SPENDOMAI ("POUR OUT") IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

This rare Greek word only appears twice in the Bible, Philippians 2:17 and II Timothy 4:6, both times in almost identical settings.

Before going any further, it is best to consider the word definition, as explained by some linguistic experts:

France points out that “the technical term for offering libations (of wine) is spendo (translating Heb. nasak)...Paul takes up the pouring of libations as a metaphor for his approaching martyrdom, in his use of spendo in Phil. 2:17 and 2 Tim. 4:6. The libation is not like the blood sacrifices, an atoning offering, but an expression of dedication to God.”

Moving backwards to the original Hebrew parallel term in the OT, Averbeck discusses the word nasak as follows: “Within the sanctuary system libations constituted a significant part of the ritual procedures even on a regular daily basis (Exod 29:40-41; Num 28:5-8), and it was specifically legislated that libations along with grain offerings should normally accompany any burnt or peace offering (Num 15:1-15; cf. Lev 23:13, 18, 37). The idea behind this combination of food offerings seems to be that a good meal would not be complete without meat and bread as well as a drink combined.”

When we consider the two places Paul utilizes this imagery, there are two issues I would like to zero in on: (1) What kind of sacrifice does Paul have in mind with his metaphor? and (2) What does it say about the disputed authorship of II Timothy?

Philippians 2:17

“In his letters Paul took over the Jewish-Christian interpretation of the death of Jesus which saw its saving efficacy in terms of OT sacrificial language...And in Phil. 2:17 he sees his own impending martyrdom in similar terms: 'Even if I am to be poured [spendomai] as a libation upon the sacrificial offering [epi te thysia kai leitourgia] of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all' (cf. Phil. 19-26). It has been argued that the use of the vb. spendomi ('pour out') is never used of the pouring out of blood sacrifice, and that Paul has in mind not his death but his apostolic labors (cf. R.P. Martin...). However, the use of the word thysia and the fact that Paul was in prison expecting the possibility of execution suggest that Paul was thinking of his death, not as a propitiatory sacrifice but as a freewill offering for the sake of the church.” (C. Brown)

Melick feels that 'poured out' definitely referred to the procedure of pouring a drink offering either before or after the offering itself....Some interpret this to mean his impending martyrdom, of which Paul was certain. Others think of it in terms of his apostolic ministry, which often included suffering. While Paul may have entertained the idea of martyrdom, he was not unduly pessimistic at this point. His language is reflective. It seems to be a verbalization of thoughts about his life and its meaning ...While many think of Paul's life as the offering, that blurs the metaphor.”

“Thysia and leitourgia, sacrificial service, the Philippians' faith, are what Paul rejoices over...” Reumann notes that in the Greco-Roman world, blood was rarely used as a libation. “Paul has no intention to commit suicide. He is already pouring himself out as a libation in his missionary career and current situation. Therefore not of death, let alone martyrdom, but apostolic labors and sufferings, including now prison [are what he is speaking about].”

Martin: “The verb means 'to pour out as a drink offering' and denotes, in sacrificial terms, a violent, even a bloody, death...The essential part of the sacrificial ritual, however, is not to be discovered in the libation described by the verb. The real sacrifice is that of the Philippians' faith...They are offering their faith in the closeness of their fellowship with the apostle and by their active support of his needs.” Melick agrees with this interpretation, as do the following three commentators.

“Paul wants them to see his death as an act of worship...The Philippians are portrayed as priests at an altar offering up the sacrificial gift of their faith. Paul's life blood is being poured out as a libation.., the completion or crowning touch to their offering of faith.” (Craddock)

Hughes says, “Paul saw the Philippians as priests offering a sacrificial offering of faith, followed by his pouring his own libation over it...he viewed his service as a complement or contribution to their service.”

Hendricksen: “The pouring out of Paul's blood is a reason for joy to him as long as it can be considered a drink offering which crowns the sacrificial offering brought by the Philippians...their “Christian life and conduct, springing from faith.”

II Timothy 4:6

Let us first deal with two comments from those who feel that II Timothy was written by an author other than Paul:

“Harrison finds it inconceivable that such a metaphor [as found in Philippians] could have been stored in Paul's mind during the four or five intervening years, but the idea of a Christian martyr's life-blood being a libation or drink-offering was sufficiently striking when it had once caught the imagination of a man like Paul, to recur to his mind on many occasions.” (Guthrie) I would add to Guthrie's objection to Harrison's ridiculous notion the fact that even I, with my much more limited mind than Paul's, can still vividly remember special quips and comebacks I came up with almost 70 years ago and quote them verbatim.

Then there is Hanson, who states that “the author has modelled much of the language of 4:4-22 on Phil. 2:12-30. The two passages have in common the figure of a libation; instructions about the sending and arrival of assistants; a complaint of being deserted; a reference to Timothy working for the gospel; a reference to the race that Paul has run (Phil. 1:16 and 2 Tim. 4:7); and a reference to a coming judicial decision about Paul. We could say of 2 Tim. 4:5-18 that it is Phil. 2:12-13 rewritten in the light of Paul's death as a martyr.”

Addressing that theory, Towner responds, “The language of this section is thought to echo (or depend on) Phil 2:12-18...However, theories of literary dependence generally presume the author of 2 Timothy could not be Paul, and an excessive tone of self-exaltation is often detected in this depiction of Pauline faithfulness. Whatever the difficulties involved in the argument for authenticity, this kind of criticism is entirely subjective and without weight.”

You may have picked up on the fact that both Harrison and Hanson basically criticize II Timothy 4:6 for being too close in language and thought to Paul's genuine writing in Philippians. That is interesting since liberal scholars commenting on other passages in the “inauthentic” or “pseudo-Pauline” letters in the NT often take the exactly opposite tack of claiming that the language utilized in those pious forgeries differs too much from Paul's genuine letters to be seriously considered as Pauline. In other words, with these critics you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Next are some closing comments on this libation from scholars who do believe in Paul as the author of II Timothy 4:6.

Ward: “If we think of the libation as coming after the sacrifice, then death is the climax of earthly worship. Philippians 2:17 points in this direction, but it should not be pressed. A preacher's illustration repeated after a matter of years need not be an exact repetition.”

Lea says that Paul “compared the pouring out of his energy in ministry to the pouring out of the wine of an Old Testament drink offering...They were totally expended [The English word 'spent'' comes from spendomai] or poured out as an accompaniment to the burnt offering in the sanctuary (Num 28:7). ...Paul was aware that he was slowly dying in God's service, and he felt that the shedding of his blood in martyrdom would complete the drink offering to God...The priests received none of the drink offering. These facts make Paul's use of the image all the more significant.”

 

GENESIS 25:22

This verse occurs in the middle of the story of the birth of Jacob and Esau. Van Dam and Swart summarize the action thusly:

“It was noteworthy that Esau and Jacob 'jostled each other' (rss) in the womb before their birth (Gen 25:22). Alarmed, Rebekah inquired of Yahweh for an explanation. He said, 'Two nations are within your womb, and two peoples within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger' (v. 23). Thus, the prebirth friction would carry over into later conflict.”

Kline and Knauth both comment on the fact that Rebekah was the one to receive the oracle:

    “It is highly interesting...that it was to Rebekah, rather than to Isaac himself, that God had revealed his plans for succession of the promise, as it been Rebekah who had taken the initiative to inquire of God in the first place (Gen 25:22). (Knauth)

    “Rebekah, as perhaps Isaac too, had recourse to a sanctified place, probably one of the patriarchal altars, in her distressed calling on God. Why, she wondered, had God healed her barrenness, if the issue of her conception would be unhappy, as the inner struggle made her fear it would.” (Kline)

The distress suffered by Rebekah at this point is addressed below:

    Wenham: “The pregnancy is so painful that she wonders if there is any point going on living. After they had grown up, Rebekah had similar thoughts (27:46).”

    Fokkelman: “How cruelly the sweet expectations of children, the greater after twenty years of hope and despair, are dashed for Isaac and Rebekah! As early as the pregnancy their parental happiness is threatened. 'What shall I do' Rebekah wonders in despair.”

This brings us to one of the two key points I would like to stress in this verse – Exactly what were the words spoken by Rebekah in response to her discomfort? Below is a brief survey of the renderings of several translations and paraphrases of her words.

The first five translations below treat the Hebrew wording here as too obscure or uncertain to render into English, and so they fall back on the early Syriac version instead as a guide:

    RSV – “If it is thus, why do I live?”

    NRSV – “If it is to be this way, why do I live?”

    JB – If this is the way of it, why go on living.”

    The Message – “If this is the way it's going to be, why go on living?”

    Living Bible – “I can't endure this.”

Then there are those translations who do not rely on the Syriac, but attempt to make sense out of the Hebrew directly:

    KJV – “If it be so, why am I thus?”

    TEV – “Why should something like this happen to me?”

    NIV – “Why is this happening to me?”

NEB – “If this is how it is with me, what does it mean?”

Wenham translates it as “If it is like this, why am I here?” His opinion is that resorting to the Syriac version is “unnecessary.”

Then there is Hamilton, who starts with the literal Hebrew words – “If thus, why this, I?” and renders it as, “If this is so, why ever I...?” His explanation of this truncated saying is that “Rebekah suddenly breaks off her thought.” And that may just be the best way to treat this difficult subject.

There was one other issue regarding this annunciation and birth story that struck me. I seemed to see several parallels between the birth of Jacob and the nativity story as told by Luke.

Luke 1:25 – Elizabeth conceives and says, “This is what the Lord has done for me when he looked favorably on me and took away the disgrace I have endured among my people.” Compare that miraculous answer to prayer with Rebekah's sudden ability to have children after many years of barrenness (Genesis 25:21). Of course, even more miraculous is the fact that Mary the virgin will be having a son at all.

Luke 1:33 – The angel Gabriel tells Mary that her Son “will reign over the house of Jacob forever...” That oracle foretells a favorable a glorious future for her son and can also be taken as the ultimate fulfillment of God's prediction in Genesis 25:23 that Jacob would be the founder of a nation which would surpass that of Esau.

Luke 1:41-44 – Interestingly, Mary's cousin Elizabeth feels the baby in her womb move as soon as pregnant Mary enters the room. And she exclaims, “And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?” This is a clear echo of Genesis 25:22 (See especially the NIV translation above) in which Rebekah feels movement within her womb. But whereas Rebekah predicts only foreboding events from her sons' movements, Elizabeth reads only glad tidings from her son's actions.

Van Dam and Swart also pick up on this correspondence with the life of Jacob in these verses. They note that the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew word rss (jostle or wrestle) in Genesis 25:22 is translated into the Greek word skirtao. “This vb. also occurs in Luke 1:41,44, where it is used of the baby (John the Baptist) in Elizabeth's womb. Here the action carries a positive message.”

Luke 2:34f – There are many predictions of the future greatness of Jesus given to Mary which are found in the first two chapters of Luke, but among them is that of Simeon in 2:34-35 which also states, “And a sword will pierce your own soul too.” This is the same sort of mixed blessing that Rebekah received earlier in Genesis 25:23 when she was told by God that the two people arising from her sons would be divided and not united.

Luke 3:23-38 – Luke traces Jesus' line by way of his presumed father Joseph all the way back to Jacob.

Luke 6:28 – Jesus says, “Bless them that curse you and pray for those who abuse you.” This is a noted reversal of Isaac's blessing on Jacob in Genesis 27:29: “Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you.” And Isaac's words certainly fit the tenor of the whole New Testament (especially Luke 2:34), which teaches that everyone in the world will be judged ultimately by their relationship to Jesus Christ. In addition, the preceding words of blessing to Jacob in Genesis 27:29 state, “Be lord over your brothers and may your mother's sons bow down to you.”  And, of course, we know that even though Jesus' half-brothers mocked Jesus' pretentions to greatness at first, they (James and Jude) became his loyal followers after the post-resurrection appearances.

 

ARE WE TO REMEMBER OR OBSERVE THE SABBATH? (EXODUS 20:8; DEUTERONOMY 5:12)

 

Are we to remember or to observe the Sabbath? (Exodus 20:8; Deuteronomy 5:12)

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, appears in two slightly different forms within the Old Testament, and that is especially true of one particular commandment.

As Durham puts it: “The fourth commandment is the longest in the Decalogue, because it is the most expanded of all the commandments. No other commandment has received as much reapplication and as many defining and justifying clauses as this one.”

And Childs says, “In the history of the critical study of the Decalogue over the last hundred years certainly more attention has been devoted to this commandment than most of the others.”

The Anchor Bible translation is typical in demonstrating the differences found in just the opening words of each:

    Exodus 20:8 – “Remember (zkr) the Sabbath day and keep it holy.”

    Deuteronomy 5:12 – “Observe (smr) the Sabbath day to keep it holy, as YHWH your God has commanded you.”

The respective opening verbs in other English versions of these parallel passages include the following variations:

    remember, keep – KJV, RSV, NIV, NEB

    remember, observe – JB, NRSV

    observe, observe – TEV

    observe, keep – Living Bible

    observe, “no working on” – The Message

As you can see, the two Hebrew words are used practically interchangeably with one another in these renderings. And this understanding is found in most of the commentaries on these passages, as seen below:

Meyes on Deuteronomy 5 says, “Observe: Exod. 20:8 has 'remember'. The latter is probably original, and the change should be seen along with the verb 'aseh [keep] at the end of the commandment (v. 15, 'to keep'; this does not appear in the Exodus version), for the two verbs together form a fixed idiomatic expression in Deuteronomy in the context of the proclamation of the law; cf. 5:23; 6:3, 17f., 25, etc...”

Durham states that the Hebrew word in Exodus “means 'remember,' as always in contexts of covenantal obligation, in the sense of 'observe without lapse' or 'hold as a present and continuing priority.' SamPent [the Samaritan Penteteuch] reads 'aseh 'keep,' as does the parallel version of the commandment in Deut 5:12.” He cites scholars who argue as to which verb is the original but concludes with the words: “Noth and Andreasen argue that both verbs, in this usage, come to mean about the same thing.”

“The positive formulation of the commandment [in Deuteronomy] has some small differences which distinguish it from the form of the commandment in Exod. 20:8-11, and which are further evidence of its horatory [i.e. aiming to exhort] style in which the commandment is presented in Deuteronomy. The The Hebrew word used in v. 12 is shamor, 'take care'; in Exod. 20:8; it is rather zakor, 'remember' or 'remembering in.'” (Craigie)

Cousins says, “The slight differences in vv. 12-14 [of Deuteronomy 5] between this and the form in Exodus are not important.”

“The first version of the Ten Commandments, in the fourth commandment, grounds this rest in God's own creation Sabbath (Exod. 20:8-11)...The second version of the fourth commandment (Deut 5:12-15), however, grounds Sabbath observance in a different motive – namely, the Israelite remembers his experience of slavery and deliverance...Theologians will describe the difference by saying that Exodus 20:11 appeals to creation, while Deuteronomy 5:15 appeals to redemption. It would be a mistake to contrast these, however...Exodus itself brings the two together (31:12-17).” (C.J. Collins)

Weinfeld: “In the Exodus version the verb for observing is zkr: 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' In fact, there is no significant difference between the two, for both verbs, zkr and smr, connote 'keep' as well as 'remember.' Thus we find in Gen 37:11 that Jacob 'kept (smr) the matter' (i.e., Joseph's dream), which means remembered it or kept it in mind.' smr and zkr parallel each other in Ps 103:18.” He also cites Esther 9:28 as another example.

H.R. Jones sees a possible added significance to the use of “remember” in Exodus 20 when he states that “this is no new command. It goes back to Gen. 2:103 This could have been forgotten by the Israelites while in Egypt, and there are no references to it in patriarchal times.”

Lastly, we have some comments on the basic meanings of smr and zkr from linguistic experts:

smr – “Among the most frequent uses of the vb. is the admonition to be careful and diligent in respect to religious and spiritual responsibilities.” (Schoville)

zkr – “The root and its derivatives have crucial roles in the OT. On the human level, the words embrace reflection, especially on what is in the past. Such reflection may lead to regret or relief, or more actively appreciation and commitment. God's remembering has to do with his attention and intervention, whether in grace or in judgment. Religious worship is the context where human and divine usage come together, in the fellowship of praise and blessing...Rather than denoting simply a mental process, remembering frequently induces present action...The Israelites' historical experience of being slaves in Egypt is urged as a reason to include their slaves in the Sabbath rest and in the Feast of Weeks (Deut 5:15; 16:12)...To remember the Sabbath day (Exod 20:8; cf. 'observe,' Deut 5:12) is to observe it by abstaining from work.” (Allen)

PARALLELS BETWEEN JACOB AND SATAN

At a recent sermon I heard, the pastor noted in passing that there were several parallels between the patriarch Jacob and Satan. I decided to ferret out some of these, with the following results:

Genesis 3:1a

We first run into Satan in Genesis 3, where he is described as being “more subtle than any other creature.” Other translations call him “more crafty.” We could also call him “devious.” And this is really the hallmark of Jacob throughout his life in his dealings with Esau, his father, and Laban. Interestingly, Foulkes uses the same adjective above to characterize Jacob: “weak, crafty, scheming.”

Genesis 3:1b-7

This is perhaps the closest parallel to the life of Jacob. Satan, in the form of the serpent, lies and tells half-truths to Adam and Eve in order to tempt them to eat of the Tree the Knowledge of Good and Evil against God's express command. In a similar manner, Jacob tempts Esau to trade his birthright for a bowl of red lentil stew (Genesis 25:29-34). And if ancient traditions which state that the fruit in the garden was a pomegranate are correct, then there is even a similarity in the reddish-brown color of both foods.

In addition, the major sin of both Satan and Jacob here is to disrupt or co-opt God's preordained plan by taking things into their own hands instead of recognizing His omniscience and omnipotence and relying on Him.

And a third similarity is the fact that in each story it is a woman who helps to orchestrate the scheming.

Genesis 3:15

As part of the curse on the serpent (i.e. Satan) in this verse, God uses the key word “heel.” It is in the context of Satan bruising the heel of the seed of the woman (primarily referring to Jesus). That rare Hebrew word (aqeb) only appears seven times in the Old Testament, one of which incidentally also appears in the birth story of Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25:26) in which Jacob attempts to supplant his brother by grasping at his heel to try to prevent him from being born first. So both Satan and Jacob will attempt to attack a heel but be wounded in the effort.

The other part of the curse involves God putting enmity between Satan and “the woman.” In its context that refers to Eve and her female descendants, but it also applies in another sense to Jacob's dishonest actions driving a wedge between himself and his beloved mother Rebekah so that he will be forced to flee from his home and not see her alive again.

Genesis 3:21

Before God casts Adam and Eve from the Garden, He demonstrates His grace by dressing both of them in animal skins. In a perversion of that action, you may recall that Jacob tricked his blind father into giving him the preferred blessing by putting animal skins on his arms so that he would feel like his hairier brother (Genesis 27:15-17).

Job 1-2

In this prelude to the book, we see Satan up to his usual tricks thinking that he can disgrace God's model human being, Job, and God Himself in the process. God allows him to try to get Job to curse God by visiting one catastrophe after another on him. But amazingly, Satan's ploy backfires and Job's faith brings him through the crisis. In the same manner, Jacob schemes his way through life feeling that only by his own actions can he get what he wants. But in the final analysis, it is Jacob's own actions which get him into much more trouble than if he had merely trusted in God's promise in the begnning.

I Chronicles 21:1

Satan incites, or tempts, David into conducting a census of all the people of Israel. That plays into David's lust for more earthly power just as Jacob's actions were driven by his visions of future greatness. In both cases, nothing good came from giving in to such desires since neither seemed to take God's own will into consideration.

Zechariah 3:1-2

This strange story takes place in heaven where Satan acts as a prosecuting attorney hoping to get the high priest Joshua excluded from heaven. Instead, Satan is rebuked for his actions, and God trades in Joshua's soiled clothing for a brand new outfit. We see again Satan's hatred for the human race, especially for those chosen by God. In addition, the important theme of changing garments earlier seen in Adam and Eve's fall as well as Jacob's deceit of Jacob recurs here also.

Matthew 4:10

This is practically a replay of Jacob's temptation of Esau with food when the latter comes in from hunting and announces that he is famished. The same is said of Jesus after he had been fasting in the wilderness. In both cases, the tempter (Jacob and Satan) invites the other party to partake of food. Only whereas Esau gives in, the same cannot be said of Jesus.

Luke 10:18

When the apostles come back from a missionary journey, they note that they did not run into any major opposition. Jesus explains to them that he had seen Satan fall from heaven. If you recall, up to this point in history Satan is pictured as having free access to God's presence. In a similar manner, Jacob fell from his former position in the bosom of his family to the point where he was forced to a situation of servitude under Laban. We could even see here a parallel between Jesus “seeing” the angel Satan fall from heaven and Jacob “seeing” angels descending a ladder that reached from heaven to earth.

II Corinthians 11:14

Paul describes Satan as one who disguises himself as an angel of light. But the word “disguise” should also remind us powerfully of another personage in the Bible who disguised himself in order to deceive – Jacob with his faked hairy skin.

I John 3:8

In this verse, John characterizes Satan as a sinner from the beginning, which is ceratainly true in his first appearance on the scene in the Garden. But the same could be equally said of Jacob, who began his checkered career of grasping and deceit while still in the womb.

Revelation 20:1-3

Toward the end of time, Satan will be cast into a pit where he will be kept until he is later released for a short time. This did not happen to Jacob himself, but to his beloved son Joseph instead as a sort of proxy for Jacob (Genesis 37:24).

And continuing the pattern of deceit in that family, Jacob is himself fooled as to the circumstances of Joseph's absence by the use of clothing. This may be another echo of Genesis 3 in which clothing first makes its appearance on the scene. These verses also contain the last mention of Satan's “deceit” of mankind.

Conclusion

I don't know if others find interesting these sort of thematic threads running throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, but I certainly do. Besides being a curiosity, they help establish the unity of the whole Bible and show the hidden hand of God behind everything that happens on earth.

WHO PREDICTED JESUS' BETRAYAL FOR 30 PIECES OF SILVER? (MATTHEW 27:9-10)

Only Matthew records the details regarding the blood money Judas received for betraying Jesus. And that is no surprise since (1) Matthew was a tax collector by profession and (2) of the four Gospel accounts, his is the one who most stresses the fact that that events in the life of Jesus were fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies. “Perhaps the strangest fulfillment quotation in all of Matthew is this last one.” (Beale and Carson)

The main question is, to which specific prophecy was Matthew referring? Matthew himself says that it comes from Jeremiah. Regarding this point, Freed turns to both Zechariah 11:12-13 and Jeremiah 18:2-3; 32:6-15 as the probable precursors. By contrast, Overman feels that Matthew is alluding to either Leviticus 27:1-8, with its mention of “the price of redeeming a person from a religious obligation” or to “Zechariah's action indicting the Temple authorities for corruption by depositing tainted money in the treasury (Zech 11:12-13).” 

The pay given to the prophet when he resigns his office is 30 pieces of silver.  Zechariah sarcastically calls this “a lordly price.” In fact, it is the same price required to recompense a slave owner if someone's ox injures a slave (Exodus 21:32) and approximately the price Hosea paid to get back his adulterous wife (Hosea 3:2). Finally, Beale and Carson even suggest that the final clause in Matthew's verses borrows language from the Greek form of Exodus 9:12.

    1. There have been several approaches suggested to resolve this whole complicated issue. One possibility suggested by Comfort, Barbieri and others is that Matthew really had several prophetic passages in mind as he was writing, but only alluded to the most famous of the two seers – Jeremiah. France offers as evidence for this theory the fact that, with the exception of 24:15, Matthew's attributed quotations only come from Isaiah and Jeremiah while any quotations from the minor prophets are cited anonymously (see 2:5, 15; 11:10; 21:4; 26:31).

 But even this does not narrow down the possibilities since both Nixon and Beale/Carson are divided between Jeremiah 19 and Jeremiah 32 as being the primary passage in mind here. And that does not count in the opinion of Freed above, who cites Jeremiah 18:2-3.

    2. Albright and Mann note that the quote is actually a loose paraphrase from Zechariah and “the confusion may have been introduced by the recollection that Jeremiah purchased a field and also visited a potter (Jer xviii 2ff. and xxxii 6-15).” Ellison offers the same theory, only to reject it, that Matthew's words “may be a free citing from memory...therefore, that Jeremiah is a slip.” But his personal opinion on this matter matches #3 below.

    3. Unger's theory was that “Jeremiah” was really the title for the scroll containing all the prophecy books from Jeremiah to Malachi, thus including Zechariah as well. As evidence for this possibility, Barbieri notes “that Jeremiah, in the Babylonian Talmud...was placed first among the prophets, and his book represented all the other prophetic books.”Hendricksen rejects this explanation as coming from a source which “cannot be regarded reliable.”

    4. Carr suggests that the original only read “the prophet,” without naming him. But a later scribe mistakenly added “Jeremiah” in an abortive attempt to clarify the prophet's identity. Comfort points out that the manuscript evidence for such a reading is extremely weak.

    5. Nixon offers yet another possibility: Only Jeremiah was named since a reference to Zechariah would have already been obvious to his audience. Beale and Carson elaborate on this same idea: “Rabbis at times would create a composite quotation of more than one Scripture but refer to only one of their sources by name, often the more obscure one...to ensure that others would pick up the reference. So there is no problem by the standards of the day for Matthew to refer to two texts like this and name only the more obscure prophetic source.” As another example, he cites what Mark does in Mark 1:2.
A very slight variation on this scenario is that Matthew “follows a standard literary convention of his day by referring only to one source (in this case, the more obscure, through probably also the more important one).” (Blomberg)

    6. Another theory offered by McNeile is that some apocryphal version of Jeremiah no longer in existence contained the information to which Matthew alludes. But this remains purely speculative in lieu of any hard evidence to prove it. 

Lastly, a secondary detail needing some explanation regards what the prophet did with the money he was given. The Hebrew text says he gave it to the yaser, generally translated as potter, but also used to denote a craftsman or metalworker (Boda). The Septuagint translates it with the Greek word meaning smelter or foundry. The Aramaic version translates it as “treasury.” A rough consensus combining these translations arrives at the idea that the temple employed a metalworker who received all offerings made out of precious metals. He would melt them down and fill them in earthen pots until a later time when the pots were broken and the metal remelted for fashioning into temple vessels.

MALACHI 2:10-16

This is the passage which contains the famous statement by God in v. 16: “For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel.” Jacobs enumerates a number of issues which arise in attempting to interpret these verses. These along with questions mentioned by other scholars are given below with attached comments:

Who is the speaker in 2:10 – the prophet, the community, or whose who were involved in such relationships?

“In accordance with his characteristic style (cf. vv. 1:2,6; etc.), the prophet addresses himself mainly to the people ...” (Verhoef)

And Jacobs says, “Regarding the prophet as speaker, one can argue that he speaks representing the sentiment of the people in much the same way as in Mal 1:6-14. Regarding the people as speaker, some argue that the people are questioning the nature of the malpractice. Finally, the speaker might be a group of men who, having married foreign wives, seek to justify these marriages on the basis of having a common human heritage...however, I interpret the speaker as the prophet addressing the community.”

To whom does “father” in 2:10 refer – God or Abraham?

Redditt states, “While some scholars suggest that the word 'father' refers to Abraham or Jacob, the use of the word in reference to God in 1:6 and the parallel term 'creator' in the next question make it clear that the father in question was God. Even so, the 'we' in the verse was the nation Israel; there was no reference here to humanity as a whole.”

Verhoef mentions several opinions on this subject before concluding, “But we share the opinion of Van der Woude that the one father is indeed a reference to God. This interpretation is determined by the synthetic parallelism of the first two sentences, and by the antithetical reference to the daughter of a foreign god (v. 11).”

Are the marriage and divorce mentioned here literal or symbolic?

This is perhaps the key question to consider. As Mobley says, “On a literal level, this section concerns exogamous marriage (i.e., with outsiders) and divorce. It has been read figuratively, that Judah has been faithless in its covenant with the LORD.”

Redditt combines both of these concepts in his explanation: “It would seem...that divorce was really the issue here...The divorce in question was for the purpose of marrying a foreign woman. Such women would have worshiped foreign gods, so marriage to her would have amounted to rejecting God's exclusive claim on Judah....Bossman argues that God is conceived here as 'a particular extended family deity whose household is with the family of Israel.'”

Torrey firmly denies a literal meaning to the words, “The rebuke is rather directed against the encroachment of some foreign cult in Israel. The unfaithfulness of a part of the people threatens to forfeit for all the covenant of the fathers (v 10). Judah has dealt falsely with the wife of his youth, the covenant religion, in wedding a strange cult....There is one, and only one, admissible interpretation of the passage; namely that which recognizes the fact that the prophet is using figurative language. Judah, the faithless husband, has betrayed the wife of his youth, the covenant religion, by espousing the daughter of a strange god.”

But despite R.L. Smith quoting the above, and similar comments from scholars, he nevertheless concludes, “The literal view has a preponderance of evidence on its side. Malachi is speaking about the disastrous effects of mixed marriages and divorce.”
As another argument in favor of the literal view, Adamson explains the difficult phrase “covering one's garment with violence” as reference to the custom during a divorce for the man to cast his garment over his wife (see Ruth 3:9).

How do we deal with the translation issues involved in vv. 15-16?

Mobley notes that “the text of 15a is difficult and the translation uncertain.” Thus, while the NRSV translates it as “Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his,” it also offers the alternative rendering of “Has he not made one? And a remnant of spirit was his.”

“The MT [Hebrew wording] reads literally at the beginning 'and not one he has made and a remainder of spirit to him'. This conveys no sense. The 'one' might mean God as the RSV concludes in its rendering 'the one God'. On the other hand, since the negation 'not' seems to be closely linked with the word 'one', the translation could be 'nobody.' A question surrounds the meaning of ruah here which might signify 'Spirit' or 'life' or 'passion.'..The meaning is not clear. Word for word rendering here is probably the best policy in order to avoid expressing in translation a biased exegesis. In the final clause the MT has 'woman of your youth'. The suff[ix] does not fit into this context and can easily be explained as influenced by v. 14 'wife of your covenant'. Thus, in v. 15 read 'wife of his youth.” (Hulst)

In a similar vein, R.L. Smith states, “It is generally admitted that this passage contains many textual problems. R.C. Dentan wrote about v 15, 'In Hebrew this is one of the most obscure verses in the entire Old Testament. Almost every word raises a question.'”

What is the relationship between verses 10-12 and 13-16?

The first issue to address in this category is whether there really is any close relationship between these adjacent verses since most modern English translations delineate them as separate paragraphs. In favor of seeing a unity between the two are the following factors:

The word Yahweh, generally rendered as “the LORD,” appears exactly seven times (the symbolic number for perfection) in the overall passage.

“Covenant” appears in both halves of the passage (vv. 10,14).

Both halves end with the phrase “LORD of hosts.”

In addition, R.L. Smith points out that the same Hebrew word translated variously as “faithless,” “deceitful,” or “treacherous” appears as a verb in Malachi 2:10, 11, 14, 15, and 16.

Verhoef notes, “Since the time of Jerome interpreters have conceded that this pericope, in its present form, is concerned with two interrelated malpractices: mixed marriages (vv. 10-12) and divorce (vv. 13-16). It is important to note that the typical dialogue style of Malachi presupposes the unity of this pericope: the initial question in v. 10 is not repeated in v. 13, but it has a bearing on the whole passage.”

But it should be pointed out that even if the two passages are interrelated, that does not necessarily indicate that both deal with the exact same subject. Thus, for example, one could easily refer to literal marriage and divorce, and the other with the relationship between Israel and God.

In conclusion, this is a passage which will probably continue to exercise the creativity of generations of Bible scholars to come

 

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?”