BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS THAT ARE NOT CONTRADICTIONS

The Quora website sent out an invitation for its atheistic readers to submit their favorite biblical contradictions. Most of them were the same old tired reruns that appear again and again in various places, and which I have attempted to address in numerous posts (see especially any posts starting with the words “Biblical Contradiction”). Now a biblical contradiction almost always means a conflict between two or more different passages of Scripture, and that was certainly what the editor of Quora intended. But apparently not all atheists are capable of understanding that concept. I have already dealt with one such “contradiction” which even the author admitted was no contradiction at all, but just some passages she couldn't stand. And below are two more such contributions:

“God couldn't be omniscient as it would violate this universe's speed of light limit on the transfer of information.”

That comment is of course a supposed contradiction between theological claims based on a number of passages in the Bible and what we now know regarding the laws of science. And it actually sounds rather similar to something I, when an aspiring scientist in high school, thought I had discovered in the Bible.

My naive “insight” was based on Revelation 8 which begins with silence in heaven for one-half hour followed by an angel given incense to mingle with the prayers of the saints. I figured that these must have been spoken prayers since that was how people prayed in biblical times. And since they couldn't travel any faster than the speed of sound, it must have taken one-half hour to reach heaven. Therefore from that information, I was able to calculate how far heaven was away from earth. As I recall, I managed to prove in that manner that heaven was located somewhere in our solar system between the orbits of two of the further planets.

I realize that this sounds utterly ridiculous, but it is no more audacious and an example of gross hubris than the sophomoric attempt to try to put limitations on a Being who created the whole universe along with the “laws” to govern it, and to do so by quoting one of those “laws” that He came up with in the first place. Assuming that there is such an omnipotent Deity, His thoughts and His ways are obviously so far above us, that the best we can possibly do, and then only partially due to our limited earthly and intellectual perspective, is to “think God's thoughts after Him,” as Johann Kepler put it.

By the way, this same general train of argument was used by the Deists generations ago. They were utterly shocked at the very concept that God would possibly resort to any miraculous means whatsoever to accomplish His will. They felt that this would be highly underhanded and unfair of Him and demanded that He not “disobey” the very rules that He was making the rest of us abide by.

We must also keep in mind that time after time, accepted and “universal” verities in science have later been overthrown or shown to apply only under certain conditions. For example, Einstein's findings were not accepted until verifiable experiments proved them to be true. And then in turn, Einstein refused to accept later theories that introduced uncertainties into the equation and spent the last part of his life vainly attempting to disprove them. And in my own restricted field of the synthesis of heterocyclic compounds, I have even been a very small part of that process of correcting past findings and breaking new ground during my career as a research scientist.

“The peaceful tale of shepherds visiting a new baby before the parents peacefully returned home to present their new offspring at their own home temple.”

I fully realize that there are difficult passages in the Bible which need careful study to properly understand. But understanding these is nowhere near as difficult as trying to make sense out of the above comment. It appears to be a total non sequitor. So please forgive me if I am just too obtuse to see what the above sentence has anything to do with a biblical contradiction. I am therefore going to try to read the author's mind and propose the following interpretations as to what that person is driving at.

We can first assume from the information given above that he or she is referring to the nativity story as narrated in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1-2 since neither Mark nor John record these particular events.

Possibility #1

Since the author of this “contradiction” repeats rather needlessly the word “peaceful(ly),” I might guess that it is to be read sarcastically. If so, then the point may be that this story is just too sickeningly sweet to take seriously. But in fact this narrative was never meant to be taken as a peaceful story. It is anything but that, as evidenced from the following taken from those same passages in the Synoptic Gospels:

Mary is a teen or pre-teen who, probably though an arranged marriage, is forced to marry an elderly widower who may have already had two sons who could have been older than Mary herself.

Not only that, but she becomes pregnant while still engaged to Joseph, and it is only by the goodness of Joseph that he decides to cancel the marriage quietly rather than bring total disgrace on Mary. But that would of course have left her alone to raise her child.

They must travel to Bethlehem from their home in Nazareth while Mary is nine-months pregnant.

The reason they need to travel is to obey the command of their conquerors, the Romans, who ruled the land at the time.

The purpose of the travel was to conduct a census of the people for the purpose of assessing future taxes on them, which the poor, such as the Holy Family, could ill afford to pay.

The town is so crowded that they can't even find a decent place to stay and are forced to occupy a stable, which may have been nothing more that a simple lean-to.

They share their abode with a group of smelly animals.

Mary has to put her newborn baby in an empty feeding trough.

They have to put up with a group of even smellier shepherds, generally accepted to represent the very dregs of Jewish society.

Possibility #2

Perhaps the objection is that Luke's account purposely ignores the gory details found in Matthew's version. Thus it leaves out the subsequent events in which Herod attempts to kill Jesus; he murders the children of Bethlehem instead; and the family is forced to flee to Egypt in exile until Herod dies. There is no disputing the fact that of the four Gospels, each one contains details that the others leave out. So you can chose to take that as a contradiction if you wish. However, there is a good reason for all four narratives being included in the Bible. All are needed to get what one commentator calls a stereoscopic view of the events that transpired. It is only natural that different people would emphasize or de-emphasize one or another of the details in order to make their own theological points. In short, no one who has really read the story in all four complementary accounts would take it to be a pleasant, whitewashed account of reality. And the differences between the accounts, at least concerning the nativity and early events in Jesus' life do not contradict one another.

Possibility #3

Or perhaps the “contradiction consisted of the fact that it is unrealistic to assume that the parents would have had an audience with a group of mere shepherds before presenting Jesus at “the local temple.” That would have been an insult to God.

This approach makes just as little sense. Did the author of the objection really think that there would be any high officials, political or religious, around at the time of the birth in a tiny backwater village? Or perhaps he/she thinks that Joseph and Mary should have sent the shepherds on their way because they were too unworthy to see their child. But then why didn't they alternatively go to the “local temple” immediately instead of waiting a whole eight days before doing so?

At this point, it is helpful to inject a little reality into the situation. The fact is that even the mention of a “local temple” would have been considered heretical to a Jew at the time. There was only one temple and that was in Jerusalem.

As to waiting eight whole days before getting the child circumcised, that was the legally specified waiting time. And the procedure was not carried out at the Jerusalem temple at all, but done by some local person trained to do it, presumably in Bethlehem itself although that fact is not mentioned in the narrative.

Also, the Jewish law said that a whole 40 days after the birth needed to transpire before the mother and son were allowed to go to the Jerusalem temple for a purification ceremony. Thus, the biblical story demonstrates how Joseph and Mary were quite scrupulous in obeying all of the Old Testament laws governing their situation.

 

CRITICISM OF EZEKIEL 23

 

One female reader of the Quora website took advantage of a call that the editor sent out for atheists to send in their favorite Bible contradictions. Instead she replied: “I personally like Ezekiel 23:20. It's not really a contradiction though, just misogyny and sexual repression of desire at its Biblical finest.”

It turns out that she is by no means alone in her view of that chapter of Ezekiel (which I urge you to read yourself before proceeding with the commentary below). Some radical scholars have even dismissed the whole book of Ezekiel as being the uncontrolled ravings of a madman. And many others (who, by the way, remain Christians nevertheless) have begun to question the text from a feminist viewpoint. Let's consider this last-mentioned school of Bible criticism first along with some moderating views.

Feminist Interpretations

“Feminist approaches consider the prophetic literature to be intrinsically culturally conditioned against women. This shortcoming, it is argued, is manifest in the negative portrayals of Israel as a wayward, unfaithful wife and in the descriptions of judgment as terrible abuse perpetrated on her (note Jer 3-4; Ezek 16;23; Hos 1-3). At the same time, the God of the prophets is portrayed as a male, a jealous and violent husband...” (M.D. Carroll)

Carroll goes on to characterize this as “a hermeneutics of suspicion that questions texts and encourages resisting the literary strategies of their encoded ideologies, which can be blatantly expressed or subtly disguised as subtexts. This subversive reading 'against the grain' often is done self-consciously from a certain interested position (such as feminism). Primacy is given to the reader as over against any written text, even the Bible...”

Tiemeyer points out: “There are two ways of looking at Ezekiel 16 and Ezekiel 23. One can interpret the text in its historical setting and focus on the underlying tenor of the metaphor – that is on Judah's political alliances and God's anger at Judah's lack of trust in his ability to preserve perspective or concentrate on the vehicle of the metaphor – that is, on the interplay between the man (God) and his wife (Judah). Most feminist scholarship on Ezekiel 16 and Ezekiel 23 approaches the text from this [latter] perspective.”
“Feminist scholars...have taken the words of Hosea 1-3 and Ezekiel 16; 23 as literal descriptions of actual marriage practices. This leads these feminist scholars to condemn the culture, the prophets and the God of these texts as misogynistic. Other scholars...have urged caution in reading the rhetoric of these prophets as literal descriptions of marital practices. When reading powerful texts such as Hosea and Ezekiel, one needs to focus on their powerful use of metaphor in the rhetoric they employ.” And if that latter tack is taken, “we find that the texts are powerful metaphorical pieces that point to the oncoming destruction of a people who have been unfaithful to their covenant with Yahweh.” (Parker)

Greenberg responds to feminist interpretations in the following way: “There can be no doubt that such readings are authentic expressions of the pain and outrage experienced by feminists who search Scripture for reflections of their constructions of reality and meet with Ohilah and Oholibah. The feminist project, promoting a new female reality, necessarily clashes with Scripture – one of the fashioners of the reality to be superseded. At bottom what feminists criticize is not what the texts meant to those who composed and received them in their historical context, but what the text means in today's context...Whether aiming to savage Scripture or to salvage it, feminists are judgmental. They applaud or decry, approve or disapprove. They write to promote a new gender reality.”

Literary Considerations

The above comments point out accurately the limitations of a strictly feminist approach to this chapter.

So let's begin to understand it in its historical and literary context, as we would with any other portion of Scripture. The first thing to admit is that Ezekiel 23 is rather over-the-top in its language. Block says, “If this chapter is recognized as the locus classicus for bawdy vocabulary, it is because it has intensified the sex-related imagery of ch. 16...” One feminist commentator has even called it pornoprophecy. And as hinted at above, this is obviously not to be taken as literal in any way whatsoever. Instead, this chapter has been characterized as a metaphor, allegory, or parable – literary forms known for often going to outrageous extremes in order to get their point across. Just witness some of the NT parables with people building houses on sand, loaning huge amounts of money to servants, killing owners of a field so that they can have it for themselves, going into poverty in order to purchase a pearl, burying money that was meant for investment, etc.

For example, Greenberg speaks of “Oholibah's extraordinary obtuseness, leading her into unheard-of promiscuity, resulting in unprecedented punishment.”

As for the use of sexual imagery to get a point across, two articles in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery say the following:

“The unfaithfulness of God's people is personified by images of Zion as a barren woman who prostitutes her sexuality, thus frustrating her fertility (Jer 3:1-3; Ezek 23; Hos 9:11,12).”

“In expressing his message of judgment, Ezekiel uses a wide variety of vivid imagery. He employs the language of unfaithfulness. Jerusalem is like an adopted daughter that has rebelled (Ezek 16), Jerusalem and Samaria are like two sisters united in their addiction to prostitution (Ezek 23).”

“The nation (Jerusalem, Samaria, Nineveh) as a shameless, abused and disgraced degenerate prostitute, who is punished by being publically abused and disgraced, is a recurrent metaphor (Jer 13:22,26; Ezek 23; Hos 2:3,9; Nahum 3:5-6).”

Confirming that the main meaning of the chapter does not lie at all in its sexual imagery are the many scholarly analyses which take each verse one by one and identify the historical event in the history of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms which is being described there. It is a sad history of Israel being seduced into running toward one after another foreign country in order to make alliances with it rather than trusting that God would take care of them if they only remained faithful to Him.

But despite the above, I would imagine that some feminist critics would still ask the question: “Why are the negative images always of women in the Bible?” That issue does need facing.

It is first of all best to admit that God is almost always pictured as a man in the Old Testament. And the fact that He later came to earth in the form of a man only reinforces that image. One could, however, argue that the Holy Spirit seems to share more traditionally female characteristics such as offering comfort to those in need. In any case, to refer to God gender-free as “it” is not a good option either because of that pronoun's highly impersonal nature. And to turn God into a goddess instead would have been no better since in biblical times and locales goddesses generally had sexually charged implications and were closely associated with fertility. So if by process of elimination we are stuck with a “masculine” Deity, the proper relationship of His creation to Him is naturally pictured as that of a loyal spouse. And conversely, any fracture of that relationship by the wife must be pictured as adultery or prostitution.

Adding to the appropriateness of that male-female imagery is the fact that cities and nations were generally referred to by using feminine pronouns.

In my reading up on the subject, I came across the comments of one scholar (unfortunately, I can't recall his name) who came up with what I thought was a very helpful slant on the problem. He pointed out that Ezekiel's comments were not directed at all to women and their behavior since they had little or no say on political decisions at that time. Instead, God through the prophet was squarely addressing the male leadership of the straying nations. And to shake them up and get their attention, they were being overtly compared, in the crudest terms possible, not only to women (which alone would probably have been taken as an insult in that predominantly patriarchal society), but actually as utterly shameless, nymphomaniacal prostitutes.

The Whole Counsel of Scripture

It is an accepted tenet of responsible biblical hermeneutics that all of Scripture must be taken into account before making any rash generalizations regarding God's will based on only a few passages. This is especially true in light of the fact that the full revelation of God's will for man took centuries to come about. Thus, let us first consider some other OT passages before making any generalizations concerning the Bible's “sexual repression of female desire.”

Women are sometimes pictured in the OT narratives as being “liberated” sexually, but some are rightly taken as negative examples. Lot's two daughters wait until their father is drunk and then take sexual advantage of him; Jacob's two sister-wives fight over the right to sleep with him and resort to an aphrodisiac; Potiphar's wife takes an undue interest in the young Joseph while he is in slavery; Tamar disguises herself as a prostitute in order to have sex with her father-in-law; and Bathsheba certainly does not put up much of a fight when David summons her to his bedchamber. But, of these examples, the only cases which could be attributed to unrepressed female desire are those of Potiphar's wife and possibly Bathsheba, who may have purposely bathed when she knew David was watching her. Neither case is condoned in the Bible. And the other examples appear not to be due to female sexual desire as much as the wish to have a child at all costs.

But to get a fuller picture of what the OT has to say on the subject, it is best to look at the wisdom literature found there. In the opening chapters of Proverbs, there is no denying that the “loose woman,” a sexually liberated wife who attempts to lure in young men who pass by her door, is intended to be a wholly negative figure in that such men who succumb to her wiles are flirting with disaster. But she is balanced by the even more powerful positive feminine image of Lady Wisdom who urges such men to follow her instead if they wish a long and prosperous life.

A step even further in the direction of sexual liberation is seen in The Song of Songs. Unique for biblical writings, this book appears to concentrate wholly on the acceptable satisfaction of both male and female sexual desires, expressed through rather explicit figurative language. But in this case, the only appropriate means for satisfying such desires is seen to be found in a devoted monogamous relationship.

The New Testament goes even further in giving examples and teachings to go by. Thus, we are treated to the following:

    Jesus' favorable comments regarding the loose woman who anointed his feet,

    His refusal to go along with the Jews' demand that the adulterous woman be stoned,

    His kind treatment of the Samaritan woman at the well who practiced a life of serial monogamy and worse,

    Paul's pronouncement in Galatians in 3:28 regarding the equality of male and female in God's sight,

    the picture of the church as the bride of Christ in Ephesians 5:25-27,

Paul's full recognition of both male and female sexual desire leading to his admonitions to marry rather than give into the desires without a marriage commitment (I Cor. 7:8-9) as well as teaching that any abstaining from sexual relations within a marriage must be of a temporary basis only (I Cor. 7:1-6).

In conclusion, if the woman I quoted at the start of this post who objected to the practice of sexual repression of female desires means by that the Bible teaches that sexual relationships should be confined to those between married parties, then I would have to agree with her. There is certainly no warrant for free sex found in the pages of Scripture.

DID THE HEBREWS OPPRESS FOREIGN SLAVES?

 

In response to a call on the Quora website for atheists' favorite Bible contradictions, one reader posted the following: “The Hebrews are never supposed to oppress a 'stranger' but then they are allowed to buy the children of strangers to use as lifetime slaves.”

One of the first problems in dealing with such blanket accusations is that the respondent did not bother to provide any specific Old Testament passages to which he/she was referring. And thus I am not 100% sure that I am responding appropriately. However, there were passages referring to Hebrews in debt being forced to sell their children to fellow Hebrews on a temporary basis. So here is the best I can do to try and answer this objection.

It all starts with an understanding what words such as 'stranger,' 'oppress,' and 'slavery' actually meant in OT times within the Jewish community. This is necessary before proceeding since to those in today's society,

    Stranger generally connotes anyone that we don't personally know.

    Oppress means any form of compulsion whatsoever that interferes with our right to live as we please.

    Slavery conjures up the worst excesses of Southern exploitation of blacks before the American Civil War.

With such a mindset, it is not at all surprising that some would self-righteously pass judgment on those living roughly three thousand thousand years ago in a completely different cultural setting than today. But the quotations below from noted Bible scholars on these issues may help to set the record straight.

Stranger

The various Hebrew words translated as 'stranger' in the OT simply refer to non-Hebrew people, those not descended from Jacob. It has nothing at all to do with whether you happened to know the person, but only with genealogy. And as such, care was taken (or supposed to be taken) to maintain the purity of that line in keeping with the fact that that the Jews were “God's chosen people.” There are numerous examples in the OT of people like Solomon who ignored that principle and ended up being caught up in the worship of the pagan deities of his many foreign wives. On the other hand, one can cite the example of Ruth, who certainly met the definition of a “stranger,” and her incorporation into the Hebrew line that ultimately led to the Messiah.

Oppress

Stepping away from our modern presuppositions, the biblical definition of oppression meant unduly harsh treatment of those owned.

Slavery

Understanding the definition of a slave in Old Testament times starts with the realization that the same Hebrew words are often used to describe both a slave and servant. Also, the fact that most of the regulations regarding slavery applied to both Hebrew and foreign slaves.

With that brief background, here are some randomly arranged comments taken from the scholarly literature that may help clarify the situation. Unfortunately, since all three of the above issues are quite interrelated, there is no real systematic way of presenting what commentators have to say.

Varieties of Servitude

“Three types of slavery existed in Israel: by birth or purchase Hebrews served fellow Hebrews as security against poverty, Hebrews took non-Hebrews as slaves through purchase or capture in war, and Hebrews sold themselves to non-Hebrews as security against debt. In the first type slaves were eligible for sabbatical and Jubilee benefits (Exod. 21:2-6; Lev. 25:10, 38-41). In the second type slaves were circumcised and sworn into covenant membership (Gen. 17:9-14, 23; Deut. 29:10-15) but were not eligible for sabbatical and Jubilee benefits (Lev. 25:44-46).” (Swartley)

The most common Hebrew word for slave is 'ebed, appearing about 800 times in the Old Testament. But Schultz explains that “there has been considerable debate concerning the basic concept underlying 'ebed, which allows it to describe both the lowest social status, abject slavery, and the highest privilege afforded a person – that of being God's servant. Since 'ebed can be used to describe relationships that involve no obligations, no social inferiority, and only temporary conditions..., it is best to understand the 'ebed as one who is dependent on another and accordingly carries out his will or acts for his benefit.”

One distinction between Hebrew slaves who were Jews and those who were not is that the jubilee release clause does not apply to the latter class. Wenham explains: “A theological reason underlies this discrimination: God redeemed his people from Egyptian slavery, to become his slaves (Leviticus 25: 42,55). It is unfitting that an Israelite should be resold into slavery, especially to a foreigner.”

Comparison with Other Societies

Next, it is necessary to compare Jewish laws on the subject of slavery with those of other nations in the Middle East at the time. And on this relative scale, the Bible proves to be much more enlightened. C. Wright says, “The OT did not eliminate all social structures, such as the subordinate social and economic status of the slave. It did, however, go a long way in mitigating the worst effects through a theology of essential human equality based on common createdness. OT law knows nothing of the graded penalties for crimes against different ranks of victim, as was common in ANE [the ancient Near East] law. God commanded both native and alien to be treated equally (Lev 24:22). The slave was given human and legal rights unheard of in contemporary societies (Exod 21:20-21, 26-27).”

As examples, Schultz points out that “slaves were to be protected from physical abuse by their masters (Exod 21:20-21, 26-27), and runaway slaves were to be given refuge (Deut 23:15-16).” Elsewhere he writes: “The Pentateuchal legislation does not criticize the institution of slavery, but includes numerous laws that protect salves and accord them many of the rights of a citizen, regardless of the circumstances leading to their enslavement...These laws are theologically significant, for there is wide agreement among scholars that Israelite attitudes toward and treatment of slaves were unique in the ANE.”

“Few pieces of literature, ancient or modern, come close to the prophetic defense of the poor against the wiles of the rich. Amos cries out against the rich who abuse the poor by means of slavery (Amos 2:6), through their uncaring lifestyles (4:1), through their denial of justice (5:12), and by economic exploitation (8:4,6).” (Domeris)

Ross states that “the indentured servants must not be treated harshly (25:44-46). The word perek means 'harsh, crushing.' The Israelites had indentured servants from time to time and they sometimes acquired other people as their possessions. They could not, however, rule over their servants with crushing or backbreaking force.”

One indication that slavery among the Hebrews was not that harsh comes from Exodus 21:6 and Deuteronomy 15:17, which describe an ear-piercing ceremony carried out if a temporary slave wished to become a permanent one.

Kaiser provides a good summary of this subject: “What about the status of non-Hebrew slaves? These captives were permanent slaves to the Israelites, but that did not mean they could treat them as if they were mere chattel. The same rules of Exodus 21:20-21,26 applied to them. One evidence of mistreatment and they too went free. The foreign slave, along with the Hebrew household, had a day of rest each week (Ex 20:10; Deut 5:14)...The laws concerning slavery in the Old Testament appear to function to moderate a practice that worked as a means of loaning money for Jewish people to one another or for handling the problem of the prisoners of war...But in all cases the institution was closely watched and divine judgment was declared by the prophets and others for all abuses they spotted.”

Progressive Revelation

As with a number of other issues, it appears that God only revealed his full will for mankind in stages. This process began even within the OT. “A creditor was legally entitled to recover a debt from an insolvent debtor by taking into service the man's wife and children (cf. Exod 21:7). There are good grounds for thinking that the law in Deut 15:1-3 is later than both Exod 23:10-11 and Lev 25:27 and that its aim was to expand on the law of seventh year fallow so that compassion would be extended not only to the landless poor, but also to those landowners who had become burdened by poverty and debt...the Sabbath year and Jubilee laws demanded remission of both debts and bondages every seventh and fiftieth year, respectively.” (Wakely) But keep in mind that this release from bondage only applied to slaves who were fellow Hebrews.

To really obtain a biblical perspective on the subject of slavery, one must by necessity look at New Testament teachings and examples for the most complete revelation. Some of this is discussed in my posts titled “Why Philemon?” and “Philemon.” Paul presents the final word when he states in Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

One Final Comparison

I realize that some may not be convinced by any of the above and will argue that it only goes to prove that the OT teachings on slavery were marginally better than the practices of foreign nations at the time. So instead of going back 3,000 years, let's consider an example from our own “free” country at a time soon after of its founding. And rather looking at the sad example of oppressive slavery of blacks by plantation owners in the deep South, what about that universal idol of atheists and freethinkers today – Thomas Jefferson himself. He is deeply admired by many for his great intellect, wisdom and statesmanship. Atheists especially look up to him as a shining example for his willingness to rise above the restrictive Christian doctrines at the time, casting them aside and declaring himself not even a Theist, but a Deist who did not believe the impersonal Deity had any interaction with human beings or earthly affairs after setting the Creation in motion. One of the sacred texts of atheists and agnostics is the famous Jefferson Bible in which he cut and pasted only those parts of the Bible of which he approved along with equally applicable teachings from ancient philosophers.

This paragon of enlightenment was exposed not too many years ago when his diaries became readily available to the general public. It turns out that Jefferson took advantage of his position of master to sexually abuse a black servant and have children by her, and then refused to have them liberated on his death. In addition, he spent so much money on constantly redesigning Monticello, that he desperately needed more income from his estate. His main source of revenue came from the number of black children which were kept at work for long hours in his small manufacturing enterprise. And when the income from this source began to fall, he hired back an overseer whom he had earlier fired for his overly harsh treatment of the children. In that way he hoped to increase their output.

If one argues that Jefferson should not be judged by today's standards but by the society in which he lived at the time, then that is exactly what I have done above concerning biblical teachings on slavery. And even that is not an excuse for Jefferson since there are records showing clearly that when his neighboring landowning Virginians pleaded with him to emancipate his slaves as they had already done, he staunchly refused.

PETER'S THREE DENIALS

 

In response to a call on the Quora website for atheists to submit their favorite Bible contradictions, one person came up with the following point concerning Peter's triple denial: “By Jesus predicting Peter's moves in advance, he was in actuality taking away Peter's free will by forcing him to act that way.” On the surface that appears to be a very clever example of a paradox. But in fact, it is more clever than accurate.

There are several ways one could address this concern. The first, but perhaps the least satisfactory for many to face, is that if we feel we are nothing but material beings, then there really is no such thing as free will. An atheist should be the first to admit that (and the more honest ones have done just that), since in the absence of any supernatural elements in the universe such as God or a spiritual component to humanity we are wholly at the whims of our heredity and environment. I have argued this point at length with a very intelligent atheist friend, who at last had to throw up his hands and say, “But I still think there must be some way in which we can make decisions free from any outside forces.” That is called having blind faith in what you hope for in the absence of reason, a fault of which atheists generally accuse Christians.

Another possible approach is to explain that Jesus' prediction is predicated on his preknowledge. We as human beings are forced to think of time as a forward pointing arrow, whereas Divine beings can view all time periods past, present and future from a point outside of time. Thus, Jesus knew exactly what Peter would chose to do before Peter, exercising his free will, actually did it. A clearer example of this is seen in in the Old Testament in the book of Exodus.

The repeated motif concerning Pharaoh in the narrative of the ten plagues of Egypt is seen in the variations on the theme of his hardness of heart. If one reads them in chronological order, God starts out in Exodus 4:21 by saying “I will harden.” This appears to be an absolute statement, but (a) “if” clauses are sometimes missing in OT prophecies even though the prophecy is conditional upon man's reactions, and (b) foreknowledge by God of future events is not really the same as predestination.

The next instances of hardening in the Exodus passage either say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart or that his heart was hardened (leaving the question open as to who caused it). Then we at last get to the point where God is definitely stated as the “hardener.” But even after that time, the text states, “Pharaoh sinned yet again and hardened his heart.” So we can conclude that the stubborn ruler still retained a measure of free will and could have repented if he had wanted. To some extent I must admit that this phenomenon retains a certain degree of mystery to it.

Getting back to the case of Peter, it could be argued that this is a somewhat different situation in that Peter was actually told ahead of time what he was going to do, unlike Pharaoh. I can see how one might argue that a person might feel helpless if told by Jesus that he was going to deny him three times, and so would be sure to do that very thing rather than make Jesus a liar. Someone might do that, but certainly not Peter, who was every bit as hard-headed as Pharaoh and known to argue vehemently with Jesus on several occasions. And sure enough, even after being told what he was going to soon do, Peter adamantly refused to admit that he would ever do such a thing – that is until a little peer pressure and fear caused him to act that way anyway. And only then did it suddenly hit him that he had done exactly as Christ had predicted.

That this weakness was part of Peter's character is confirmed by a later event recorded in Acts. On that occasion Peter refused to eat with Gentile converts, even though he had been the first to get the revelation from God that they were to be accorded full fellowship along with Jewish believers. But Peter totally dissociated himself from the Gentiles in the church when some Jewish Christians of the circumcision party from the Jerusalem Church came to visit. (Galatians 2:11-13) This appears to have been a character trait which Peter had to fight against most of his life.

 

WERE THE WISE MEN REALLY WISE?

A reader of a Quora post responded that her favorite Bible contradiction was “the tale of wise kings' betrayal to the local king followed by the massacre of all the toddlers.” Actually, she never actually spells out what was the exact nature of the “contradiction” here. But reading between the lines, I assume that it consisted of the fact that they couldn't have been all that wise if their actions led to such a massacre.

But before answering this contradiction, it should be pointed out that the author of that problem above was a bit off-base in no less that four ways: the visitors were not said to be wise, they were not kings, any betrayal was strictly inadvertent, and the massacre amounted to no more than 20 boys (that last event paling in comparison to Herod's other atrocities – see my earlier post titled “Matthew 2:16”). With that introduction, we can proceed to elaborate and delve a little further into the exact identification of the “wise men” and who they represent in Matthew's Gospel.

One description of them offered above can be disposed of in a few words – their kingly status. “In fact, the Greek word from which 'magi' is derived does not refer to royalty...” (Showalter) Ellis explains where that mistaken idea arose: “Later Christian traditions regard the Magi as kings (because of Ps. lxxii. 10; Is xlix.7)...”

Next, let's deal with the critical issue as to whether they really are called “wise men” at all. A good start is to look at modern English translations to see how they read:

    wise men – RSV, Jerusalem Bible

    astrologers – NEB, JB Phillips, The Living Bible

    men who studied the stars – TEV

    scholars – The Message

    magi – NIV, NASB, AB

Regarding the first translation, Albright and Mann state: “The RSV perpetuates the unhappy translation of 'wise men,' ..We have consistently referred to the visitors as 'magi,' as being less liable to misunderstanding.”

Treating these visitors as astrologers (men who studied the stars for hidden meanings or oracles) is a definite possibility, as Showalter points out when he identifies them as “practitioners of eastern magical arts. The connection between magic and astrology is reflected in the visitors' fascination with the star that had led them to Bethlehem.”

The last option above is the most accurate since it is a simple transliteration of the original Greek word, magos. But, of course, that still begs the question as to what magos precisely means. One solution seems to jump out at us due to the similarity of the word to our English “magician.” And this is indeed part of its meaning, as demonstrated below.

Ellis says, “The term is used in Herodotus (I.10, 132) of a tribe of the Medes who had a priestly function in the Persian Empire; in other classical writers it is synonymous with priest. Complementing this, Daniel (i. 20, ii. 27, v. 15) [in the Greek Septuagint version] applies the word to a class of 'wise men' or astrologers who interpret dreams and messages of the gods. In the New Testament the usage broadens to include all who practice magic arts (cf. Acts viii 9, xiii, 6,8).”

Raymond Brown reviews competing arguments offered in favor of the magi coming from the following geographical areas – Persia, Babylon or Arabia– without arriving at any firm conclusion on the issue.

As far as their country of origin, Albright and Mann go against most other commentators when they state: “There is...no indication in the story that we were meant to identify the magi as Gentiles.”

That brings us to the vital question as to how magic was viewed by the Jews at the time. And here, scholars are in agreement:

Kee: “The gospel narratives are characterized by a virtual absence of the formulas and techniques of magic...Encounters with magic and magicians are explicitly mentioned [in the NT] only in Acts, where their work is denounced (Acts 8:9-24) and the perpetrator is struck blind (Acts 13:8-9).” One could also add the reference in II Timothy 3:8 to the OT magicians Jannes and Jambre who opposed Moses.

Showalter: “Elsewhere in the Bible the portrayal of magi is not so positive. Greek versions of the book of Daniel refer to magi who were ineffective advisors to King Nebuchadrezzar.”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “In truth, for the inhabitants of the biblical world most confrontations between good and evil were simply the visible manifestations of a larger spiritual reality, which was the domain of magic.” Thus, the Old Testament regulations prescribed the death penalty for anyone who practiced magic.

So why were these magi chosen to be one of the first to visit the young Jesus from the outside? Hill feels the answer is obvious: “The evangelist is clearly hinting at the submission of the Gentiles to Christ.” Ellis adds, “For Matthew the Magi's visit represents the Messiah's relationship to the Gentile world and is also a fitting introduction to other prophetically significant events of Christ's infancy...”

But, as pointed out above, not everyone agrees that the magi were even Gentiles; and even if they were, that fact is not exactly stressed in the text.

There is another symbolic reason for the “wise men's” visit that meets with even greater approval among scholars, and that is based on the overwhelmingly negative biblical view on magic of all sorts.

Blomberg feels that “the magi may replace Balaam as unlikely Gentile witnesses to God's redemption...In the OT, faithful Israelites prove superior to foreign magicians (Gen. 41; Exod. 7-10; Dan. 2), but here in Matt. 2 the tables are turned.”

Brown cites Davies as thinking that “just as the sorcerers of Egypt were vanquished by Moses, so the power of the astrologers was broken at the advent of Christ. He sees the homage of the magi in vs. 11 as their being 'led to kneel at the feet of the greater Moses.'”

France goes even further in his assessment of the magi. “The story of the homage of the magi is...not only a demonstration of the fulfillment of the messianic prophecy of Mic.5:2 but also a multi-layered study of the fulfillment of scriptural models in the coming of Jesus, with royal, messianic motifs at the heart of these models.” He then cites examples of the “dubious reputation of magi in Jewish and Christian circles. If there were no historical basis for the narration, it is unlikely that a church which repudiated astrology and magic would have embarrassed itself by inventing such undesirable witnesses to the Messiah...M.A. Powell argues that the term magoi would predispose Matthew's readers to a negative evaluation, and that Matthew expects them to regard these visitors 'not as wise men but as fools'. The fact that God chooses such men to receive his revelation is a sign not of their wisdom but of their foolishness and ignorance, on the principle set out in 11:25.”

That passage reads, “At that time Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants.”

One could also cite Paul for the same idea: “Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God chose what is low and despised in the world...so that no one might boast in the presence of God.” (I Corinthians 26-28, NRSV)

Adding to that same concept, we could cite the presence of another despised group, shepherds, as key witnesses to Jesus' birth and early years. That group of people was considered so unreliable that their testimony in a court of law at the time was not even allowed. Or what about the first witnesses to the open tomb and the risen Savior? They were women, another group usually disqualified as a witness by the Jews.

In conclusion, the presence of magi in the birth story along with shepherds (although their visits were not at the same time) does not represent the extremes of Gentiles and Jews, wealthy and poor, educated and ignorant, or wise and foolish as much as it symbolizes two groups similarly despised by Jews at the time.

 

REVELATION 11:1-13 WHO ARE THE TWO WITNESSES?

Properly understanding the identity of these mysterious personages breaks down into two separate issues which are sometimes mistakenly conflated with one another: (a) identifying the source of the imagery and (b) determining how John is utilizing those images.

We must keep in mind, first of all, that practically everything in the Book of Revelation has Old Testament roots. Therefore it is not surprising that almost every scholarly commentator begins at that point for their understanding of passages in it. However, most also realize that this is only a starting point since John alludes to OT passages in order to convey deeper information regarding the future of the church.

Source of the Imagery

JB note: “In Zc[2:5-9] the two olive trees symbolize Joshua and Zerubbabel, the religious and the civil leaders of the repatriated community who restored Temple and city after the Exile.”

Mounce gives additional reasons showing that the powers of the “two witnesses” were obviously modeled first of all on Moses and Elijah. Namely, “they have the power, like Elijah to consume their enemies with fire (II Kgs 17:10ff) and to shut the heavens so that it will not rain (I Kgs 17:1), and like Moses they can turn water into blood (Ex 7:14-18) and smite the earth with every plague (Ex 8:12). Further, it was a common expectation that Elijah and Moses would return before the end of the world. Malachi had prophesied, 'Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes' (Mal 4:5; cf. Mk 9:11 and Mt 11:14). Apparently Deuteronomy 18:18 ('I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren') had given rise to a similar expectation regarding Moses (cf. Jn 6:14; 7:40). It was Moses and Elijah who appeared with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mk 9:4). Furthermore, the ascension of the two witnesses into heaven (vs. 12) corresponds with II Kings 2:11 (Elijah's transport) and the tradition underlying the pseudepigraphical Assumption of Moses.”

Ruiz, on the other hand, points to the additional possibility that the two are modeled after Enoch (Gen 5.24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:1-11; Mal 4:5).” And Morris notes that others see Elijah and Elisha in those roles.

John's Application of the Imagery

For some of the more literal commentators, there is no need to go any further in deciding the identify of the two witnesses than pinning down exactly which of the two Old Testament characters they are. And even this is not as easy as it might seem to be, as seen in the candidates mentioned above.

For example, John Phillips unexpectedly concludes, after an incredibly detailed description of exactly what he feels will be happening in world affairs at the time, that he is not quite sure who the two witnesses will are. A literal understanding would dictate that they be Moses and Elijah brought back from heaven only to be killed off. Phillips' only objection to this scenario is that perhaps it wouldn't be quite fair to Moses since he had already died once. I guess he felt that making Elijah die would not pose any problem since, after all, he never had a chance to die earlier.

And for a Roman Catholic perspective, it is not surprising that a footnote in The Jerusalem Bible translation, states, “Here they probably symbolize the two leaders appointed to build the new Temple, the Church of Christ, namely Peter and Paul, probably martyred in Rome under Nero, v. 8.” Just for clarification, this is certainly not referring to the non-instrumental church congregations of that name which are widespread in America.

We are probably on safer ground, considering the highly symbolic meaning of most every image in Revelation, to speculate on what deeper meaning should be attached to the two witnesses. But, unfortunately, there is even more division of opinion concerning this issue.

Thus Morris begins with the common understandings of either the Law and the Prophets; or the Law and the gospel; or the Old Testament and the New Testament as possible interpretations. And then he goes on with his personal thoughts on the subject: “The context seems to demand something directly associated with the church, and in view of verse 7 perhaps we should think particularly of the martyrs. The number two may stand for adequacy of testimony (as in Dt. xvii. 6). Or it may derive from the two faithful churches in chapters II-III, and point to that section of the church which is faithful unto death, the martyrs. The clothing of the witnesses is sackcloth, which points to mourning. They are prophesying doom and their attitude accordingly is sad and penitent. The church is a powerful church only when it is a penitent church. A comfortable, easy-minded church has no power to stir the world either to salvation or to opposition.”

Jacques Ellul can always be relied upon to give a novel perspective to Scripture, and his explanation of this passage is certainly no exception. “It is difficult to be more explicit in describing the time of Jesus upon earth (...we must not, for example, become confused by the number 'two'). Truly then there is here an exact synthesis of the work of Jesus. The two witnesses undoubtedly represent the two dimensions that relate to Jesus Christ...we must not forget the duality of name: he is Son of Man and also Son of God...On the other hand, we must not forget either that Jesus is not an isolated, solitary person: he is descended from the elect people and he bears in himself the whole race of David. And he is head of the Church, which is his body. So in him the two witnesses of God meet: Israel and the Church.”

Ellul's association of the two witnesses with Jesus is also shared to a limited extent by Beale, who says that the reason “a three and one-half year period is chosen to represent the church's witness is that Christ's ministry lasted about that amount of time....The pattern of the narration of the witnesses' career in 11:3-12 is intended as a replica of Christ's career: proclamation and signs result in satanic opposition, persecution (John 15:20), and violent death in the city where Christ was crucified; the world looks on its victim (Rev. 1:7) and rejoices (cf. John 16:20); then the witnesses are raised and vindicated by ascension in a cloud.”

For a typical amillennial understanding of Revelation, Hendricksen says, “In very close connection with 10:8-11, chapter 11 now gives us a description of the 'bitter' experiences which the true church must endure when it preaches the 'sweet' Gospel of salvation...The true church is now represented under the symbolism of two witnesses. 'These witnesses symbolize the church militant bearing testimony through its ministries and missionaries throughout the present dispensation.' The fact that there are two witnesses emphasizes the missionary task of the church. Cf. Lk. 10:1: the Lord sends his missionaries two by two: what the one lacks the other supplies. Now the church as an organization, functioning through its ministers and missionaries, will carry on this work for twelve hundred sixty days. This is [symbolically] the period that extends from the moment of Christ's ascension almost until the judgment day.”

Beale begins by stating, “The 'two witnesses' aren't two individual prophets...or the two Jewish high priests killed in A,D. 68 [Hal Lindsay's contention']. Neither are they only a part of the Christian community...The two witnesses also do not represent concepts like 'the word of God' and 'the testimony of Jesus' because they are portrayed as people who perform actions and speak words. Rather they represent the whole community of faith whose primary function is to be a prophetic witness. The OT had prophesied that the entire eschatological community of God's people would receive the Spirit's gift of prophecy (Joel 2:28-32. The early Christian community understood that Joel's prophecy had begun fulfillment in their midst (Act 2:17-21). This prophetic gift would be the means by which the entire church would 'witness' to the whole world (Acts 1:8).” And for those still not convinced, Beale, in his usual thorough manner, confirms this belief by listing six other considerations that point in the same direction.”

J.B. Payne reaches the same conclusion in a different manner. After first noting the similarity to both Moses/Elijah and Zerubbabel/Joshua, he states that it would be strange for the beast to “make war” on two individuals. However, that phrase is applied to the church as a whole in Revelation 13:7. Secondly, the resurrection and ascension of the witnesses into heaven is paralleled by the resurrection and ascension of the dead in Christ described in I Thessalonians 4:16.

Peter Davids simply says, “Just as there will be an embodiment of evil, so witness will be embodied in two individuals who will come in the spirit of Moses and Elijah.”
It is perhaps appropriate to conclude with J.M. Ford's brief historical survey of candidates for the two witnesses proposed by various scholars over the years just to demonstrate that this is issue has always been a live one within the church:

    Hippolytus and Tertullian – Enoch and Elijah (see I Enoch 90:31)

    Victorinus – Jeremiah and Elijah (see Jeremiah 5:14)

    Bacon – James the Bishop of Jerusalem and the Apostle John

    Gelin – two Christian prophets martyred by Titus

    Munck and others – Peter and Paul

    Qumran scrolls – Joshua and Zerubbabel, symbolizing the priesthood and laity

DID GOLIATH DIE TWICE? (I SAMUEL 17:50-51)

The website QUORA invited their atheist readers to submit their favorite Bible contradictions. Here is an intriguing one: “I Samuel 17:50-51 states first the David killed Goliath without a sword and second that David killed Goliath using Goliath's own sword.”

Rather than, as the author of that contradiction states, this being a problem that no one else had pointed out earlier, it is in fact well known to Bible scholars. And similarly, there have been several approaches to dealing with the issue.

Multiple Sources

For the more liberal commentators, this poses absolutely no problem since they have consistently stated that most books in the Old Testament were composed over extended periods by multiple editors piecing together multiple original sources. Thus, in this particular case they propose that verses 50 and 51 come from two different source materials, each one giving a slightly different slant on the same episode being narrated. Their assumption is that the final editor did not know which account was the most historically correct, so he simply wrote down both narrations side-by-side, even though that might result in an apparent contradiction.

Verse 50 as a Summary Account

McKenzie, for example, accepts the previous scenario and deals with it in the following way: “These verses make it appear as though David killed the Philistine twice, once with the sling stone (v. 50) and once by beheading him with his own sword (v. 51). The repetition results from the combination of two versions of the story, but v. 50 can be read as an overview of the entire episode.”

Deletion of Verse 50

A sort of Gordian knot approach is simply to delete the problem verse 50 altogether as a later addition to the text. The Anchor Bible does just that, explaining “Here MT [the Hebrew text] and other MSS add a verse missing from LXX [the Greek version].” So basically, it rejects the older, majority Hebrew manuscripts in favor of a later one in another language. Few other modern translations have taken such a drastic approach.

Porter gives more textual information: “Chapters 17 and 18 seem originally to have existed in two different forms, a longer one represented by the present Heb. text...and a shorter one represented by the Vatican MS of LXX. This latter omits 17:12-31, 41, 50; 17:55-18:5.”

Other English Translations

Modern versions attempt to smooth over any problems in the original Hebrew by resorting to various expediencies:

NIV renders the end of v. 51 as “after he killed him, he cut off his head with a sword.” This assumes that Goliath was already dead at the end of v. 50.

NEB takes the opposite view that Goliath was still alive in v. 50 and so reads the two verses as David “gave him a mortal wound” (v. 50) and “dispatched him” in v. 51. The Message paraphrase agrees with this approach in their translation of v. 51 as a “finished the job by.”

NRSV reads the conclusion of v. 50 as “he fell face down on the ground” but omits “he killed him.” Similarly, Li states, “David first caused Goliath to fall [v. 50], and then he killed him [v. 51].”

Literary Approach #1

Tsumura comments on v. 50 during this explanation: “This verse interrupts the flow of the narrative from v. 49 to v. 51; it is a little off the main line, and the narrator exults over this seemingly impossible victory. Verse 51 returns to the main line of narrative, and the emphasis is again on what David did. Thus, vv. 49-51 constitutes an AXB pattern. By the insertion [of v. 50] the quick tempo of the narrative is slowed down 'so that the real significance of the day's victory over the Philistines can be underlined' (R.P. Gordon).”

The “quick tempo” mentioned by Tsumura has been also noted by Murphy, who counts no less than thirty-six action verbs in I Samuel 17:48-54.

Literary Approach #2

My own personal favorite way of treating situations such as this where duplications in the Old Testament are suspected to indicate multiple versions, is to ascribe it to the noted propensity of Hebrew writers to purposely say the same thing more than once. This is especially true in the poetry sections of the OT where practically every verse contains multiple stanzas, each one echoing the other(s) in thought. But the phenomenon can also appear in narrative accounts. Thus, one can outline the parallelism between verses 50 and 51 as follows:

        A. David prevailed over the Philistine (50a)

                B. killing him (50b)

                        C. And there was no sword in his hand (50c)

        A'. David stood over the Philistine (51a)

                        C'. He grasped Goliath's sword (51b)

                B'. and killed him (51c)

Parallel Passages

The history books of the OT relate some similar stories to the David and Goliath tale that are interesting to compare to it.

Perhaps the closest in theme and literary approach is the death of the attacking general Sisera at the hand of a housewife (Judges 5). As you may remember, she first rendered the general unconscious with a meal including hot milk, which put him to sleep. Then she picked up a hammer and tent peg and pierced his ear with it. Thematically, this is practically identical to the death of the giant antagonist Goliath at the hand of a mere shepherd youth with no military training. And in terms of literary technique, there is just as strong a correspondence.

In the first place, the account of Sisera's death in verses 26-27 is also loaded with action verbs – twelve in these two verses alone. Also, there is a form of symmetry in the story of his actual death:

        He sank

                he fell

                        he lay still

                                at her feet

                        he lay still

            he fell

       Where he sank

                                        there he died.

If one were to read this as a straightforward, chronological account instead, on would certainly see logical contradictions in the multiple sinking, falling, and laying still. And just as in I Samuel, it is fairly obvious that the method of narration, if taken chronologically, appears to give the false impression that Sisera died multiple times, as well as implying that he was sleeping while standing up. Otherwise why did he “sink” when the stake was pounded into his head? And did Jael have to stand up on a stool to reach up to where she could deliver the blow?

Another somewhat similar story, at least in theme if not in style, is found in Judges 9:52-54 where the attacking commander Abimelech is killed by a woman up on a tower who dropped a millstone on his head. But before dying, the commander has his aide finish him off with a sword so that no one can say that a mere women killed him.

The third parallel as far as style is concerned is found slightly earlier in the same chapter in I Samuel (17:34-36). The shepherd David gives Saul his qualifications before being sent out to battle the giant. It can be diagrammed as follows:

                A. Whenever a lion or bear came, I would strike it,

                                B. I would kill it.

                                B'. I have killed

                A'. both lions and bears.

David is basically repeating himself, using Hebrew poetic parallelism.

 

EZEKIEL 38

This chapter is really closely tied to the following one in the arrangement shown below:

CYCLE 1

Introduction (38:1-6)

        A. Readiness for attack on Israel (38:7-13)

                B. The attack (38:14-16)

                        C. Judgment on Gog (38:17-23)

CYCLE 2

Introduction (39:1-3)

                B. The attack (39:4a)

                        C. Judgment on Gog (39:4b-20)

                                D. Restoration of Israel (39:21-29)

As you can see, this type of organization takes the form of what is called “progressive parallelism” in which the same basic territory is covered twice, with the second version advancing the action somewhat chronologically. This identical structure is seen in the Book of Revelation, another eschatological writing.

Andersen and Freedman note: “The whole of [Micah 4,] vv. 11-13 is eschatological...Ezekiel 38-39 can be seen as an elaboration of the theme of vv. 11-13.”

Ezekiel 38:1-3 – “Following an exceptionally lengthy introduction, the challenge formula leaves no doubt about where the lines are drawn in this oracle. The conflict will inevitably touch Israel, but what Ezekiel envisages is essentially a duel between Yahweh and Gog.” (Block)

Most commentaries spend an inordinate amount of space trying to explain where each of the place names is located, but I will leave it to Chisholm to adequately summarize the situation: “Attempts to identify these proper names with modern Russian place names are anachronistic. The names Magog, Meshech, and Tubal (as well as Gomer and Togarmah; see v. 6) appear in Genesis 10:2-3 as descendants of Japheth. Some translations take the Hebrew word rosh in 38:2 as a proper name...However, it is far more likely that the word is appositional [i.e. parallel] to 'prince.'”

Chishholm adds that the coalition of nations includes those from the distant east, the distant south and the distant north. “Also the fact there are exactly seven such nations suggest both totality and completeness. Ezekiel's description of this battle was contextualized for his sixth-century B.C. audience. These distant, mysterious nations, located on the very perimeter of Israel's world, made apt archetypes because of their 'foreignness.'”

“Gog's invasion cannot be identified with any known historical event; the attempt to interpret the passage with reference to Alexander the Great (Browne, 1952) founders on the undoubted fact that Alexander and his followers did not meet their end on the 'mountains of Israel' (39:4).” (Bruce)

Ezekiel 38:4-6 – This reads, “I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws.” For this thought, Bruce refers the reader to “the language addressed to Pharaoh in 29:4, but the warning to Sennacherib in Isa. 37:29 provides a closer parallel.”
Rogers states, “In Ezek 38:6,15 and 39:2 the prophecy concerns nations that will march against Israel...The identification of this 'foe' is difficult because the context has eschatological overtones. Some hold that these people will occupy the geographical areas in the 'last days'...Others see in the structural development of Ezek 36-39 God's assurance that regardless of the opposition, represented by the enemies from the north, God will restore his people, console them, and establish his kingdom.”

“The account of Gog's attack (38:1-39:29) provides an example of apocalyptic, with a battle involving supernatural intervention at the end of the age and, significantly, after the coming of the Davidic ruler [the Messiah?]. The geographical identification of Gomer (38:6) with the Cimmerians suggest that Ezekiel has transposed the threat from the north, with its constant eruptions into Middle Eastern history, to the end-times and made it represent the powers of evil in general.” (J.B. Job)

Ezekiel 38:7-9 – “It is evident that Israel had begun to despair over the delay of the Day of the Lord for the nations (38:8; 39:8)...so chapters 38-39 function as encouragement...” (Bullock)

Beasley-Murray explains that the phrase 'After many days' indicates that “the invasion is not to occur for a long time. Cf. Is. 24:22.” Also, “'The latter years' indicates the period of the kingdom (cf. Is. 2:2).”

Block: “Yahweh's marching orders for God are spelled out. Although Jeremiah had also spoken of the enemy advancing from the north like storm clouds...at Yahweh's command (4:12-13), Ezekiel's use of so'a, 'storm', points to inspiration from Isa. 10:3. 'What will you do on the day of punishment (pequdda) in the storm (so'a) that will cover the land?' so'a means literally 'devastation,' but its pairing with 'anan suggests a destructive 'storm cloud,' a metaphor for a sudden invasion by vast numbers of troops.”

Ezekiel 38:10-12 – “The nom. perazot occurs only 3x (Esth 9:19; Ezk 38:11; Zech 2:4) and signifies villages without walls...Ezekiel (Ezek 38:10-11) warns of a future day when Gog will devise an attack against restored Israel...In all three cases, the Jews who lived in unwalled villages or cities were exposed to more peril than inhabitants of walled cities. However, in each instance Yahweh provides the necessary protection.” (Grisanti)

Verse 10 reads, “Thoughts will come into your mind.” Bruce interprets this as indicating “that the invasion as planned by Gog does not conflict with his being brought against the land by the divine overruling (v. 16f.); his thoughts as well as his actions are foreordained.”

Ezekiel 38:13-16 – Wakely says, “When Gog's huge army (...Ezek 38:15), which will come to oppress Israel, is eradicated by Yahweh, the slaughter will be considered a sacrifice to God's glory.”

“Since the normal deity-nation-land relationships are operative, for Gog to attack his people and invade his land is to hit their/its patron.” (Block)

Ezekiel 38:17 – Beasley-Murray: “ The reference to the earlier prophets in v. 17 would be to such passages as Zp. 3:8; Je. 3:6; and perhaps, seeing that the prophets spoke 'in former days', to prophecies known to Ezekiel but which have since perished.”

“The key to understanding the oracles is 38:17, 'Are you not the one...?' Most interpret this as a question to be answered positively, but this raises many difficulties...Others make it a positive statement, 'You are the one...'; Ezekiel is then seen to refer to earlier prophecies of a 'foe from the north' (e.g., Jer 1:13-15; 4:6), fulfilled by other invaders, now reapplied to Gog. If the verse is interpreted as a question to be answered negatively, as D. Block has perceived, the problems diminish. Gog could not assault Israel as God's agent to inflict merited punishment, like Sennacherib or Nebuchadnezzar; his onslaught would be directed wholly at his own self-aggrandizement, arrogant and cruel.” (Millard)

Ezekiel 38:18-23 – “Gog's destruction will be by earthquake (vv. 19,20), mutual strife (v. 21) and plagues like those on Egypt at the Exodus (vv. 22,23); it is presumed that Israel will be brought safely through these calamities as in that former time.” (Beasley-Murray)

J.B. Job: “Gog and his hordes, the archetypical enemies of Israel gathered from the four corners of the earth (chs. 38-39), are puppets brought in by the divine hand to prove Yahweh's enduring commitment to the safety of his people. By eliminating them he magnifies himself (gdl; 38:23), makes himself known...and sets his glory (39:21) among the nations. He is indeed concerned that all the world recognizes his person and his presence in their affairs, but his agenda is always focused on Israel.”

Peterson notes that while rain is withheld in Ezek. 22:24 as a judgment on Judah, in 38:22 it pours down excessively as a judgment against Gog and his army.

 

CHRIST'S PRESENT POSITION AND MINISTRY

 Christians are often so preoccupied with speculations regarding the time of Christ's coming to earth to set everything right that they forget the fact that Christ is already reigning universally. Here are a few comments from noted theologians belonging to varying doctrinal camps explaining the scope of that present ministry. On this issue, they appear to be remarkably in agreement with one another. You may want to look up the biblical references that are cited below to get a fuller picture of Christ's position, power and activities today.

Ladd: “He is now reigning as King at God's right hand (I Cor. 15:25). However, his reign and his Lordship are not evident to the world...In view of the Pauline emphasis that Jesus has now been exalted and is reigning as Lord at God's right hand (Eph. 1:20-27; Phil. 2:9), we must think of Christ as beginning his kingly reign at his ascension...Lord and king are interchangeable, expressing Christ's exalted sovereignty. His sovereignty rests...on his resurrection...The glory that is now his is known only by men of faith. So far as the world is concerned, Christ's reign is only potential and unrealized. Nevertheless, contrary to appearances, he is reigning and 'he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet' (1 Cor. 15:25). Then his reign must become public in power and glory and the Lordship universally recognized (Phil. 2:10-11).”

Ryrie enumerates the various activities of Christ that comprise His ministry since His ascension:

“He formed the body by sending the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost to baptize believers into the body (Acts 1:5; 2:33; 1 Cor. 12:13).”

“He sanctifies it [i.e. the body] (Eph. 5:26), a reference to the entire process of sanctification which begins at conversion and continues until we are presented perfect in His presence in heaven...His work of sanctifying includes nourishing and cherishing His body (Eph. 5:29. To nourish means to bring to maturity (as in 6:4).”

“Our ascended Lord also gives gifts to the body (Eph 4:7-13)...Here Paul uses an illustration from Psalm 68:18 in which the triumphant warrior is exalted when he returns with captured prisoners. He receives gifts from the conquered people and gives gifts to his own people. Christ conquered sin and death during His ministry on earth; now He gives gifts to His followers during His ministry in heaven. In 1 Corinthians 12:5 the giving of gifts is also related to the Lord.”

“The ascended Lord also empowers the body (John 15:1-10). This well-known illustration of the vine and branches makes clear that without the power of the living Christ flowing through us we can do nothing. Clearly that power is resurrection power dependent on a relationship of our being in Him and His being in us (14:17).”

“As a faithful Priest our Lord sympathizes, succors, and gives grace to His people (Heb. 2:18; 4:14-16). ..As a faithful Priest our Lord intercedes for His people (7:25)...As to the exact form this ministry may take in communication or mentioning our needs we cannot fully know; but it apparently focuses both on the positive aspect of asking that things be prevented from happening in our lives (Luke 22:23) and the negative aspect of cleansing us from evil things that do happen (1 John 2:1-2). We will not know until we are in heaven all that this ministry of our High Priest has meant in our lives, both in its positive and negative facets.”

“Just before his death the Lord informed the disciples that He was shortly going to prepare a place for them after which He would return in order to take them there (John 14:1-3).”

Furnish: “There are various aspects of Christ's lordship unfolded in Paul's preaching, but of first importance is the eschatological. It is true that the expectation of the future parousia of the Messiah who will judge and redeem is still alive in Paul, and that the title “Lord' is characteristically applied in this connection...But primarily the lordship is seen as already operative...Through his death-resurrection he has been enthroned in power to exercise his dominion already in the present age: 'For to this end Christ died and lived, that he might reign...over the dead and the living' (Rom. 14:9). ...Christ himself continues to reign, for God has put all things in subjection to him (I Cor. 15:25,27)...At its center, then, Paul's gospel of the Lord Jesus who lives and reigns is a declaration concerning the believer's relationship to Christ as Lord.”

Cullmann: Christ's present works even have their consequences in our own lives on earth. “The new element in the New Testament is not eschatology, but what I call the tension between the decisive 'already fulfilled' and the 'not yet completed,' between present and future. The whole theology of the New Testament, including Jesus' preaching is qualified by this tension...The tension between the 'already' and the 'not yet' is illustrated in various ways: 'We are holy; this means that we should sanctify ourselves. We have received the Spirit; this means that we should 'walk in the Spirit.' In Christ we already have redemption from the power of sin; this means that now as never before we must battle against sin.”

Marshall: And the same applies to Christ's present work through the Church as a body. “Acts refers to the Gospel's relation of 'all that Jesus began to do and teach' (Acts 1:1); the second book relates all that Jesus continued to do and teach through his followers who acted 'in his name' (Acts 3:6,16; 16:18)....It is...through the Spirit [of Jesus] that Jesus is active in the early Christians and their mission...His exaltation led to his 'reign', which will continue until the time when all opposition to him has been overcome and he hands over his kingdom to his Father (1 Cor. 15:24-25).”

Intercession: I was rather surprised to see that Jesus' continued intercession for us in heaven (Romans 8:34b; Hebrews 7:25) was not included in any of the above comments on His continuing activities in heaven. It turns out that it is a somewhat controversial subject, as you can see from the quotes below from some prominent scholars:

    Ellingsworth on Hebrews 7:25: “In both these passages the language is too general to determine whether prayer for help or for forgiveness is intended. Such partial parallels as 2:18; 4:15; 5:2,7 suggest the more inclusive meaning 'help.' Where the forgiveness of sins is specifically mentioned, as in 9:22; 10:18, it is linked with Christ's one sacrifice rather than with his continuing intercession...but there is no logical or theological reason why the author should not have linked the one sacrifice and the constant intercession as naturally as Paul does in Rom. 8:34.”

    Bruce says that “the teaching and action of Jesus on earth must have encouraged His disciples to recognize in Him their all-prevailing intercessor...(Luke 22:32). If it be asked what form His heavenly intercession takes, what better answer can be given than that He still does for His people at the right of God what He did for Peter on earth? He is not to be thought of 'as...standing ever before the Father with outstretched arms...pleading our cause in the presence of a reluctant God; but as a throned Priest-King, asking what He will from a Father who always hears and grants His request.'” (Swete)

    Murray: “Only here [i.e. Romans 8:34b] and in Hebrews 7:25 is the heavenly intercession of Christ expressly mentioned. But it is implied in other passages (cf. John 14:16; I John 2:1; possibly Isa. 53:12). That 'intercession' is referred to in this verse is beyond reasonable question – the same term is used with reference to the Holy Spirit in verses 26, 27. The reality of heavenly intercession on the part of Christ is, therefore, beyond question...the evidence will demonstrate that every need of the believer and every grace requisite to consummate his redemption are brought within the scope of Christ's intercession (cf. 7:24, 25)...Nothing serves to verify the intimacy and constancy of the Redeemer's preoccupation with the security of his people, nothing assures us of his unchanging love more than the tenderness which his heavenly priesthood bespeaks and particularly as it comes to expression in intercession for us.”

    Fitzmyer: “The risen, exalted Christ still presents his supplication to the Father on behalf of the Christian elect. So not only the Spirit intercedes for Christians ([Rom.] 8:26-27), but also the heavenly Christ. Cf. 1 John 2:1, where Christ is depicted as the Paraclete; Eph 1:20. Such an exalted intercessor cannot assume the role of an accuser or one who will condemn us.”

    Kasemann: “His [Paul's] first concern is with the death of Jesus which sets aside all condemnation. This event certainly belongs to the past but to to a past that has been overcome (cf. 4:25; 5:10). For he who died for us is now the risen Lord who according to the interpretation of messianic prophecy current in primitive Christianity sits as he exalted One at the right hand of God. He can thus be our constant Intercessor like the High Priest of Heb 7:25 or the Paraclete of 1 John 2:1, warding off even future accusations against us.”

These scholars above all agree that Christ is still actively interceding for us, even though they may have slightly different explanations of the exact nature of that intercession. But that is not a universally held opinion, as seen in the next two citations:

    Morris: “His [Christ's] death removes the possibility of condemnation for those who are in him...The death is important, and indeed central. But it does not stand on its own, and Paul proceeds to the thought that Christ was raised...Christ is at the right hand of God, an important part of New Testament teaching....It means that he is in the place of highest honor in heaven. The posture of sitting (Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, etc.) signifies 'the finished work of Christ'...This means that we should take 'is also interceding for us' with some care (cf. Heb 7:25; 1 John 2:1). We should interpret the intercession passages in the light of frequent references to sitting at the right hand of God. His presence at God's right hand in his capacity as the one who died for sinners and rose again is itself the intercession.”

    Wescott: “The modern conception of Christ pleading in heaven His Passion 'offering His blood,' on behalf of men, has no foundation in the Epistle (i.e. Hebrews). His glorified humanity is the eternal pledge of the absolute efficacy of His accomplished work. He pleads, as older writers truly expressed the thought, by his presence on the Father's Throne.”