FAT (BARI) IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

To understand this word as the Hebrews would have understood it, we need to adopt a whole new mindset from our Western way of thinking. As Way explains it, “Words of the br' group appear to refer to the realization of full physical, or sometimes moral, potential.” Below is a brief survey of how related words in that group function in the few places where they appear in the OT.

Genesis 41:1-5

We will start out with the very well-known narrative involving the Egyptian pharaoh's nightmare in which he sees seven fat, i.e. well-fed, cows being eaten up by seven lean ones. As Hamilton says, “The seven years represented by the healthy ['fat'] cows and ears [of corn] forecast seven years of fertility and abundance for Egypt. The seven years represented by the emaciated cows and ears forecast seven years of famine for Egypt.” Wenham describes the healthy cows as being “shapely and well fattened.”

Judges 3:12-30

In this interesting story, “The Israelites are oppressed by the Moabites, whose king Eglon ('young calf') is fat, foreshadowing his sacrificial end.” (Younger) Glenn even points to the “pregnant combination” (no pun intended) of Eglon ('egel, 'calf') and the rare word bari (v. 17) meaning “fat.”

Webb: “His [Eglon's] obesity is presented in the most grotesque terms (his belly fat swallows up Ehud's dagger, handle and all, v. 22). By fattening himself on the tribute (minha) he has extorted from Israel (it was probably agricultural produce), Eglon has turned himself into a large, slow-moving target and a helpless sacrificial animal. His obesity symbolizes his greed and his vulnerability to Ehud's sharp blade.”

Cundall feels that “Such incidental details as the length of the murder weapon and the fact of Eglon's corpulence (mentioned only because the dagger was completely buried in his body) attest to the historicity of the story.” But others feel that these details are actually quite necessary to convey the bitter sarcasm of the story.

For example, Gros Louis asks, “What dies it matter that Ehud is left-handed or that the king is very fat or that his belly can swallow up a sword?...Eglon, we are told, is a very fat man, a detail which characterizes the plight of the Israelites, who presumably have been forced back into the wilderness...The one small detail opens up for us the vast differences between the lives of the Moabites and the conquered Israelites.”

Way points to this story along with that in Ezekiel 34:20 as examples of cases in which “The attainment of potential is not always something that is praised.”

I Kings 4:23

This verse comes in the middle of a passage in which the extreme wealth of Solomon's kingdom is described. Here we are told of the daily provision for the palace, which includes “ten fat oxen and twenty pasture-fed cattle.” Way prefers this translation over 'stall-fed' for a description of the oxen, feeling that description to be “too closely defined.”

G.H. Jones: “Although the translation distinguishes between fat oxen and pasture-fed cattle, it cannot be established that an intentional distinction was made between stall-fed oxen reserved for palace personnel and those straight from the pasture for the use of feudal retainers.”

“It has always been a challenge to try to crack the numbers given in this verse and to come up with a calculation of just how many enjoyed the king's largess. Abarbanel figured that 60,000 persons received their support from the royal coffers, not all of them necessarily residents of the capital.” It has even been suggested that this included soldiers garrisoned around the palace. (Cogan) And contra Jones above, Cogan does feel that a difference in the two groups of cattle was intended by the author.

Psalm 73:4

Tanner titles this psalm “Why Do the Wicked Prosper?” and notes that it opens the third major part of the Psalter “on a note of confusion and doubt.” The Psalmist's quandary is how to reconcile the fact that while his own feet slip, the wicked have “no struggles in death and their bodies are fat.” Tanner concludes: “This perspective is alive and well in many Christian communities despite prayers such as this one that demonstrate the growth and change that can happen in times of doubt and questioning. We, like our ancient sisters and brothers, see a world that does not seem to reflect God's values and God's kingdom, and this leads us to wonder about God and about God's ways in the world.”

In clarification, Anderson states, “In the OT 'being fat' is usually associated with prosperity, which often tends to lead the person concerned to disobedience to God.”

Ezekiel 34

God, through the prophet, lambasts the political leaders over Israel, whom he characterizes as shepherds who, instead of caring for their sheep, slaughtered and ate the fat of them. Greenberg notes that the fat was considered a delicacy and thus reserved for God alone (Leviticus 3:17; 7:23).

“In Ezek 34:20 birya, fat (connected with bari'), sums up the two words sleek (semena) and strong in 34:16.” (Way)

Block: “Shepherds do not raise sheep for their mutton, but in this metaphorical context, such slaughter represents the most blatant violation of the shepherd's role, presumably judicial murder (cf. 7:23; 9:9; etc.).”

Daniel 1:15

As a test as to whether a kosher diet will be superior to eating the rich foods the Babylonian rulers and their retinue were used to, the four Hebrew captives are allowed to follow it for ten days. The result was that “they looked healthier and better fed [“fatter”] than any of the young men who partook of the king's menu.” (AB)

Hartman and DiLella attribute this result to God's miraculous power, adding “Since Daniel and his companions believed that with good conscience they could eat only vegetables (literally, 'seed-bearing plants'), it seems that they feared that any meat or fish they received as royal rations might include forbidden species or might have been prepared in an 'unclean' way.”

Goldingay finds a parallel between this story and that of Ezekiel 4:9-17 where the prophet refuses to eat food in a ritually unclean manner. In both cases, God “provides a way of maintaining purity for those who seek one rather than giving in to the pressures that come.” He interprets v. 15 as saying that the bodies of the four youth “look better-built” and points out, “The language itself corresponds closely and uniquely to that used to describe the cattle in Gen 41:2,18!” He concludes: “Perhaps vegetarian food is better for you, perhaps God intervenes to prove that people flourish at his word and not merely because of what they eat; the story does not tell us why or how this remarkable event takes place. It only declares that it does.”

Habakkuk 1:16

The prophet says of the Babylonian enemy that they are like fisherman catching people in their nets and who actually worship the instruments of torture they use to subjugate others.

Robertson outlines the last half of this verse as follows:

        “He has made fat

                his portion;

                and his food

        is luscious.”

He goes on to say, “Certainly God's wrath must be upon them [the prophet asks]. He had carefully taught his people to count the Lord himself as their portion above all other material possessions (cf. Num. 18:20; Deut. 10:9; Ps. 16:5; 73:26). But these barbarians make a god of sensual pleasure.”

R.L. Smith translates Hab. 1:16 as “Therefore he sacrifices to his net and burns incense to his fish net, because by these his portion is luxurious and his food plentiful.” Smith notes that the Hebrew words for 'luxurious' and 'plentiful' both have the same basic meaning of “fat.” As he says, “he worships those things that make him rich and successful. How prone are people today to worship whatever makes them rich and successful!”

Zechariah 11:16

This verse has clear parallels with Ezekiel 34, as seen in the following words: “To eat the flesh of 'the fatted,' in view of the similar language in Ezekiel, indicates that the reprehensible prophet or leader is like the shepherds who prey on the fat sheep of the flock, leaving nothing for the poor, having no time to heal the sick, etc. (Ezek 34:3-6). As a result the flocks were scattered over the face of the earth (Ezek (34:6), only to be replaced by God the true shepherd (Ezek 34:11). In the context of Second Zechariah's condemnation of false prophecy here and in chapter 13, this metaphor may attack a continuing problem of prophecy – the fact that false prophets took advantage of their flock, i.e., the people, taking fees and getting rich for speaking what pleased their clients rather than what was God's word...” (Meyers and Meyers) I see clear parallels here with those preachers in megachurches who espouse the prosperity gospel

TWO EERIE BIBLE PASSAGES (GENESIS 15:7-19 AND MATTHEW 27:45-50)

Two Eerie Passages in the Bible (Genesis 15:7-19 and Matthew 27:45-50)

When I think about rather spooky episodes in the Bible, these two come to mind immediately. And although one is from the Old Testament and the other from the Gospels, I am beginning to wonder if there might be some sort of deeper connection between the two. You might want to read both these passages first so that the comments below will make better sense.

Genesis 15:7-19

An article in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery explains that “in the ritual 'cutting of the covenant' between God and Abraham, Abraham sleeps; and God alone, in the form of a smoking pot and flaming torch, passes between the animal carcasses, symbolic of the fact that the covenant belongs to God alone (Gen 15:7-21).” Thus, it is a covenant of grace.

In another anonymous entry in DBI, the author says, “In a covenant-making rite similar to those attested among their neighbors, the Israelites passed between the parts of a slaughtered calf to ratify a covenant (Jer 34:18; cf. Gen 15:9-10). The implication here is that whoever breaks the covenant will be butchered and torn apart like the slaughtered calf.”

Similarly, Carr says, “The ceremony (9-11,17) reflects the ancient practice in which the participants in a covenant oath passed through the dismembered parts of a animal and proclaimed a similar fate on themselves if they disobeyed the terms of the agreement.”

“While the symbolic meaning of the strange ritual associated with the establishment of this particular covenant has not been determined to any degree of certainty, the fact that Yahweh alone (as represented by the flaming torch and smoking furnace) passes between the dismembered animals seems to highlight its unilateral nature.” (Williamson)

Koopmans: “The torch signified God's presence, frightening but at the same time reassuring, just as the covenant itself contained promise of blessings and threat of curses.”

“There are eight occurrences of the nom. 'asan in the theophanic contexts. Twice it is used figuratively of Yahweh's anger...In other cases, the term is used to describe the smoke that attends actual theophanies: God appears to Abram as a smoking furnace (Gen 15:7) and a similar comparison is used of Mount Sinai when God descends upon it (Exod 19:18 [2x])...” (Niehaus)

“God's power over darkness is evident in the fact that he uses it to achieve his purposes. He uses darkness to cover himself from human view, for example. In OT theophanies the concealing or covering quality of darkness makes it part of the means of God's appearances. When God performs the ritual of 'cutting the covenant' with Abraham, for example, 'when the sun had gone down and it was dark, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch' (images of God's appearance) pass between the divided carcasses (Gen 15:17). In other words God himself is cloaked from human view by the veil of darkness.” (DBI)

Ross states, “In the darkness the Lord symbolically ratified the covenant promises with the firepot and the blazing torch, assuring Abram of the ultimate fulfillment of the promises (17-21)...The horror of darkness that came upon Abram may have been prompted by the coming deity or by the thought of the birds of prey coming down on the animals for the offering (an ominous thought, since the birds were unclean and were attacking the sacrifice for God.)...These images [i.e. fire pot and torch] are part of the fire, or burning, motif to describe the related ideas of God's zeal and his unapproachable holiness... Skinner says that 'Yahwe[h] alone passes [symbolically] between the pieces, because He alone contracts obligation.'”

As to the meaning of this obligation, Wenham explains, “The 'deep sleep,' 'fear' and 'darkness' all suggest awe-inspiring divine activity (cf. Gen 2:21; Isa 29:10; Exod 10:21,22; 14:20; 15:16; 23:27; Deut 4:11; Josh 2:9)...The interpretation of this mysterious rite is much discussed...This act is... interpreted as an enacted curse...It is God himself who walks between the pieces, and it is suggested that here God is invoking the curse on himself if he fails to fulfill the promise...While this interpretation could explain the phrase 'to cut a covenant,' it leaves many features of this rite unexplained...Is it compatible with OT theology for God to say 'May I die, if I do not keep my word?'” My response to this is that it may not have been revealed in OT times, but it certainly is compatible with NT theology, as I hope to show below.

In a similar manner to that of Wenham, Hamilton points to the controversy regarding the idea of God actually placing a curse on himself and mentions several attempts by others to blunt this interpretation. For example, Hasel states, “It is not a dramatized curse that would come into play should the covenant be broken, but a solemn and visual affirmation of the covenant that is essentially a promise.” And Hamilton himself concludes, “It is not necessary to read into Gen. 15:17 any sanctions of self-curses to which Yahweh exposes himself. Rather it is a confirmation of Yahweh's promise of land to Abram's descendants.” Not all scholars agree with these contentions.

Matthew 27:45-50

This is the most complete of the three Synoptic accounts of Jesus' final minutes (see Mark 15:33-37 and Luke 23:44-46 for the others). Thus, Matthew records the supernatural darkness which descended on the scene of the crucifixion, the ripping of the temple curtain from top to bottom, and dead believers roaming the streets of Jerusalem for a short period of time. Here are some random quotations relating to these events:

Geldenhuys: “It was a time of utter spiritual darkness that the Son of God had to pass through, as the Substitute for the guilty world. Therefore it was also inevitable that the world of nature, the creation of God through the Son (John 1:3), should on that day be radically affected.”

“The darkness could be a symbol of the powers of evil at work. Jesus had said at the time of his arrest, 'This is your hour, and the power of darkness ([Lk] 22:53). His death and resurrection will scatter this darkness. Or one might consider the darkening of the whole land as a prophecy or portent of the tragic days ahead for a land that had rejected God's Christ...Or again, the darkness could be nature's participation in the event taking place.” (Craddock)

Marshall feels that the “darkness over the whole land...can be seen as a symbol of divine displeasure at the rejection of Jesus by men.”

“The darkness meant judgment, the judgment of God upon our sins, his wrath as it were burning itself out in the very heart of Jesus, so that he, as our substitute suffered the most intense agony, indescribable woe, terrible isolation or forsakenness. Hell came to Calvary that day, and the Savior descended into it and bore its horrors in our stead.” (Hendricksen)

R.E. Brown references a number of OT passages in the context of the darkness which accompanied Christ's crucifixion, but not Genesis 15. And Hill only cross-references Exodus 10:22 and Amos 8:9.

Lane talks about the “ominous aspect to the darkening. In the plague of darkness which preceded the first Passover, darkness over the land was the token that the curse of God rested upon it (Exod. 10:21f).”

Fitzmyer says, “The darkness should be understood as one of the cosmic phenomena often associated with the Day of Yahweh in the OT (Zech 1:15; Joel 2:10; 3:3-4)...”

Mann states: “We suggest that what we have here is biblical imagery used to describe an event which for all the human tragedy involved was yet the act of God in the redemption of Israel and humanity.” He also compared it to the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt following a time of darkness.

“The evangelist and his readers would have envisaged a supernatural darkness symbolizing the advent of the divine judgment (cf. Isa. 13:9ff; 50:2f.; Jer. 15:6ff.) with the death of Christ on the cross, which the Church also significantly enough believed to be the supreme act of God's mercy and love.” (Anderson)

Correlation Between the Two Events (Galatians 3)

As you can see from the above, none of the scholars cited appear to draw any parallels between the covenant of God with Abraham and the atoning death of Christ on the cross although they had no trouble finding other OT parallels with the latter event. So I was beginning to have second thoughts regarding my concept that they might be somehow related to one another. But then I came upon the following opinions in relation to Galatians 3 which tended to tie these chronologically remote occurrences to one another.

When Wenham turns to the NT application of Abraham's covenant with God, he notes that in Romans 4, “Paul stresses that faith for Abram meant believing in God's promise of a child. While Genesis implies that the sons of Abram must be men of faith, Paul turns to the words around and explains, 'it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham' (Gal 3:7)...In exercising faith, the people of the new covenant both imitate Christ and also walk in the footsteps of our forefather Abram.”

Kline also cites Romans 4 when he states, “The land belongs to Abram's seed only within the terms of the covenant and this only in the seed of Abram, Christ, in whom the land-promise is transfigured into its cosmic antitype (cf. Rom. 4:13) and the heirs of Abraham become the universal covenant community of the NT, there being neither Jew nor Greek in Christ.” And of course that New Testament covenant came into being with the death of Christ on the cross.

But it is only in Galatians 3 that these to key passages are firmly brought together through the writing of the master theologian Paul, as the following comments attest:

Galatians 3:13 reads, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us...” Note that this verse comes right before a reminder of the promise made to Abraham's offspring (singular), namely Christ. Briggs notes that the Septuagint versIon of the OT utilizes the same Greek word for “offspring” as found in the covenants of God with Abraham in passages such as Genesis 15:5.

Guthrie specifically notes that Paul's referral to the 400+ years of predicted exile ties in Galatians 3:17 with Genesis 15:13.

And Ribberbos in his discussion of Galatians 3:15 says that “in the making of the covenant with Abraham.., the fulfillment of the law is in symbolical form made to depend wholly upon the divine deed. Abraham is deliberately excluded – he is the astonished spectator (cf. Gen. 15:12,17).”

Bruce adds, “The curse of Dt. 27:26 was pronounced at the end of a covenant-renewal ceremony and had special reference therefore to the covenant-breaker. Christ accordingly underwent the penalty for the covenant-breaker...the curse which Christ 'became' [in Galatians 3:13] was his people's curse, as the death which he died was their death...The 'blessing of Abraham' [in Galatians 3:14]...which is granted to faith replaces the 'curse' incurred under the law; this reinforces the effectiveness of Gn. 15:6 (quoted in v 6) as a solvent to the apparent contradiction between Hab. 3:4b and Lv. 18:5.”

But it remains to J.L. Martyn in his masterful commentary on Galatians to given the most complete understanding of the relationship between God's covenant with Abraham and Christ's sacrifice:

“For Paul, as for the ancient author of Genesis 15, faith has its genesis...neither in the threatening situation nor in the threatened human being but rather in the God who promises...Paul indicates [in Gal. 3:7] that he is now functioning as an exegete, drawing out the meaning of Gen 15:6.”

On Galatians 3:8, he explains, “the minor premise is Paul's certainty that the God who is doing this new deed is the same God who dealt with Abraham. Conclusion: Read in light of this new deed, the promise spoken to Abraham by scripture (in God's behalf) was the word of this same God, indeed the gospel of Christ.”

“In this sentence [i.e. Gal. 3:9] Paul gives a conclusion to his interpretation of both Gen 15:6 and Gen 12:3, drawing from the former the expression 'those whose identity is derived from faith' and from the latter the verb 'are blessed.'”

“...in 3:13-15 Paul paints a picture of the only juncture at which God's blessing and the Law's curse met one another, the crucifixion of Christ.”

In conclusion, and in support of my earlier contention, here are some parallels between God's covenant with Abraham and Christ's atoning death on the cross:

Both are stories taking place in an ominous darkness.

In both, the disembodied and invisible hands of God are revealed through their actions – carrying a torch and a fire pot compared with the supernatural tearing of the temple's curtain.

Adding to the eeriness of both scenes are the flapping of scavenger birds, explicitly mentioned in Genesis and certainly present at the crucifixion. In addition would have been the stink of decaying flesh at the respective happenings.

There is a balance of life and death present on both occasions. In Genesis, it is the combination of the sacrificed animals and the promise of new life. In the Gospel accounts, it is the atoning death of Christ so that we could have eternal life as well as the strange appearance of dead saints in Jerusalem.

One instituted an important OT covenant between God and man, while the next made possible the New Covenant for all who believe. In addition, the theme of belief is foundational to both events.

Just as God positioned himself between the two rows of sacrificed animals, Christ was positioned right between two dying sinners.

And most importantly, the similarity of the two events explains the fact which Wenham and Hamilton had trouble understanding – the strange notion of God pronouncing a death curse on himself to guarantee the covenant between Himself and man. That was, in fact, what God went ahead and did when mankind could not keep the obligations of the various OT covenants unaided. He, as the God-man Jesus Christ, took the curse on Himself.

 

FEAR AND TREMBLING IN THE BIBLE

 Some of you who are far more knowledgeable in philosophical matters than myself may recognize this expression as the title of a book by Soren Kierkegaard published in 1843. This philosophical treatise deals with the situation of Abraham when he was commanded to kill his only son. But you may not be aware that the expression comes from the Bible, where it appears no less than four times.

Louw states, “Throughout the Bible, references to fear occur in nonreligious as well as in religious contexts, with two distinct meanings. The first involves emotional distress and alarm with intense concern for impending danger or evil...The other area of meaning relates to allegiance to and regard for deity...The phrase 'fear and trembling' expresses the same two areas of meaning denoted by fear. In Psalm 55.5 and Mark 5.33, the phrase expresses great emotional distress, while in Psalm 2.11 and Philippians 2.12 the phrase signifies religious devotion.”

Hear are some comments from scholars on the exact meaning of this recurring phrase as it appears in those four contexts:

Psalm 2:11-12

Jacobson translates these verses as “Serve the LORD in fear! In trembling kiss his feet! Lest he be angry and you perish in the way, for his anger burns quickly.” He comments: “This entire [last] colon is problematic. Literally, the phrase might read: 'Rejoice in trembling! Kiss the son.” Not only is 'rejoice with trembling' incoherent, but the phrase nassequ bar is odd. If bar means 'son,' then why does the Aramaic word appear here when the normal Hebrew word for son, ben, has already occurred?...Many commentators emend the text to read bir'ada nassequ beraglayu, 'in trembling kiss his feet.” The solution is not pleasing, since it requires significant revisions to MT [the Hebrew text] without support from the versions.”

Hulst similarly discusses the translation problems with this text, noting “The word bar has various meanings.” In Aramaic it can mean 'son', which would lead to the rendering 'Kiss the son.' But in Hebrew it connotes 'ground,' with the corresponding meaning of 'Kiss the ground' – “a sign of complete subjection and homage. “This translation deserves careful consideration,” in Hulst's opinion. Lastly, bar in Hebrew may also mean 'pure.' Apparently this was how the Latin Vulgate read these verses.

Jacobson translates 2:11-12 as “Serve the LORD in fear! In trembling kiss his feet! Lest he be angry and you perish in the way, for his anger burns quickly.” He further states: “Many commentators have, in fact, puzzled over the strange occurrence of the verb kiss (nassequ), especially because the Hebrew text is problematic at this point...But when understood in terms of the poetic motif of speech, the verb fits well in this context. In the ancient world, to kiss the feet of a king (or the ground in front of the king's feet) was a symbol of humility and political obedience (see Ps. 72:9; Isa. 49:23; Mic. 7:17).”

Psalm 55:5

“The next section turns from the acts of the enemies to the way the one praying is feeling. His torment is not only emotional; it is physical. My heart twists in my chest in v. 4 begins a physical description to which anyone suffering emotional hurt can relate: the feeling in the chest, the terror and trembling that feel overwhelming.” (Tanner)

Anderson defines 'fear' in this verse as “a fright or state of anxiety, and not an 'awareness of the holy God'. 'Fear and trembling' probably means 'great fear'...the physical effects of fear, such as shuddering, have taken control of me; lit. 'shuddering covers me (completely)' (cf. Job 21:6; Ezek. 7:18).”

“The nom. pallasut, shuddering, shaking, trembling occurs 4x [in the OT]. In each instance it depicts the internal response to a terrible external reality. This strong emotional reaction, resulting in physical shaking, is described as something that falls upon (Isa 21:4), overwhelms (Ps 55:5; Ezek 7:18) and even seizes (Job 21:6) a person.” (Van Pelt and Kaiser)

Mark 5:33

This verse appears toward the end of the story of the woman with incurable bleeding secretly touching Jesus' clothing and becoming instantly well. The beginning question here revolves around which of the two basic types of fear is being displayed by the woman when Jesus asks, “Who touched me?” Is she in awe of the divine nature of the man who has just healed her, or is she just afraid that she will get into trouble by having broken the Jewish purity laws forbidding menstruating women from making physical contact with others? Below are some comments from scholars regarding this issue.

Swift: “Her malady was one which made her ceremonially unclean and would convey the uncleanness to all who came in touch with her (Lv. 15:25). For this reason, probably, she approached Jesus from behind, in order not to be seen.”

Short says, “The embarrassment she felt on account of the nature of her malady, made her anxious to secure the healing which she believed Jesus could impart to her without the publicity which was normally inevitable in the event of such healings...Though fearful of Jesus' anger, and dreading now being exposed, the woman presented herself before His face...whereupon Jesus commended her for her faith, and assured her of the completeness of her cure.”

Marcus: “As Lohmeyer points out, this reaction is natural in the situation, but fear is also the standard biblical response to a theophany (an appearance of God) from Genesis onward (e.g. Gen 15:12; 28:17; Judg 6:22-23). The combination 'fear and trembling' occurs in a theophanic context in 4 Macc 4:10 and in Phil 2:12, which implies the presence of God in the Christian community. The phrase is linked with salvation, as in our passage.”

“With fear and trembling the woman acknowledged all that had happened. Her action in making herself known indicates both courage and gratitude, and it is here that the accent should fall rather than upon her fear.” (Lane)

Mann says, “Coming secretly, because of ritual impurity, the woman's action indicates her belief that mere contact will effect a cure...Luke attributes the woman's fear to the fact of her being discovered, an interpretation disavowed by the subsequent clause in Mark. It is possible that the woman's fear may have been increased by her knowledge that she had rendered Jesus ritually unclean.”

“Moved by awe (in fear and trembling) in regard to Jesus' authoritative power, the woman openly and honestly ascribes everything to him and claims nothing for herself.” (Anderson)

In conclusion, there doesn't appear to be any need to choose between fear of Jesus' anger, embarrassment, or godly awe as the reason for her fear and trembling. They probably all played a part.

Philippians 2:12

This is by far the most theologically loaded appearance of “fear and trembling” of the four. In its context, Paul tells that church, “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (RSV)

This, at first, appears to be a blatant contradiction in that we are first told to work out our own salvation, but then informed that God is working it out for us. But is it really a contradiction, or perhaps a tension which must be maintained? It almost sounds like a combination of salvation by works and salvation by faith. Below is how various scholars attempt to deal with this passage.

Knox simply states that we should work it out “humbly, and with constant dependence on God's help” while the translation in the Roman Catholic translation, The Jerusalem Bible, reads that we are to work for our salvation, in place of most Protestant Bibles, which infer instead that it is the consequences of the salvation we already possess that we are to work out.

For example, William Hendriksen wisely explains, “Yes, they must work it out, that is, carry it to its conclusion, thoroughly digest it, and apply it to day-by-day living. They must strive to produce in their lives all the fruits of the Spirit...They must aim at nothing less than spiritual and moral perfection ...Believers are not saved at one stroke. Their salvation is a process (Luke 13:23; Acts 2:47; II Cor. 2:15). It is a process in which they themselves, far from remaining passive or dormant, take a very active part. It is a pursuit, a following after, a pressing on, a contest, fight, race (see Phil. 3:12; also Rom. 14:19; I Cor. 9:24-27; I Tim. 6:12). Putting forth such a constant and sustained effort is not easy. It is a battle...It will mean making full use of every God-appointed means to defeat the evil and bring out the good with them ('within them' because God placed it there!).”

I know that for the sake of completeness and fairness I should quote differing opinions from those who believe quite strongly in “once saved, always saved” and totally deny the concept of apostasy. However, I honestly think that Hendriksen, who is, by the way, a Calvinist, does a more than adequate job of expressing that theological outlook while at the same time incorporating ideas which the Arminians would also applaud. As I have said in a previous post, sometimes we need to realize that the only way to do complete justice to all the teachings in the Bible, we need to maintain a healthy tension and not feel that we need to totally let go of one biblical teaching in order to embrace another one.

BIBLICAL TENSION VS. CONTRADICTION

There is actually a fairly fine line between these two concepts since a critic can point to two passages in Scripture and point out that they appear to express exactly opposite or incompatible ideas. At the same time, one who is committed to the truth of the Bible will delve into the matter a little deeper in order to see if both concepts can be held simultaneously without giving up any intellectual integrity. A former pastor once compared it to stretching a rubber band between your two hands. It forms a taut support as long as you don't let go of it with one hand. If you do, all the tension is gone and you are left with a limp rubber band in the other hand.

Generally speaking, there are several ways in which this desirable tension can be maintained. For example, the contexts in which passages 1 and 2 are given might represent entirely different situations. Then there is the possibility that the perspectives differ between the conflicting teachings (i.e. divine vs. human). Or each individual passage might only give half of the story, and both are needed to get the complete message. Finally, there are those rare cases where we must admit that God has not chosen to reveal enough of His secrets to us in order to logically resolve such differences.

Below are some sample cases, many taken from an article by my friend David George Moore (see Moore Engaging and Two Cities Ministries for more of his writings and videos).

Faith and Works

The relationship between these two diametrically opposed concepts related to the question of salvation has been worked to death over the centuries by many theologians, and so I won't bore you with rehearsing all the ins and outs of that subject. One simple-minded way of resolving this issue is to say that your works save you only if they are considered as evidence of a prior faith. Without works, there is the real question as to whether you in fact have that faith. However, those who think they can earn their way to heaven through their works alone are sadly mistaken.

There are similar discussions regarding whether our salvation is solely due to God's grace or to our faith. The best approach there appears to be treatment of God's grace being first extended to all and leaving it up to human beings to respond or not respond in faith. Some Calvinists would deny that there is any free will for man and in addition quote Scripture passages that can be made to say that even faith itself is not up to us but given only to certain pre-chosen persons. To me, that is a prime example of letting go of the rubber band with one hand.

Steps of Salvation

I was raised in the Restoration tradition which came up with the simple mnemonic preaching device of holding up one hand and showing how each of the five fingers represented one of the steps necessary for salvation. This was their approach, and in my mind a good one, to help their audience keep in mind all of the New Testament passages dealing with the this subject. These various passages, taken individually as if they were in a vacuum, might easily lead one to think that all was needed was either faith, repentance, confession of faith in front of others, baptism, or persistence in belief. Taking your pick of which one or ones you happen to feel are sufficient (as do most Christian denominations) and trying to explain away the others as not necessary, is again a case of letting go one end of the rubber band.

Getting down to much more specific examples, here are some which occur within the same passage. In these cases especially it is totally ludicrous to feel that the authors were so dense that they had no idea they were contradicting themselves. Any rational person would immediately attempt to see how harmonization could be arrived at rather than just labeling each as a bone-headed error.

Proverbs 26:4-5

In these adjacent verses, the author appears to waffle as to whether one should or should not answer a fool according to his folly. But if you read the whole thing, you can see that he gives the pros and cons of attempting to correct the fool while not becoming overly engaged with him to the point where you also appear foolish. Although I hate to label anyone a fool, I have had more than my share of attempting to answer questions from the class I was teaching, while keeping in mind that there are always “problem children” in the audience who either want all the attention on themselves, just don't seem to be able to grasp simple concepts, or have some pet theological concept in mind and consider a class period spent without emphasizing their particular point as almost heretical. It is quite easy to fall into either of the two extremes Proverbs is talking about – just agreeing with the other person or letting them drone on and on to the boredom of the whole class vs. alternatively actively engaging with them in a debate during which neither of you will emerge unscathed.

Genesis 50:20

After Jacob dies in Egypt, Joseph's brothers are afraid that he will then seek revenge on them for selling him into slavery. But Joseph replies, “Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today. So have no fear.” Here we see that Joseph is able to overlook the sin against him because he can see events from God's viewpoint rather than from his own limited perspective. God was able to turn man's evil intent around and use it instead as a means of saving the Jewish people.

A close parallel to this type of tension is seen in the NT account of Christ's Passion in which He foretells Judas' betrayal with the words: “For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed.” (Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22) Thus, God is again seen to utilize an evil act to accomplish His purposes. But in addition, we see here that Judas was no mere puppet to carry out God's will; he was held totally responsible for his own actions.

Acts 2:23

This very same strange “cooperation” between man's actions and purposes and God's overall plan is seen in Peter's speech to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost reminding them of their part in Christ's crucifixion. When they are struck to the heart by this revelation, they ask what they are to do. His reply is to repent and be baptized. Again, their part in the crucifixion needed to be admitted and regretted before they could turn to God.

Matthew 10:16

Here is another seemingly contradictory passage in which Jesus sends out the Twelve to preach the word, saying: “See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” Is it really possible to be both of these at the same time? You only have to look at Christ's own example to see that it is.

Here is how Hill resolves this issue: “Serpents represent the idea of prudence, cleverness and shrewdness...The adjective innocent indicates purity of intention, simplicity of purpose.” He cites a rabbinical source which says, “God saith of the Israelites, 'Towards me they are as sincere as doves, but toward the Gentiles they are prudent as serpents.'” That was exactly the situation the apostles faced as they interacted with those who might be hostile to the Word. They needed to keep their eyes open to any possible danger while at the same time relying entirely on God to protect them.

Next we turn to a few cases where the passages under comparison do not occur within the same book of the Bible. And here is where we must be especially on our guard in trying to treat them as if they were anything but apples and oranges comparisons. The reasons for caution here are many, but include different time frames, different situations, and different ways authors use the same words.

Proverbs 6:6-8 and Matthew 6:26

We have added complications with this pair in that they represent two entirely different dispensations (OT and NT) as well as two different genres (wisdom literature vs. history), with the first written in poetry and the second in prose. With that in mind, here is how these two passages read:

“Go to the ant, you lazybones; consider its ways, and be wise. Without having any chief or officer or ruler; it prepares its food in summer, and gathers its sustenance in harvest.” (Prov. 6:6-8)

“Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap not gather into barns and yet your heavenly Father feds them. Are you not of more value than they?” (Matt. 6:26)

The main way to resolve the apparent discrepancy between these two teachings is to consider their respective audiences. In the first case, it is addressed to those who refuse to work at all even though God has already equipped these people with all they need in terms of personal resources to support themselves. They need a kick in the rear to get them jump-started. However, the teaching in Matthew is more appropriate to those who go about fearfully, wondering where their next meal will come from even if they do work hard. That particular audience obviously needs to be reassured of God's love and provision for them. I find it interesting that, with a little bit of rewording, it would have been just as feasible for the tiny ant to have been held up as a prime example of God's wonderful provision for even His smallest creation, and for the birds to be used as examples of the constant activity they employ just to keep themselves and their family fed.

Matthew 11:28-30 and I Corinthians 9:24-27

Here at least we are squarely within the NT even if one passage comes from a historical section and the other from the epistles. NRSV renders the first verse as follows:

“Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your soul. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30)

I won't quote the I Corinthians passage in whole, but in it Paul talks about how he treats the Christian life like that of an athlete training for a contest, punishing his own body and enslaving it “so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified.” This hardly appears to be the easy life.

David Moore resolves this issue by citing I John 5:3 – “For the love of God is this, that we obey his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome...”

Note that in none of these cases does it state that we are just to lie back and relax. Even Matthew 11 stresses that we will still have burdens to carry as Christians despite the fact that Jesus will share the load with us and make our road easier to walk. In addition, it is foolhardy to take Paul's life as an exact template for what God requires of us. Remember that (1) he had a terrible load of guilt to carry for his past treatment of Christians and (2) he was singled out for a unique ministry that was bound to lead to terrible persecution for him and his eventual death. Few of us are ever called to such an extreme ministry although we are certainly indebted to those who do take that path.

Romans 10:17 and Hebrews 4:2

Paul says in Romans, “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.” But the anonymous author of Hebrews states, “For indeed the good news came to us just as to them; but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.” (RSV) Other ancient manuscripts render that last clause as “it did not meet with faith in those who listened.” And there also two other variations on this phrase.

The problem here seems to be that Paul feels faith comes from hearing the Gospel while the author of Hebrews says that people will not accept what they hear unless they already have faith. I am going to cite some commentators at this point since I am somewhat at a loss to resolve this tension.

It turns out that the major problem in understanding Hebrews 4:2 stems from what Metzger calls “the bewildering variety of readings preserved among the manuscripts.” Buchanan opts for the variant reading given above in his Anchor Bible translation while Ellingworth discusses this textual issue at length without reaching any firm conclusion.

F.F. Bruce says, “We conclude that faith is awakened by the message, and the message that awakens it comes through the word of Christ...The practical implication is clear: it is not the hearing of the gospel by itself that brings final salvation, but its appropriation by faith...” In other words, one does not need to have faith to begin with, and thus there is no contradiction with Romans 10:17.

Philip Comfort makes the same point clearly when he states, “The idea is not that faith wasn't combined with the hearing of the message, but that the people did not join in the faith of those who heard God's good message...In other words, the Israelites, who heard the word through these men, did not share their faith.”

AMOS 4:4-5 BIBLICAL SARCASM

I grew up in Southern California, a rather cynical atmosphere, and my friends and I seemed to have trouble saying anything unless it was tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic. I found when I moved to a different part of the country that sarcasm was not nearly as common. It was often not even understood to be sarcasm. And if it were recognized, I was informed on more than one occasion that sarcasm and ironic talk was unacceptable for a Christian to engage in since it usually expressed exaggerated, untrue and often cruel put-downs.

I didn't realize at the time that I could have quoted several passages of Scripture to disprove that opinion. But I must admit that even I was not totally immune to misunderstanding sarcasm when it occurred. Once in high school, I was taking my behind-the-wheel driver's training class as a very nervous and totally inexperienced driver. I was driving on a long straightaway with no traffic lights for about a mile. I could see in the far distance that there was a police car parked at the edge of the road. So I was carefully fixated on my speedometer to ensure that I didn't exceed the 40 mph limit. My teacher, who was sitting beside me, said, “That's it. Put your foot on the accelerator and gun it.” Who was I to disobey my teacher? I proceeded to put my foot down on the pedal until we were going well above the speed limit. At one point, the teacher looked at me and said, “What are you doing? Slow down!”

It turns out that his initial comment had been directed at another driver who had easily passed me in the other lane. The remark was an example of irony and sarcasm expressing the basic thought: “Keep up the way you are going and there will be a time of reckoning soon.” This is precisely the idea behind Amos 4:4-5, in which the prophet, speaking for God, tells the people of Israel:

“Come to Bethel – and transgress; to Gilgal – and multiply transgression; bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three days; bring a thank offering of leavened bread, and proclaim freewill offerings, publish them; for so you love to do, O people of Israel!”

Here are some some comments from scholars on these verses:

Averbeck offers three possible approaches to understanding these verses: (1) They may refer to the special sacrifices made during festivals; (2) The reference may be to required regular offerings if “days” is taken to mean “years”; or (3) a sarcastic call to worship exaggerating the number of sacrifices required. He opts for the latter explanation and cites a similar use of exaggeration in Micah 6:7.

Howard: “The oracle concerning the worship of Israel continues in the same vein of biting sarcasm that was employed in denouncing the self-indulgent women of Samaria...the words of Amos must have seemed like an irreverent blasphemy to his audience.”

Hilber: “In his satirical invitation to worship at Bethel (Amos 4:1,45 with Amos 5:4-7), the central symbol of Jereboam's kingdom (Amos 7:9,13), Amos indicts the whole nation for seeking injustice rather than Yahweh.”

Rooker: “Hosea's contemporary Amos also comments negatively upon the religious significance of Gilgal. He indicates that illicit sacrifices are being carried out at Bethel and Gilgal (Amos 4:4) and exhorts the Israelites to seek Yahweh and not Bethel or Gilgal (5:5a)...It is ironic that Gilgal, the place naturally associated with the Israelite entrance into the land of Canaan and the Conquest, is now depicted as the city that will lead the nation into exile out of the Promised Land.”

Oswalt: “The faithful offering of sacrifices would be pleasing to God if that activity actually represented wholehearted devotion to God (Joel 2:15-17; Mal 3:3-4), but when it was engaged in as a means of placating God while 'worshipers' kept their lives for themselves, it was deeply disgusting to God (Is 1:10-15; 65:1-5; Jer 14:12; Hos 5:6; Amos 4:4,5; 5:21; 8:10). Since this manipulative understanding of ritual is at the heart of paganism, when Israelites worshiped Yahweh in this way they soon fell prey to the worship of the manufactured gods of their neighbors.”

Ryken: “The literary imagination of Amos is most noteworthy, not in the structure of his book, but in his skill with smaller literary techniques ...Most impressive of all is the parody present in the book – echoing literary or ecclesiastical form with inverted effect, in this case satiric effect...The conventional priestly exhortation to worship is turned on its head with his parody (4:4).”

Carroll R: “The prophet's words in this passage satirically mimic a summons to worship. Form critics label this a parody of a Priestly torah whose constituent elements supposedly would have included exhortations (in the plural) to an assembly to perform religious rituals, as well as sometimes a rationale (cf. Lev 7:22-25; 19:5-8; Deut 14:3-8, 21)...This prophetic word uses a liturgical form and fills it with surprising vocabulary to ridicule the nation's behavior.”

McKeown: “Hosea warned the people that even though they would come with their flocks and herds to seek Yahweh, they would not be able to find him because 'he has withdrawn from them' (Hos 5:6). Instead of their altars being places of atonement and forgiveness, they had become 'altars for sinning and Yahweh is not pleased with them' (Hos 8:11-123; 9:4 ESV; cf. Amos 4:4).”

Moller: “The hymn fragments extolling God's destructive powers (Amos 4:13; 5:8-9; 9:5-6) and the acerbic criticism of Israel's religious activities (Amos 4:4-5; 5:21-23) are...best understood from the polemical perspective demanded by this...context...The numerous sacrifices and tithes that the people boast about cannot avert this punishment (Amos 4:4-5), as Amos points out, again with the help of a heavy dose of irony, as he parodies a priest's call to worship. Whereas a priest might have encouraged the people to 'go to Bethel and worship; go to Gilgal and bring your sacrifices,' Amos turns this on its head when he says, 'Go to Bethel and sin; go to Gilgal and sin yet more' (Amos 4:4).”

G.V. Smith: This sarcastic parody employs Israelite traditions but transforms their normal meaning through the use of exaggeration, the charge of false motives, and the statement that this 'worship' is actually sinful.”

Andersen and Freedman: “This oracle reads like a mock call to worship, a sarcastic invitation to sin even more by going to the shrines.”

And for those will reluctantly admit that Amos might have been engaging in sarcasm but deny that there is any such talk in the New Testament, one need only point them to the many put-downs that Jesus directed toward the hypocritical Jewish religious leaders of the time. And if they still aren't convinced because they feel Jesus might be able to get away with it, but it is inappropriate of mere human followers of His, direct those skeptics to Paul's comment in Galatians 5:12 where he tells those who are demanding circumcision of Gentiles, “Why stop there? Why not go all the way and castrate yourselves?”

HEBREWS 3:6,14 -- FAITH OR WORKS?

It always amazes me how much time and effort Bible scholars expend over what to us seems like rather trivial and abstruse points of interpretation. But, on the other hand, I am certainly glad when such knowledgeable and dedicated people do put their training to work in that manner because it gives us more confidence that the Bible translations and commentaries which they produce have not just been dashed out without much careful thought first, whether or not we may agree with their final conclusions.

As a simple case in point, I was reading in D.A. Carson's book Exegetical Fallacies and came across his short discussion regarding the two passages above.

Carson criticizes those such as I.H. Marshall, who take these two verses as saying the same thing so that “Membership of God's household is conditional upon perseverance.” Carson admits that “In one sense, of course that is correct,” although he still feels that something subtle has been lost in stating that. If you consider both of these verses as they are rendered below in the NIV, most of us would almost certainly see no problem with Marshall's position:

    “And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.” (3:6)

    “We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly to the end the confidence we had at first.”

(3:14)

You can see that the individual clauses in each verse line up with one another almost perfectly. And in addition, my previous literary analysis of Hebrews demonstrated that these statements are found at the exact ends of two parallel sections of Hebrews, additionally confirmed by the repeated language within them:

1. Jesus as an example (3:1-6) Brothers and sisters...partners

2. Key Verse – Ps. 95:7-11 (3:7-11)

1'. Within the Body (3:12-14) Brothers and sisters...partners

So we must look carefully at what sort of problems Carson sees with equating these two verses. Here is how he explains his position: “...close attention to the tenses in their context in Hebrews 3:14 reveals an extra ingredient in this verse. We have become (gegonamen) – past reference, I would argue – partakers of Christ if we now, in the present, hold firmly to the confidence we had at first. It follows from this verse that although perseverance is mandated, it is also the evidence of what has taken place in the past. Put another way, perseverance becomes one of the essential ingredients of what it means to be a Christian, of what a partaker of Christ is and does. If persevering shows we have (already) come to share in Christ, it can only be because sharing in Christ has perseverance for its inevitable fruit.”

My first step was to consider other English translations to see if any of them made a similar distinction in meaning between the two passages. Surprisingly, I found that some of them actually strengthened the parallels instead.

Thus, for one thing, The King James Version, Phillips paraphrase, The Living Bible, and NASB append “firm to the end” to the conclusion of 3:6 to make a close match to the identical phrase found in 3:14. It turns out that this alternative ending is also footnoted in RSV, NRSV and JB as being found in several ancient manuscripts of Hebrews. Comfort rejects this addition, even though it appears in three early Greek manuscripts and four later ones, since he feels (and probably rightly so) that it was an early attempt to strengthen the similarities between 3:6 and 3:14 by scribes who were convinced that they were expressing the same idea. Metzger rejects this reading for the same reason as well as noting that the gender in the added words does not match its referent in the rest of the verse. Despite these negative evaluations, it does demonstrate the strong feeling among some early scribes that verses 6 and 14 were saying the same thing.

Another way in which some English renderings choose to strengthen the parallels is seen in how they translate the words parrhesia in 3:6 and hupostasis in 3:14. KJV, JB and TEV render both Greek words as “confidence,” while The Living Bible and J.B.Phillips translate both as “trust.” But is it really valid to equate the two Greek words, or do they express completely different ideas? For that question, we need to consult some word study books.

Vine explains that hupostasis is “The quality of confidence which leads one to stand under, endure, or undertake anything.” Similarly, parrhesia is defined as “confidence, cheerful courage, or boldness.”

Going into a little more detail, Hahn states, “We should approach the future not in fear of judgment but in full confidence, openness to God and in the hope of the fullness of the glory of God (cf. 2 Cor. 3:11f.). Therefore, we should abide in Christ (I Jn. 2:28; Heb. 3:6; 10:35), who has already triumphed over the principalities and powers in public (en parrhesia, Col. 2:15), and made possible access into the holiest (Heb. 3:6; 10:35)...” And as to the appearance of hupostasis in Hebrews 3:14, Harder says that “the thought of the passage is that of confidence...The thought is similar to that of patience (6:12) and perseverance (12:1).”

With all the above in mind, we can confidently say that the individual clauses in 3:6 and 3:14 are closely parallel to one another as follows:

Hebrews 3:6                                                                   Hebrews 3:14

We are his house                                                            We have come to share in Christ

if we hold on to                                                              if we hold firmly to the end

our courage and the confidence of which we boast       the confidence we had at first

Next I turned to various Bible commentaries to see if any of them could confirm Carson's contention that there was a substantial difference in meaning between these two verses.

Beale: “The emphasis throughout Hebrews 3-4, as well as the entire epistle, is upon persevering until the end when the final reward is to be received (Heb 3:6,14)

deSilva: “Jesus' exaltation assists believers, who are Christ's 'partners' (metochoi, Heb 3:6,14).”

Lane describes the state of the audience for this epistle as one of crisis. The root of the problem may have been the delay of the Parousia [Second Coming], social ostracism and impending persecution...or a general waning of enthusiasm and erosion of confidence (Heb 3:14; 10:35). A significant symptom was the faltering of hope (Heb 3:6; 6:11, 18-20; 10:23-25; 11:1), and the writer sensed the grave danger of apostasy among some members...”

Fuller says that “only if they [the readers] hold fast to their courage are they members of God's household (Heb 3:6); only if they hold their first confidence firm unto the end will they share in Christ (Heb 3:14; also 4:1; 6:4-6,11; 12:14,25).”

Hodges notes that the warning to 'hold on to their courage' in 3:6 (parresian) also appears in Hebrews 4:16; 10:19,35. “Should any of his readers [fail to] do this, they would forfeit their roles in the Son's priestly house, which is only maintained by holding firmly to their Christian profession (cf. also v. 14 and 10:23-25, 35-36).”

Hawthorne: “This warning [in v. 6] is directed to those who have confessed themselves Christians. It is intended to show that true Christianity is proved by endurance, by continued confidence in and loyalty to Christ who is our hope (cf. Col. 1:27). He does not belong to God's house who merely professes to do so. He belongs who continues believing 'to the end' (6. RSV ms, a reading which, though parallel to 3:14, is probably genuine here in light of its wide textural attestation).” Note Hawthorne's disagreement with other scholars cited above.

Stibbs states that “full participation in the Messianic blessings is given only to those who are steadfast in their confidence (v. 14) from start to finish...It must be held firm to the end, in all the intensity of its first manifestation (cf. 3:6), and in the face of delay, suffering and temporary disappointment (cf. 10:35,36)...”

And Buchanan says, “Verse 14 is a summarizing sentence that refers the readers to the beginning of the chapter and picks up words from there on. Those who had become 'sharers of Christ' were the same 'holy brothers' who were 'sharers of [the] heavenly calling (3:1)'; those encouraged to 'hold fast the initial doctrine until the end' were the same ones who would belong to 'God's house,' if they would hold fast the confidence and boasting of hope' (3:6).”

I must admit that at this point in my researches, I had yet to find one scholar who even hinted that Carson was on the right track in suggesting that persevering was not a requirement of salvation, but a mere demonstration that we already (past tense) possessed it all the time. But there was one final resource I had not yet looked at, and I felt that it would probably provide that confirmation if any place could. I am talking about Paul Ellingworth's commentary on Hebrews in the New International Greek Testament Commentary series. The volumes in this series are quite thorough and have the advantage of commenting directly on the Greek text instead of on an English translation. Thus, they tend to delve more closely into details of Greek grammar than most commentaries.

Ellingworth begins with a recap of the textual problems in v. 6, most of which he attributes to scribal attempts to import language found in v. 14. But he concludes: “Textual matters apart, 3:14 is a useful guide to the meaning of 3:6b....V. 14 is so similar in content to v. 6 as to have affected the textual tradition; divergences tend to be [merely] stylistic.”

Then when it comes to the critical point regarding the verb tense in v. 14, we see that Ellingworth is the only one besides Carson I could find who even comments on the grammatical tenses involved in these verses: “If the present occurrence of gegonamen stood alone in Hebrews, it would be understood as a normal perfect, meaning 'we became' (perhaps by implication 'in baptism') and remain...This is the view of those who see in this verse an allusion to the need to hold on (kataschomen) to the baptismal confession...However, gegona is frequent in Hebrews (5:11f., 7:16, 20, 22; 23; 12:8 with espe), and may well mean no more than esmen...The implication is...:We have become and are now, partners with Christ; and we shall remain such if we hold fast to the end.”

Forgive me for being a little dense, but at this point I am afraid that I do not see any substantial difference between the two alternative understandings that Ellingworth presents above, and don't even know if either agrees or disagrees with Carson's view on the subject. So the bottom line for me is to steer away in the future from any such scholarly arguments when they involve detailed and subtle points of theology or grammar.

BIBLE CONTRADICTION: HOW OLD WAS ABRAHAM WHEN ISHMAEL WAS BORN?

Even something as seemingly incontrovertible as how old Abram was when Ishmael was born has more than one answer (see Genesis 11:26; Genesis 11:32; Genesis 16:16; and Acts 7:2-4). This is one of those rather complicated and subtle problems in the Bible concerned with matters of chronology. So we must first of all keep in mind that the accurate transmission over the centuries of an ancient text is much more of a problem when it comes to numbers than to words in general. The reason boils down to the question of redundancy. If a word is accidentally misspelled, misplaced or repeated twice, the context of the sentence will usually make it quite easy to restore the original. By contrast, once a number is accidentally mis-copied by a scribe, there is practically no way to recover the original later on.

With that in mind, below are comments from scholars who attempt to describe the problem associated with determining Abraham's age as calculated from Genesis and trying to correlate it with Stephen's comments in Acts right before he was stoned to death. To put this “contradiction” into perspective, it is necessary to be reminded that absolutely no critical doctrinal issues are involved here, and the problem is so peripheral that most commentaries do not even bother mentioning it. By the way, do not get hung up on the extraordinarily long lifespans of these patriarchs. That is an entirely separate issue much too large to address in this post.

“Ishmael was born when Abraham was eighty-six, eleven years after his arrival in Canaan (xvi. 15,16; cf. xii. 4).” (Whitcomb) And Abraham did not travel there until his father, Terah, had died.

Marshall: “...there is a problem [with Acts 7:4] in that Abraham was seventy-five at this point, but according to Gen. 11:26,32, Terah was seventy when Abraham was born and died at the age of 205; on the basis of these figures, Abraham would have left Haran when Terah was 145 – that is, sixty years before he died.”

One possible solution is that Stephen was giving an extemporaneous speech citing OT Scripture by memory and that he simply made an error. But that is not the only possibility, as we see from the rest of Marshall's analysis below:

“Stephen's chronology can be supported by a combination of the statement by Philo that Abraham left Haran after Terah's death and the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Pentateuch Targum, which give Terah's age at death as 145...Another suggestion is made by Larkin that Gen. 11:26 does not name Terah's sons in chronological order but places Abram, the youngest, first because of his importance. However Barrett holds that Stephen and Philo made the same simple mistake of reading the events in [Gen.] 11:32; 12:1 as being in the order in which they occurred.”

Marshall's comments above bring out another potential problem in reading the historical sections of the Bible. Events may be arranged according to some literary pattern or in order to stress certain events over others, rather than in a strictly chronological order.

Haacker: “Stephen's speech in Acts 7.2-53 contains several readings peculiar to the Samaritan Pentateuch and themes recalling specifically Samaritan traditions...The speech is not a literary fruit of the Samaritan mission, but gives insight into its theological cultural antecedents.” This has brought up the natural question as to whether Stephen himself was a Samaritan by upbringing. The answer to that is by no means certain, as comments below will show.

Since Bruce has also weighed in on this subject, I will present his thoughts to close this post. By the way, the noted Roman Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmyer endorses Bruce's comments in his own exhaustive commentary on Acts.

“The chronological data of Gen. 11:26,32; 12:4, would suggest that Terah's death took place sixty years after Abram's departure from Haran. The older chronologers harmonized the evidence of Genesis with this statement of Stephen's by supposing that Terah was seventy years old (Gen. 11:26) when his oldest son (Haran) was born, and that Abraham was not born until Terah was a hundred and thirty – an improbable expedient. That Abraham did not leave Haran until his father died is asserted also by Philo. 

It is implied by the Samaritan Pentateuch, which gives Terah's age at death as a hundred and forty-five, not two hundred and five, as MT [standard Hebrew text] and LXX [early Greek translation] do (Gen. 11:32). Possibly a Greek version of Gen. 11:32, agreeing with the Samaritan text on Terah's age at death, but no longer extant, underlies the statement of Stephen and Philo.” (Bruce)

DID PAUL HAVE A DEATH WISH? (PHILIPPIANS 1:19-26)

 Suicide comes in several forms. Besides the more obvious types, there is passive suicide – simply not taking care of your health through overindulgence in liquor, food, or drugs or choosing to ignore obvious danger signs that should cause you to consult a doctor immediately. Then there are those who live for the adrenaline rushes caused by engaging in dangerous physical activities such as rock climbing or motorcycle racing. They may not be actively seeking death, but on the other hand they appear to be laughing at death and daring it to take them. And then there is the rarer example of “death by cop,” in which a person cannot bring himself to commit active suicide and so he purposely provokes police to the point where they are forced to kill him. It is that last example that perhaps comes the closest to the type of suicide of which Paul might be accused – “death by centurion” in his case.

That brings us to the time when Paul was in jail awaiting sentencing and he penned his famous “To be or not to be” speech: "For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which I prefer. I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you. Since I am convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with all of you for your progress and joy in faith." (Philippians 1:21-25)

It has rightly been asked why, unlike Hamlet, Paul at this point could have even considered that he had any choice in the matter one way or another since his fate was no longer in his hands. But it seems obvious that is not the question in his mind. Instead he was simply contemplating the potential consequences of the two possibilities he was facing and openly sharing their pros and cons with his fellow Christians at Philippi.

However, critics of that view could point to the passage in Acts 21:10-13 in which a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea, took Paul's belt, bound his own feet and hands with it, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'This is the way the Jews in Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.'” Then Paul answered,”...I am ready not only to be bound but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 21:10-11,13

Thus, Paul could be characterized as someone who had a death wish in that he proceeded to Jerusalem even when warned by the Holy Spirit, but he felt that there were more important things than preserving his own life.

And although it has also been suggested that Paul was considering suicide because he was depressed, it seems rather to be part of Paul's overall attitude toward life, and was related to his statement that he had learned the secret of being content whether in riches or in poverty (Philippians 4:11). In either case, he was convinced that his fate was securely in God's hands.

Below are what some scholarly commentators have to say regarding this passage:

Verse 19

Craddock: “In the structure of 1:12-26, 'rejoice' in verse 18 is a reflection upon what has already occurred (vv. 12-18); 'rejoice' in verse 19 is stated as a future, looking ahead to events not yet certain, now to be discussed in verses 19-26. In other words, Paul not only rejoices over what has happened but, because of his confident faith, also over what will happen.”

Reumann discusses whether Paul in this verse is quoting from Job 13:16. It turns out that the Greek translation of this Old Testament text contains no less that five words which are identical to those in this New Testament verse. He concludes that “words from Job 13:16 are present at Phil. 1:19, but not obviously” and states that “It is speculative to assume familiarity among the Philippians with the words of [OT] Scripture.”

Verse 20

“Paul had massive confidence. But there was not a hint of self-confidence or self-sufficiency...Paul's confidence in his deliverance was matched by his confidence that Christ would be honored...The apostle's confidence pulsates. To understand it, we must set aside our normal English usage of hope with its note of uncertainty...In contrast to this, Biblical hope brims with certainty because it is based upon the fact that 'God is God and has underwritten the future' (Bockmuehl).” (Hughes)

Reumann: “The pass[ive] voice in 1:20 suggests God as agent...'not be put to shame by God,' the one invoked to avoid such disgrace, who puts the wicked to shame and delivers those calling upon the Lord...”

Verse 21

“Phil 1:21 has been called the central assertion of the passage, nine Gk. words in a difficult sequence, striking to its original hearers/readers in Philippi...” (Reumann)

“To determine even more exactly just what the apostle has in mind when he says, 'to live (is) Christ,' parallel Pauline passages must be consulted. It means: to derive one's strength from Christ (Phil. 4:13), to have the mind, the humble disposition of Christ (Phil. 2:5-11), to know Christ with the knowledge of Christian experience (Phil. 3:8), to be covered by Christ's righteousness (Phil. 3:9), to rejoice in Christ (Phil. 3:1; 4:4), to live for Christ, that is for his glory (II Cor. 5:15), to rest one's faith on Christ and to love him in return for his love (Gal. 2:20).” (Hendricksen)

Verse 22

“The agitation of Paul's mind is clearly to be seen in the broken syntax of his writing. Verse 22 reads literally, as follows: 'But if to live in the flesh this to me fruit of work, and what I shall choose I do not make known.'” (Martin) And Muller renders it, “What I shall choose I do not say, I cannot tell, I cannot declare.”

Verse 23

Hendricksen asks, “Just why is this [i.e. dying] far more appealing, subjectively considered? Consult such passages as Rom. 8:18; II Cor. 5:8; II Tim. 4:7,8; and Phil. 3:14 for the answer.”

Verse 24

Muller notes that here Paul employs a double comparative in the Greek, which can be translated as “For it is much more the better, i.e. much, much better; by far better.”

Verse 25

“Paul had no divine word about his staying alive, but given his apostolic calling and the need for his ministry to the Philippians, he felt sure that he had more life ahead of him – and that they would glory not in him but in Christ Jesus.” (Hughes)

“At 1:25, your progress is that of the Philippians [unlike progress for the gospel in 1:12]. Philosophy spoke of the individual's progress in morality and self-development; here your is pl[ural], communal, you all in Philippi. The word order makes it emphatic: lit., 'the of-you progress and joy'...” (Reumann)

Verse 26

According to Hendricksen, Paul's expectations came true so that he actually was released and allowed to see the Philippians again.

The form of this passage

Finally, when possible, I always like to consider the literary flow of the whole passage since it sometimes helps to clarify certain points in the text. Below is a rough analysis of verses19-26:

                                              Figure 1: Structure of Philippians 1:19-26

A. I know that I will be delivered (19)

        B. reason (20)

                C. living is Christ (21a)

                        D. dying is gain (21b)

                C'. living means fruitful labor (22a)

                                E. I don't know which I prefer (22b)

                                E'. I am hard pressed between the two (23a)

                        D'. To be with Christ is better (23b)

                C''. to remain in the flesh is better for you (24)

A'. I know that I will remain (25)

        B'. reason (26)

Reumann reviews several similar chiastic structures proposed for this passage. Melick has also noted the symmetry in these verses, specifically pointing to the same wording in A and A' as well as the same basic meaning in C' and C''. We could also point to the reversal in order between “Jesus Christ” in unit A and “Christ Jesus” in B', marking out the boundaries of this overall section. The center units E and E' highlight Paul's confusion regarding the two possible outcomes in his future. That is also seen in Figure 1 with its alternation between the C and D sections.

In addition, some commentators have shown how that state of mind is echoed in the the awkward way the original Greek text reads. For example, Martin says, “E.F. Scott rightly observes that 'his language at this point is broken and obscure, reflecting the perturbation of his mind as he turns from one alternative to another and cannot arrive at a decision.' But we must add that the perturbation is caused only by the claims of the alternatives, and not by the uncertainty of his future which he knows to be entirely and securely in God's hands.”

Craddock echoes Scott's words: “That Paul is experiencing intense mental conflict is amply evident...He quotes Job, the very personification of struggle, in verse 19; and the awkward grammar, the disjointed sentences, testify to the apostle's frame of mind.”

Examples

I alluded earlier to the sometimes-cited parallel between the respective soliloquies of Paul and Hamlet. But there are actually more differences than similarities. Hamlet is so fed up with life that he actually is contemplating suicide whereas that idea wouldn't even have entered Paul's mind. Paul is content to leave his fate in God's hands while Hamlet wants to take control of what happens to him. And Hamlet has just enough Christian education to make him uneasy regarding what the afterlife might have in mind for him. Also, Hamlet is totally absorbed with getting personal revenge on his step-father. By contrast, Paul's only concern is that, whatever happens to him, God will be glorified. Hamlet is torn between two unpleasant choices while Paul sees positive consequences in both cases.

I would like to close with three real-life examples from own personal observations. The first two were women with whom my wife was related, both of whom were raised in what might be called salvation-by-works churches. One of them confided that she was meticulous about confessing at bedtime every sin she had committed during the day (and knowing her, there can't have been many) because she knew that if she accidentally left any out, she would not be let into heaven if she died during the night. And the other woman, who certainly had committed several serious lapses during her life, held on to that life with all her might and pleaded with the doctors to cure her even though she had been told her that her medical condition was terminal and could not be treated. I am convinced that she felt that her sins had been so great that God could not possibly forgive her, and she was doomed to hell as soon as she died.

And on the contrasting side, there was another woman who was a loyal member of our church and whose husband worked with my father. I don't think I ever saw her smile during the many years I knew her. Her constant moan was, “I just don't understand why God doesn't take me now. How many more years do I have to put up with life?” It wasn't that she was living a horrible life in the least, but she was spending most of it just sitting around waiting for her reward in heaven.

One just has to compare those three attitudes with that of Paul, who had certainly committed huge offenses against the Church earlier in his life and yet was facing the prospect of death with perfect equanimity since his eternal hope rested on Jesus Christ rather than on his own abilities. And, as he expresses it, he really doesn't ultimately care whether he lives a little longer or dies soon since in either case he will be given opportunities to glorify God.