of certain foods. Similarly, Knight says, “Paul asserts of these created things the verdict given by God himself in Gn. 1:31, i.e., that every one of them is 'good.'”

Hendricksen even points out: “Of late, science is beginning to discover that what used to be regarded as of no direct value to man many prove to be a source of blessing; may, in fact, help solve the food-problem of future generations; think, for example, of plant-food from the ocean.'” Or in my own field of organic chemistry, I could point out the many times natural products extracted from plants have given rise to the development of a host of new useful pharmaceutical products.

Guthrie: “The false teaching comprised two prohibitions: marriage and the eating of certain foods. There is no doubt that these point to an incipient gnosticism with its dualistic view of matter...The apostle's strong opposition to these practices is due to their dangerous implications. He argues that prohibitions such as these are in conflict with the divine ordinance. Here he strikes at the roots of dualistic gnosticism, which denied that God created matter.”

And for the sake of completeness, one could cite the number of other possible interpretations proposed for the I Timothy passage and cited by Hanson, including an intended reference to saying grace before meals or to the communion elements. Both of these interpretations are highly unlikely to reflect the context of Paul's thinking here.

Application

John Swinton recently wrote an article starting out with a consideration of the definition of “good” in Genesis 2 and then applied it to how Christians should view those with physical or mental disabilities. He writes, “Let's begin with the suggestion that the original state of the world was one of perfection...the text itself never uses this term. While Eden was originally untainted by sin, the Bible does not suggest that creation was perfect in the sense of flawlessness or static idealism. Instead, the divine pronouncement is that the creation is good (tov in Hebrew). This word, in its biblical and theological context, does not imply perfection or uniformity but denotes relational integrity, aesthetic richness, diversity, and the capacity for fruitful, dynamic life and connection. The theological grammar of Genesis is thus relational rather than idealistic. The goodness of creation is not grounded in metaphysical perfection but in the dynamics between Creator and creation, and among created beings themselves. Eden is a world of movement, interdependence, vulnerability, and growth. It is, in short, a world that includes the possibility of difference and dependence as intrinsic to its goodness. If Eden's goodness lies in its interrelational depth rather than its metaphysical flawlessness, then the human vocation must likewise be understood in relational rather than idealized terms.”