ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) AND GOD

The July/August issue of Christianity Today magazine is mostly devoted to essays involving issues brought up by the rise in popularity of artificial intelligence. That prompted me to ask Google AI a number of random theological questions just to see what it would spit out. The results were as expected, as you can read below.

Q. Does man have free will?

    A. “The concept of free will is a complex and debated topic.”

Q. Was Jesus divine?

    A. Yes, within the Christian faith, Jesus is believed to be divine.”

Q. Is it true that Jesus existed?

    A. “Yes, historical evidence suggests that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.”

Q. Is there life after death?

    A. “The concept of life after death is a fundamental question explored across cultures and religions, with no single definition.”

Q. How did life on earth begin?

    A. “The beginning of life on earth is a profound mystery, but current scientific understanding suggests...”

Q. How could the universe start from nothing?

    A. “The universe's origin from 'nothing' is a complex topic that challenges our everyday understanding.”

Q. Are all Roman Catholics going to hell”

    A. “Based on Catholic teachings, the answer is not all Catholics are going to hell.”

Q. Who wrote the book of 1 Timothy?

    A. “The Apostle Paul is traditionally considered the author?”

There was a little more to each AI reply, but the opening words I have quoted will give you a good idea of what the rest was like. As you can see, the not-quite-yet omnipotent AI generally provided wishy-washy replies opting out of making any judgment call. And in other cases, it turned the question over to what he/she/it felt was the best authority to answer it.

Thus, in questioning it on a matter involving Catholicism, AI let Catholic beliefs determine the best reply. Similarly, when asked about Jesus' divinity, it let the consensus within Christianity answer. And then it turned over the answer to “tradition” when asked about a question of biblical authorship. In all of these instances, it is sort of like a judge asking a suspected felon if he is guilty or innocent and then abiding by that person's answer.

In fact, there were only two of the queries above that were answered with any sort of assurance. And even then, not all people would be satisfied with the reply since both relied on one's confidence in the particular sources of the authority. I am speaking about what historians feel regarding the historical Jesus and what current science has to say regarding the beginning of life.

I don't know if these AI responses are an improvement or not on the old pre-AI opening replies to questions on Google. For example, when asked, “Is there a God?” pre-AI Google still states, “Theism, the proposition that God exists, is the dominant view among philosophers of religion. In a 2020 PhilPapers survey, 69.50% of philosophers of religion stated that they accept or lean towards theism, while 19.86% stated they accept or lean towards atheism.” At least this reply cites its original source, even though (1) there is still reliance on a biased and/or atypical population and (2) it commits the well known fallacy of counting evidence instead of weighing it.

It was this latter fault that gave rise to the “Authorized Version” of the King James Bible by which scholars at the time determined which of the variations in the available Greek manuscripts to use as the basis of their translation. They adopted the “Majority Text,” meaning that they counted all the available manuscripts at the time which read a particular way for each verse and went by the majority rule. By contrast, today's translators tend to assign much greater importance to the earliest manuscripts due to the known tendency for more and more errors in copying to appear as a document is recopied and recopied.

I realize that Google's current AI is still in its infancy, but all such attempts tend to discourage those who are interested in really learning more from going back to the original sources in order to (1) determine the scholarly background of the various authors behind the “majority view,” (2) look for any possible biases those authors may have, (3) and to investigate and weigh the reasons they give for their conclusion. So much of what AI spits out is also highly dependent on which algorithm the computer programmers happen to adopt, and that algorithm is rarely made public for anyone to independently assess its validity to adequately address difficult questions unless they involve black-and-white areas that can be easily quantified.

It is well known that the “majority view” on practically any subject, particularly theology, has changed drastically just in the last hundred years or so. Liberal biblical scholarship coming out of the mainstream denominational seminaries around 1900 would overwhelmingly favor one set of answers to the questions above. But since that time, more conservative Bible scholars are in the ascendant in publishing their views and would give a much different set of answers to those same questions. Thus, the majority view really is meaningless to talk about, since it is so dependent on which population of “experts” you choose to poll and which ones you chose to exclude. That would take a value judgment, something for which no one person or committee is qualified to do, and certainly not an artificial intelligence machine, at least not for the foreseeable future.

Since AI is such a current subject of interest, I will write two more short posts attempting to share my own opinions and experience on two related issues: AI and human beings and AI as a replacement for God.

JOB 22

Before considering this particular chapter in Job, a general comment concerning the prolonged dialogues between Job and is friends is in order. Thus, Childs says: “One of the most difficult aspects of the entire book of Job is in determining the place of the dialogues...The context of a wisdom dialogue does not establish the truth of everything which Job says nor the falsity of the friends' arguments. There is no touchstone offered. Rather extreme positions, ad hominem arguments, and visceral reactions are all recorded in the debate. The reader is only informed of the results of the dialogue. The friends were not able to sustain their case against Job...”

As Job's friends continue their dialogue and come to the third round of encounters, they tend to take off their kid gloves and start directly accusing Job of having sins which are the cause of all his problems. Thus, in this chapter even the earlier mild Eliphaz is caught up in the blame game. But the thrust of his argument is sometimes a little difficult hard to follow. Often it is helpful in trying to understand Scripture to look at the paragraphing proposed in various English translations and Bible commentaries so that the flow of a speaker's thought becomes more evident. In this case, what we find is shown below:

Source                  Divisions (verses)

NIV                      1-3   4-11     12-20                           21-30

Heavenor              1-5     6-20                                       21-30

Living Bible         1-5     6-11  12-14    15-20               21-25     26-30

The Message        1-11            12-14     15-18   19-20   21-25    26-30

TEV                     1-11            12-14     15-20               21-30

And finally, RSV, Hartley, JB, Clines, and NRSV all divide the passage into three parts: 1-11, 12-20, and 21-30. Note that all but one of the other translations also accept these three divisions, with possible sub-section breaks after verses 5, 14, and/or 25. There is also good justification for the first two of these subdivisions since verses 1-5 and 12-14 are set apart by the number of rhetorical questions found in both (4 to 7 each, depending on the English translation). Thus, this basic tripartite scheme is probably a good place to start. Hartley labels them, respectively, Accusations; Disputation Concerning God's Activity; and Call to Repentance.

Accusations (Job 22:1-11)

We will start with comments from several scholars regarding the first three verses of this section:

    “The point of the argument seems to be that God can have no ulterior motive in dealing with Job, since there is nothing Job can do to benefit Him.” (Pope)

    “Eliphaz proceeds to demonstrate that there must be some reason for human affliction. The key cannot be found in God...The explanation must be sought, therefore, in man. Is Job being punished for piety? Inconceivable! Then he must be paying for wickedness...In his situation., the aloof God in the icy altitudes of His remote heaven could not be concerned in His own person about human virtue or vice.” (Heavenor)

    “Job had suggested that the wicked had dismissed piety as an unprofitable enterprise (21.5). Eliphaz now defends God, maintaining that the deity has no need of any mortal and does not profit from anyone's piety.” (Seow)

    “In his role as the self-appointed upholder of a lofty form of theism, Eliphaz stretches a truth to the absurd. Surely God does not need man (the word suggests a strong, vigorous man) or even a wise man [such as, for example, himself]...The friend implies a doctrine of an impassive deity, which is quite contrary to Biblical thought (Hos ch. 9; Is. 62.5; Lk. 15.7).” (Terrien)

The problem with Eliphaz's comments is that he does not have the benefit we do of reading the introductory chapters of Job in which it is clearly revealed that God does take an almost inordinate interest in the actions of his creation. Since Deism (one of the most popular religious beliefs among the founding fathers of the American Revolution) proposes a God who set the world in motion and then sat back and had no further interaction with or interest in it, Eliphaz would have been right at home in their philosophical discussions.

Then concerning the litany of faults of which Eliphaz accuses Job, the following scholars weigh in:

    “This list of faults [vv. 6-9] with which Eliphaz falsely taxes Job is notable for its insistence on sins against justice and charity towards others, even by omission.” (Jerusalem Bible)

    “The specific charges leveled against Job are crimes perpetrated by the rich: avarice and callousness to the needs of the poor.” (Seow)

    Clines says, “Eliphaz...apparently accuses Job of untold wickedness (5), mainly of the nature of social injustice (6-9). These are the most specific, most harsh, and most unjust words spoken against Job in the whole book, and it is strange to find them on the lips of Eliphaz, of all the friends.” Clines feels that perhaps Job is being criticized for passive, not active sins, i.e. he failed to address these various societal wrongs when he could have done something to prevent them.”

Bullock addresses this apparent change in attitude on Eliphaz's part as follows: “In the clearest and most caustic indictment yet, the once gentle Eliphaz recapitulated argument from his initial speech, adding a liberal touch of sarcasm...In his original speech Eliphaz had acknowledged Job's benevolent conduct (4:3-4), but now the intervening arguments and emotions had come so to dominate his objectivity that he was fully convinced that Job had required illegal pledges and taken undue advantage of the poor generally (22:6-9). Eliphaz's theological system had overpowered his objectivity. He now disbelieved what experience had once validated.”

Years ago at a church I was attending at the time, I experienced an interesting example of a quite gentle man expressing a harsh and unexpected statement regarding others. We were walking from one part of the church to another when, out of the clear blue, he made the observation that although Hitler was thoroughly evil, he did do one good thing while he was alive, namely, round up and exterminate all the gays he could locate. So I personally see no contradiction in Eliphaz seemingly swinging from one end of the spectrum to the other on occasion.

Disputation (Job 22:12-20)

Eliphaz begins his argument in in verses 12-14 in a most unfair manner to Job, as commentators seem to agree:

“Eliphaz's insinuation that Job thinks God does not see is contradicted by Job's own words; cf. vii 19, v 6,14, xiv 3,6.” (Pope)

“The claim that God is too far removed to know what is happening on earth is elsewhere attributed to the wicked...Here Eliphaz appears to be distorting the arguments of Job, who had in fact only affirmed God's ability to see and to know what is on earth (cf. 7.19-20; 14.3; 16.9).” (Seow)

The following words in this section are fraught with problems. Terrien notes that vv. 17-18 are almost identical with those of Job in 21:14-16; perhaps Eliphaz is quoting in order to rebuke.” And Heavenor adds: “Many scholars treat these verses as an insertion. They strongly remind us of the words of Job in 21:7-16 (see especially vv. 14 and 16). 18a sounds especially strange on the lips of Eliphaz and 19 certainly follows v. 16 much more smoothly than it does v. 18.” Despite Heavenor's comments, all modern translations of which I am aware treat these “dubious” words as authentic.

Eliphaz continues his unfair accusations against Job in vv. 17-18. As Seow says, “Job's own characterization of the attitude of the wicked (21.14-16) is taken out of context and represented as Job's own perspective.”

Call to Repentance (Job 22:21-30)

And now for a change of pace, “The mild spirit of Eliphaz breaks through the fire-and-brimstone preaching, in a passage full of beauty and spiritual truth.” (Heavenor)

Eliphaz begins this new section with what Pope labels as “essentially the same as the ancient Sumerian view, that a man in straits like Job had no recourse or hope except to bow to his fate and importune the god to reverse his fortunes.”

Regarding the final verse in this chapter, Pope says: “This verse has been a vexation to exegetes.” The reason for his statement is that we run into a textual and translation problem in v. 30 in that some versions such as RSV opt for reading “innocent man” ('et naqi) while others prefer to stick with the Hebrew wording of 'i naqi (“him that is not innocent”). (Hulst) Supporting the Hebrew version, NRSV simply translates the verse with the words: “He will deliver even those who are guilty; they will escape because of the cleanness of your hands.” This makes perfect sense, respects the Hebrew original, has OT precedents in stories of the intercession by godly leaders with God on behalf of sinners, and sets the stage for Christ's atoning death.

Pope agrees with this assessment and says, “The idea that a righteous man...had great influence with God, even to the point of nullifying a divine decree, or saving the wicked out of consideration for the righteous, is implicit in the story of Abram's plea on behalf of Sodom, Gen xvii 21-33.”

Despite Eliphaz's best intentions at this point, I can't help wondering how Job received this advice. After all, his friend still did not at all believe Job's protestations of innocence and only held out the hope expressed in these last verses if and only if he will only confess his wicked deeds, whatever they might be. My own feeling is that Job received Eliphaz's words as cold comfort at best.

I was once in a somewhat similar situation when my wife and I were having trouble with a family member. Without revealing the identity of this problem relative or sharing the details, my wife sent out a prayer request to our closest friends and relatives. All of them but one were very encouraging, but one relative who lived across country and whom we hadn't really communicated with for years unexpectedly gave us a phone call in the evening. He sounded quite excited and announced to us that he had the answer to solving our problem. It turned out that the night before he had attended a Bible study in which the pastor had explained that any time we had any trouble in our personal life, it all stemmed from our own rebellion against God. Therefore all we needed to do is admit our sin and repent and all our problems would be solved.

I don't think it even crossed his mind that he was in effect judging us with no knowledge of the facts as being rebels against God. Perhaps that was what was behind meek and mild Eliphaz's advice to Job; he thought he was helping out Job the best way he knew how.

SHUFFLING GENESIS

Some time ago I posted several articles starting with the word “shuffling” in which I discussed those cases in which Bible scholars and English translations purposely rearranged the order of verses within a book of the Bible even though there was no manuscript evidence to support such changes. But in that survey I inadvertently overlooked the Book of Genesis. So here are those few cases where such changes in the text have been made:

Genesis 47:1-6

The Jerusalem Bible chooses to change the order of verses 5-6 to vv. 5a – 6b – 5b – 6a. There is really no drastically different meaning between this order and that found in the standard Hebrew text, and JB gives no reason for such a rearrangement. However, this proposed change does have the merit of being supported by the Septuagint, the earliest Greek rendering of the Hebrew original. The same cannot be said, however, for the following example.

Genesis 26:15-21

Without any manuscript warrant for doing so, the New English Bible rearranged these verses by moving v. 18 to a position directly following v. 15. No explanation is given for such a move other than it appeared to be to the translators' way of “improving” upon the Hebrew text. The problem with such unwarranted tampering with the text is that some modern scholars are apparently confident that they can (1) fully understand what the authors were trying to convey and (2) do a better job of it themselves.

That may have made some sense except for the fact that many modern scholars are thoroughly conditioned to the usual Western way of thinking in which writings generally present ideas in a strictly logical order of progression and give all historical facts in perfect chronological order. Neither one of these imperatives is nearly as important to the biblical authors as a literary arrangement of the text in which symmetrical structures are formed.

With that background, consider the present arrangement of this passage, which describes a dispute between the Israelites and a neighboring territory over well rights. It can be easily diagrammed as shown in Figure 1:

                                     Figure 1: Literary Symmetry in Genesis 26:15-21

1. Isaac is fruitful (vv. 12-14) [“in that land”]

        2. Philistines had stopped up the wells (v. 15) [“in the days of Abraham”]

                3. Abimelech tells Isaac to go away (v. 16)

                3'. Isaac goes away (v. 17)

        2'. Isaac digs up wells that were stopped up (v. 18) [“in the days of Abraham”]

1'. Isaac is fruitful (vv. 19-21) [“in the land”]

You can see from the above that if one moves v. 18 so that it follows v. 15 in a “more logical” order, the above symmetry is completely destroyed.

And although it has no real bearing on the order of verses 15-18, it is of some interest that this narrative in Genesis 26 matches up symmetrically with events later in chapter 34 according to the structural scheme I presented in an earlier post. Fishbane has previously analyzed the various elements that go into that latter story. With a small adjustment to these elements, we can see how they match up in reverse order to the same elements present in Genesis 26:

                          Figure 2: Reverse Parallelism Between Genesis 26 and Genesis 34

1. Deception with backflash (26:6-11)

        2. Disagreement with covenant (26:12-33)

                Conclusion: Family discord (26:34-35)

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

        2'. Disagreement with covenant (34:1-24)

1''. Deception with backflash (34:25-29)

                Conclusion: Family discord (34:30-31)

This is but another one of many other examples of events in Genesis being narrated out of chronological and logical order in a literary pattern so as to better bring up parallels in the history of Israel.

Shuffling genesis

Some time ago I posted several articles starting with the word “shuffling” in which I discussed those cases in which Bible scholars and English translations purposely rearranged the order of verses within a book of the Bible even though there was no manuscript evidence to support such changes. But in that survey I inadvertantly overlooked the Book of Genesis. So here are those few cases where such changes in the text have been made:

Genesis 47:1-6

The Jerusalem Bible chooses to change the order of verses 5-6 to vv. 5a – 6b – 5b – 6a. There is really no drastically different meaning between this order and that found in the standard Hebrew text, and JB gives no reason for such a rearrangement. However, this proposed change does have the merit of being supported by the Septuagint, the earliest Greek rendering of the Hebrew original. The same cannot be said, however, for the following example.

Genesis 26:15-21

Without any manuscript warrant for doing so, the New English Bible rearranged these verses by moving v. 18 to a position directly following v. 15. No explanation is given for such a move other than it appeared to be to the translators' way of “improving” upon the Hebrew text. The problem with such unwarranted tampering with the text is that some modern scholars are apparently confident that they can (1) fully understand what the authors were trying to convey and (2) do a better job of it themselves.

That may have made some sense except for the fact that many modern scholars are thoroughly conditioned to the usual Western way of thinking in which writings generally present ideas in a strictly logical order of progression and give all historical facts in perfect chronological order. Neither one of these imperatives is nearly as important to the biblical authors as a literary arrangement of the text in which symmetrical structures are formed.

With that background, consider the present arrangement of this passage, which describes a dispute between the Israelites and a neighboring territory over well rights. It can be easily diagrammed as shown in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Literary Symmetry in Genesis 26:15-21

1. Isaac is fruitful (vv. 12-14) [“in that land”]

2. Philistines had stopped up the wells (v. 15) [“in the days of Abraham”]

3. Abimelech tells Isaac to go away (v. 16)

3'. Isaac goes away (v. 17)

2'. Isaac digs up wells that were stopped up (v. 18) [“in the days of Abraham”]

1'. Isaac is fruitful (vv. 19-21) [“in the land”]

You can see from the above that if one moves v. 18 so that it follows v. 15 in a “more logical” order, the above symmetry is completely destroyed.

And although it has no real bearing on the order of verses 15-18, it is of some interest that this narrative in Genesis 26 matches up symmetrically with events later in chapter 34 according to the structural scheme I presented in an earlier post. Fishbane has previously analyzed the various elements that go into that latter story. With a small adjustment to these elements, we can see how they match up in reverse order to the same elements present in Genesis 26:

Figure 2: Reverse Parallelism Between Genesis 26 and Genesis 34

1. Deception with backflash (26:6-11)

2. Disagreement with covenant (26:12-33)

Conclusion: Family discord (26:34-35)

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

2'. Disagreement with covenant (34:1-24)

1'. Deception with backflash (34:25-29)

Conclusion: Family discord (34:30-31)

This is but another one of many other examples of events in Genesis being narrated out of chronological and logical order in a literary pattern so as to better bring up parallels in the history of Israel.

Finally, of the commentaries I consulted on Genesis 26, only Wenham had anything to say at all regarding the position of v. 18, and he simply calls that verse “an introduction [to vv. 18-22] looking back to vv. 12-17. Other than that, the only other place in which I could find verses 15 or 18 highlighted in any manner was to note that NRSV keeps the Hebrew order of the verses but places v. 15 in

 

WHAT DID JACOB SEE IN GENESIS 32-33?

 

                            Night Wrestling (10" x 10" collage)

This is a key passage in more than one way for Jacob. Here he returns to his native land after many years of absence; and, more importantly, it is in these chapters that the patriarch begins his process of changing from Jacob the schemer to Israel, the father of a country. As Fokkelman puts it, “Jacob...must now face what he has been able to evade for twenty years: his past as a fraud, his bad conscience toward his brother. The imminent confrontation with Esau puts him in a moral pressure cooker and forces him to pass through a process of maturation at an accelerated rate.”

I have already discussed this passage in two posts (“Genesis 32:22-32” and “Genesis 32-33: Jacob and Esau Reunite”). However, there is one recurring theme throughout these chapters which still needs emphasizing, namely, the repeated times in the text in which Jacob “saw” something or someone.

Genesis 32:1-2

Interestingly, this return trip to his homeland is first marked by a vision of angels, just as Jacob was treated to another angelic vision as he was leaving the land earlier. Both visions appear to be associated with God's assurance that He would be with him.

“The angels or heavenly host constituted God's army (Jos. 5.13-15; 2 Kg. 6.17).” (Dentan)

Kline states that “the two armies referred to by the name mahanaim are possibly the angels and Jacob's company. If 32:11ff belongs chronologically within the course of events described in vv. 3ff, the two armies might be the angels and Esau's force.”

Hamilton questions whether this is a dream, a vision, or a face-to-face encounter on Jacob's part. Whatever the case, he notes the similarities with Genesis 28 when Jacob was leaving the Holy Land in terms of the place being named God's abode, occurrence of the same naming formula, and the rare use of the plural 'angels of God.'

Genesis 32:20-21

Dentan points out that “Jacob had feared to see Esau's face (v. 20; 33:10), but instead he saw God face to face and was allowed to live (16:13; Ex. 33:20).” Carr and B.W. Anderson echo these words almost exactly in their separate writings.

“To 'see the face' is to gain acceptance to one's presence.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Wenham: “Peniel means literally 'face of God' (32:31-32), and since Esau's face is compared to God's in 33:10, presumably 32:21 anticipates Peniel too.”

Averbeck offers this literal translation of Genesis 32:20 – “I will wipe [kippur] his [angry] face clean with the gifts that go before me.”

“He [i.e. Jacob] refers to that event by saying, I have seen God face-to-face, a statement all the more remarkable given that it happened during the night at the bottom of a dark gorge...The reference to the visual act also anticipates 33:10: 'I see your face as one sees the face of God.' The expression face-to-face need not be confined to literal visual perception. In an idiomatic fashion it refers 'to the direct, nonmediated (i.e. immediate) character of a manifestation of presence. It describes a 'person-to-person' encounter, without the help or hindrance of an intermediate.'” (Hamilton, quoting Terrien)

Ross says: “Seeing God was something no one survived (Gen 48:16; Exod. 19:21; 24:10; Judg. 6:11, 22; chap. 13). But this appearance of the man guaranteed deliverance for the patriarch. God has come as close to Jacob as was imaginable. Jacob explained, 'I have seen God face to face and I have been delivered.' His prayer for deliverance (Gen 32:10-13) was answered. Meeting God face to face meant that he could now look Esau directly in the eye.”

Genesis 32:30-31

Chisholm: “The narrator, assuming Jacob's initial perspective, identifies God as 'a man', but by the story's end Jacob was certain he had encountered God 'face to face'. However, a later tradition suggests Jacob wrestled with an angel (Hos. 12:4); the relationship between the two traditions is complex.” In another writing, Chisholm adds, “Perhaps Jacob's words in Gen 48:15-16, where he appears to refer to God as an 'angel,' influenced the tradition expressed in Hosea.”

Kline says that the man “was the captain of the Lord's host...The divine Adversary was also the electing-saving Lord who strengthened Jacob with grace.”

Foulkes: “Jacob...wrestles with a 'man,' but his struggle in the darkness proves to be with one more than human. The Hebrew elohim most frequently means God, but the interpretation of Hos 12:4 is possible, 'He struggled with the angel.' Yet, in effect it could be said to Jacob, 'You have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.'”

“Though the identity of this adversary is never revealed, he is more than a human opponent, exhibiting divine characteristics...Jacob apparently believed his opponent to be divine, since he named the place Peniel, on the rationale 'I have seen God face to face' (Gen 32:30 RSV). Most interpreters throughout the history of the church have therefore suggested that Jacob's opponent was an angelic emissary, an interpretation confirmed by the statement in Hosea that Jacob 'strove with God. He strove with the angel and prevailed' (Hos 12:3-4).” (DBI)

Kaiser attempts to settle the question by stating: “It thus appears that the 'man' or 'angel' with whom Jacob wrestled was Jesus himself, in a temporary incarnate form prior to his permanent enfleshment when he came to earth as a human baby. This is consistent with other places in the Old Testament where the 'angel of the Lord' can be identified as the second person of the Trinity.”

B.W. Anderson: “Jacob had feared to see Esau's face (v. 20; 33:10), but instead he saw God face to face and was allowed to live (16.13; Ex. 33.20).”

“Elsewhere (v 32; Judg 8:8-9, 17; 1 Kgs 12:25) Peniel is called Penuel. The form Peniel may be used here because it sound like 'face of God' [in Hebrew].” (Wenham)

And for a decidedly minority opinion, Wakely explains that “Westermann, however, argues strongly that Gen 32:30 does not constitute sufficient ground for understanding the narrative as a whole as an encounter between God and Jacob. The attacker, he continues, is not God but the hostile river demon who wants to stop Jacob from crossing.”

Similarly, Ross points out: “From the time of Jerome, many have understood the passage to portray long and earnest prayer...Jewish literature, however, recognizes that an actual fight is at the heart of the story,” identifying the man as a prince, chieftain, or angel of Esau. “The passage has proved problematic for critical analysis as well.”

Genesis 33:1,5

These two matched statements differ from others in this chapter in that they refer to a more mundane sort of seeing – purely human encounters. In both cases, the identical two Hebrew words for “looked up and saw” are utilized. In the first of these verses Jacob sees Esau's approaching company and recognizes only a hostile army of men. By contrast, Esau looks up to see Jacob's large retinue and recognizes only his own extended family. Esau comes off as the much more noble character in this encounter.

Genesis 33:10

Carr connects Jacob's words here with those in 32:30-31 since in both cases God “proved to be gracious” to him.

Ross says, “Having already contended with one is ('man'), Jacob now has to face four hundred of them.” But regarding his statement after meeting Esau, “Jacob ties together his meeting with God in ch. 32 with his meeting with Esau in ch. 33 by just to see your face is like seeing God's face...Of course, Jacob is not saying that Esau has undergone a metamorphosis, or that he exudes a divine luminescence. The surprise in ch. 32 is that Jacob saw God, and yet his life was spared. The surprise in ch. 33 is that Jacob has seen Esau, and yet his life is spared.”

“Jacob recognized through Esau's reconciled countenance that the God of Peniel was making His face shine upon him.” (Kline)

“The name Peniel / Penuel signifies 'the face of God', reminding Jacob that he had not need to fear Esau when he was in the place of God's presence...Ch. 33 is undoubtedly intended to mirror 32:22-38; it is no coincidence that Jacob describes Esau's face as like the face of God (10); cf. 32:30.” (D.F. Payne)

Wenham says, “The full and free forgiveness that Esau displays toward his deceitful brother is, as Jacob himself recognizes, a model of divine love, 'for I have seen your face, which is like seeing the face of God, and you have accepted me (v 10). Indeed Jesus seems to allude to this scene when he describes the father of the prodigal son greeting his return...(Luke 15:20).”

Conclusion

Without going to the trouble of attempting to plot all the intricate connections tying together the above key “seeing” passages in Genesis 32-33, I think that a brief consideration of all these cited comments will easily demonstrate that the whole concept of looking and perceiving is the common factor behind both chapters.

THE DEVOURER EARTH IN THE BIBLE

 

The Devourer Earth in the Bible

One theme throughout Scripture which I decided to follow consists of those passages in which the earth is personified as a hungry or thirsty person. Below are some of the verses I found in the order in which they appear, along with a few related comments:

Exodus 15:12

In a striking case of anthropomorphism, Moses says to God, “You thrust out your right hand, the earth gulped them down” in regard to the drowning of Pharaohs' army in the Red Sea. Durham explains that “the victory hymn of Moses and Miriam is far more than merely a hymn of Yahweh's victory over Pharaoh and his Egyptians in the sea. Its point of departure is that, without question. But the poem of Exod 15 is more a celebration of Yahweh than a celebration of one of his great victories. Indeed, it is more a celebration of Yahweh and the kind of God he is than a celebration of all that Yahweh had done at the sea and would do beyond it, in the wilderness, in Canaan, and in Jerusalem.”

Knight brings up an important point to understanding all of these references: “Here, as in Babylonian and Canaanite literature, 'the earth' may refer to the realm of the dead, viz. Sheol, since there is no definite article on the noun...God's wrath is here directed at Egypt. But if it had been directed at Israel, the latter too would have been swallowed up in the Underworld, Num. 26:10. God is no respecter of persons.”

Numbers 13:32

This verse is part of the report of the spies sent into the Promised Land. As Ashley says, “The land itself devours its inhabitants, a vivid word-picture not designed to instill confidence. Whether this phrase means that the land was infertile, or unstable, warlike, unforgiving, or even comparable to Sheol, the real point is that the phrase is designed rhetorically to frighten the people, and win them to the majority view.”

“While there are several ways to understand this phrase, it is ironic that God later causes the wilderness, not the promised land, to devour Korah and his followers as the earth literally opens up and they 'go down alive into Sheol' (16:30,33).” (Stubbs)

Wenham says, “They claim it 'eats' its inhabitants (32), that is, they tend to die due to the hostile environment (Lv. 26:38; Ezk. 36:13). For a similar personification of the land, cf. Leviticus 18:25,28.”

This last reference refers to passages in which Moses warned the people against the land vomiting them out.

Numbers 16:32-34

“First, the abhorrence of God for the sins of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram must not be missed. They are symbols of a type of religious leadership that is in stark contrast to the ways of God...they really have rejected the ways of God and instead subscribed to a style and understanding of leadership that is ultimately about power, position, and envious desire for them. It is frightening how easily disguised such intentions can be and how difficult it is for leaders, especially leaders of the people of God, to sift through even their own intentions.” (Stubbs)

Numbers 26:9-10

“The description of what happens to these rebels in v. 10 shows verbal reminiscences of 16:32, 35, but adds an important element when it claims that the deaths of Korah and his 250 men became a warning sign (wayyehilenes).” (Ashley)

Deuteronomy 11:6

In comparing this verse with vv. 4-5 and 6, Weinfeld states: “God saved Israel not only from the enemies outside [referring to the Exodus deliverance] but also from the enemies within. These were also destroyed in a miraculous way, the earth swallowed them up; cf. Num 16.”

“The contrast between the Exodus and the rebellion is striking and relevant to the address of Moses. The Exodus had been the beginning of new life for Israel; the rebellion had led to the death of many and almost to the destruction of all the Israelites (Num. 16:45). The lessons of the past, therefore, stressed both the grace of God and the judgment of God...” (Craigie)

“The lesson was, of course, that refusal to acknowledge the man whom God appointed leader was equivalent to rejection of God Himself.” (Thompson)

Psalm 106:17

“The second main stanza of the psalm's body [vv. 13-23] focuses on the people's sins during the first stage in the wilderness and at Mount Horeb (Sinai)...The psalm…recounts events familiar from the pentateuchal narrative – the people's fear of dyng of thirst/hunger and testing God (cf. Exodus 15-17; Numbers 14), the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram (cf. Numbers 16), and the casting of the golden calf at Horeb (cf. Exodus 32). As is the case with interpreting Psalm 105, the point is not to attempt to harmonize the order and description of these sins with the descriptions in the Pentateuch, but to grasp how the recounting of these failings contributes to the witness of the psalm. The history of the people's fragile fidelity is recounted in order to bear witness to the Lord's fidelity in showing mercy.” (Jacobson)

Mabie: “The image of destruction is...employed to speak of the end of those who are far from God (Ps 73:27) and even of God's people who persist in unfaithfulness (Ps 80:3-16; also Ps 106:17-18 with Num 16:30-33)...”

And as to the the image of the earth opening up, The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery explains, “The action of opening something, or something being opened, is ubiquitous in the Bible. To open is an archetypal act mentioned well over two hundred times...God opens what he wills:...the very earth itself (Num 26:10; Ps 106:17).”

Isaiah 45:8

The second half of this verse reads, “Open up, earth, and let salvation sprout, and make righteousness spring up with it.” Oswalt explains that “if the poet wants to associate God's natural creation with his creation of salvation in history, what would be more natural than to call on the heavens to let fall raindrops of righteousness, and the earth to make salvation sprout up?”

“Israel's joy is represented by symbols that are related to clothing and farming (vv. 10-11)...Her beauty symbolizes salvation and righteousness, terms that are also joined together in 45:8; 46:13; 56:1; 59:16. 'Righteousness' is mentioned again in verse 11, this time in relation to the image about the growth of seeds and plants that borrow from 45:8. Just as surely as the rain makes the ground fertile, so God will cause 'righteousness and praise' to 'spring up' (v. 16). When He delivered His people from the bondage of exile, God would set things right.” (Wolf)

And as to the historical background to this verse, Bright notes, “To the kings whom Cyrus defeats and deposes (2-3) what happens is darkness and evil; but it is the work of Yahweh, not of some power independent of him. The thought of this sovereignty leads to the exclamation of v. 8. The verse does not simply identify the conquests of Cyrus with righteousness and victory; but the conquests are the achievement of the will of Yahweh, for they lead to the restoration of Israel. They initiate a new era of Yahweh's providence.”

Isaiah 49:19

“The destroyers, those who swallowed you up, are gone, and in their place are so many inhabitants that the once empty land is overflowing. Just imagination? No, the oath of God.” (Oswalt)

I Corinthians 15:54

“In the end God will eliminate death from his world, swallowing up the great swallower once and for all (Is. 25:6-8).” (DBI)

Ciampa and Rosner discuss the use of Isaiah 25:8 in this NT verse: “In Paul's mind, the final destruction of death requires the resurrection of the dead. In citing Isaiah's eschatological vision, Paul ties God's triumph over death (and God's universal salvation) to the resurrection of the body. For Paul, resurrection is the necessary outcome of what God has done in Christ and what he intends to do for his people.”

Revelation 12:16

There continues to be some controversy among the various schools of eschatology regarding when this event will occur. Thus we have the following opinions:

Hendricksen says that Satan “directs his fury against the church because the church has brought forth the Christ...The devil cannot destroy her. This is the millennium of Rev. 20...To be sure, the evil one tries to engulf the church in a stream of lies, delusions, but the true church is not fooled.”

Mounce: “Historically the episode could refer to an attempt on the part of the authorities in Jerusalem to stamp out the early church (Acts 8:1-3). Or it could refer to the river of lies which will threaten even the elect (II Thess 2:9-11; Rev 13:14; Mt 24:24) in the last days...The opening of the earth to swallow the men of Korah (Num 16:30) may have suggested the imagery of verse 16, but sheds little light on its meaning.”

Phillips feels that the earth which comes to the aid of the woman refers to Gentiles in the last days who will come to help Israel. Similarly, Walvoord also treats the woman as the Israelites and says, “In some way God assists the Israelites so that they are not completely destroyed.”

Morris sees an allusion back to Exodus 15:12 in this verse: “In time of difficulty the Lord delivers His servants in one way on another.”

The comments of Beale and McDonough attempt to bring together several of the above OT themes in the following manner: “The swallowing of the flood by the earth is a further allusion to the exodus and Israel's wilderness experience. The 'earth swallowed' the Egyptians when they pursued Israel through the Red Sea (Exod. 15:12)...Also later in the wilderness, 'the earth opened up and swallowed' the families of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram because of their rebellion against Moses' leadership. This OT background is analogically applied to the church's wilderness sojourn in the world.”

Finally, one can see in the above review how the image of the earth opening up begins as an image of destruction for those rebelling against God's will, but by the time of Isaiah's writing it takes on a more positive meaning for God's people. And that is even though the first (Exodus 15) and last (Revelation 16) occurrences in the Bible both involve rushing water.

THE "UN-CREATION" OF THE WORLD (JEREMIAH 4:23-28; ZEPHANIAH 1:2-3)

The “Un-creation” of the World (Jeremiah 4:23-28; Zephaniah 1:2-3)

Of all the Old Testament prophecies, these two stand out in terms of their referral back to the days of the Creation story in Genesis 1-2. Marteus says, “The undoing of the present order of creation is graphically depicted by Jeremiah...In this heavy pulsing poetry, all that exists apparently is annihilated before the Lord's fierce anger (Jer: 26). Similarly Zephaniah described a creation that has become undone through a cosmic cataclysm in which all life, with allusions to the Genesis creation account, has been swept away...” Thus, we have the following comments from scholars regarding this apocalyptic event:

Jeremiah 4:23-28

Cawley and Millard: “It is the blast of God, the reversal of creation to the shapeless meaninglessness of Gn. 1:2.”

“Jeremiah 4:23-28 portrays the 'un-creation' of the world that reverses the creation story of Genesis 1.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Heiser states, “Scholars debate when these verses in Jeremiah were penned in relation to other passages securely assigned to the apocalyptic genre, but they agree that the language is consistent with an apocalyptic outlook. There could hardly be a more dramatic way to cast divine visitation.” But this raises the logical questions as to how literally the language should be understood and whether it truly refers to worldwide events, or just to those limited to Israel and its surroundings.

Thus we get the following comment from Peterson, who states that “in Jeremiah 4:22-29 the prophet pronounces judgment upon Judah using a de-creation process whereby the organized cosmos is presented as being 'formless and void' (tohu waboho), an obvious allusion to Genesis 1:2.” According to this figurative understanding, the language of Genesis is only being used as an exaggerated, poetic way to refer to specific judgment on the Holy Land.

Payne also recognizes the possible dual meaning to this passage and says, “Confessedly, this passage occurs in the center of predictions about the wars of 586 B.C.; but Jeremiah seems to see though, and beyond, the moment of Judah's destruction to a more distant scene...to the consummation.”

“It was as if the earth had been 'uncreated' and reverted to its erstwhile primeval chaos. Order seemed to return to confusion...Jeremiah's description here is one of the most dramatic of its kind in the entire OT.” (Thompson)

Bright says that “in this poem, which is one of the most powerful descriptions of the Day of Yahweh in all prophetic literature, one might say that the story of Genesis 1 has been reversed...It is, if one cares to put it so, a ruin of 'atomic' proportions.”

The next question concerns how strictly the author reverses the order of events in Genesis. D.R. Jones gives as his opinion, “The order of waste, light and heaven, earth (here in the process of being disturbed), man and birds is close enough to stir the listener to remember the well known day of creation, and to understand the oracle as pointing to the reversal of creation.” Thus, we have the following correspondence between the two passages proposed by Schnittjer with the addition of another parallel I see between v. 24 and Day 3 of creation.

                                                 Table 1: Jeremiah 4 and Genesis 1

Event                                         Jeremiah                                  Genesis

formless and empty                   v. 23a                                      before Day 1

heavens                                      v. 23b                                     Day 2

light                                           v. 23c                                      Day 1

mountains, trees                        v. 24                                        Day 3

humans                                      v. 25a                                      Day 6

birds                                          v. 25b                                      Day 5

land                                           vv. 26a-27                               Day 3

earth and heaven, light              v. 28                                       Day 1

Note how Jeremiah begins working in a reverse chronological order compared to the Genesis account, but then starting at v. 25a he starts to return again to Day 1 in an almost symmetrical manner. As Schnittjer says, “The oracle does not follow a strict sequence but generally moves backward through the creation days.”

Zephaniah 1:2-28

Allusions to the creation story are even stronger in this prophetic passage. Mobley states, “The scope of the destruction and the echoes of Genesis (cf. 1:2 with Gen 7:23; the sequence humans, animals, birds, fish reverses the order of Gen 1.20-26) suggesting the undoing of creation (cf. Jer 4.23-26).”

Becker: “God's control over all creation, to bless or to punish, is reflected in the deliberate description of those destined for destruction (1:2-3) in the words of the creation account (Gen. 1:20, 24-25, 26-28). In fact, their punishment could be seen as an 'uncreation', since the order of destruction in Zephaniah exactly reverses that of creation in Genesis. Since only he is creator and lord, Yahweh is jealous of his position as Israel's sole object of worship (1:4-6). In his battle for theocracy, the rule of God, he brooks no rivals.” With this comment we see again as in Jeremiah 4 that it is possible to interpret the images of global creation and destruction blending in with the pictured destruction of individuals and nations who oppose God's rule.

As to the order of events given in these two verses, Robertson overstates his case somewhat by stating, “The order in which items are listed for destruction is precisely the reverse of the order in which they appear in the creation narrative.”

In fact, Zephaniah 1 can be pictured as an ABA construction in which verses 2-3(or 2-5) and vv. 14-18 concerning universal events form a border around the intervening verses dealing more specifically and immediately with judgment on God's people. As J.T. Carson says regarding the King James translation of the key word in 1:18 as “land” rather than modern renderings as “earth,” there are regrettably “some who still think Zephaniah speaks only of Judah and Jerusalem. Some even suggest that v. 18b is not Zephaniah's phrase because of the universal destruction it visualizes. But...the near and the distant often merge as the prophets survey the horizon of events.” This is the same phenomenon noted earlier in the interpretations of Jeremiah 4:23-28.

R.L. Smith makes the identical point as to the dual nature of the Zephaniah oracle: “Poetry uses exalted and extravagant language and should not be pressed literally. The prophet is saying in vv 2-6 that God is about to bring judgment against the whole world, and that judgment will affect Judah and Jerusalem directly...A fuller description of the day of Yahweh is given in 1:14-18...It is the speed of Yahweh in which all the earth is included in the day of Yahweh (v 18). This universal element takes us back to the opening verse of the chapter where God is about to sweep away all flesh.”

Payne adds, “Zech 1:2-18...might suggest...earth's final destruction. But the immediate context moves in to the punishment of sinful Judah at the exile (v. 4) and concludes in v. 18 with the parallel words that therefore 'the whole land shall be devoured...He will make an end of all them that dwell in the land.' The phrase could also be rendered 'the whole earth'; and Keil...thus suggests that the prophecy 'here returns to its starting point,' meaning vv. 2-3, understood as the destruction of all the world.”

In terms of the precise order of events pictured in the more eschatological portions of Zechariah's prophecy, Schnittjer says the following, “Like his contemporary Jeremiah, Zephaniah uses terrifying reversal of creation imagery which echoes the creation tradition of Gen 1...The prophet's rhetoric situates divine wrath as a stylistic reversal of the creation days tradition...Zephaniah's oracle makes its prophecy relative to the later creation days in which water, heavens, and land are filled with light and life...Speaking against the rooftop worshipers of celestial lights in Zeph. 1:5 may suggest what he has in mind by the obscure phrase 'and that which causes the wicked to stumble' in 1:3, at the very place his audience expect day four – the celestial lights.”

Thus, if we plot the parallels between Zephaniah 1 and the Genesis creation story, the arrangement in Figure 2 below suggests itself. In it, the two bolded items act as bookends to the whole structure. Then in verses 3-5 the movement in Zephaniah is in reverse chronological order to that in creation, followed by Zephaniah 1:13-18 in which the recitation of judgments starts all over again but this time running in the same direction as in Genesis. Thus, neither in Zephaniah or Jeremiah can we see a strictly orderly arrangement, but both are highly suggestive of indicating an undoing the original creation in every aspect.

                                                Figure 2: Zephaniah 1 and Genesis 1-2

Event                                                         Zephaniah 1                      Genesis

nothing on the face of the earth             v. 2                                      1:1-2

humans                                                     v. 3a                                     1:26-28

animals                                                     v. 3b                                     1:24-25

birds                                                         v. 3c                                      1:21b

fish                                                           v. 3d                                      1:21a

host of heaven                                          v. 5                                        1: 14-19

vineyards and fruit                                   v. 13                                      1:11-13

darkness and gloom                                 v. 15                                      1:2-5

walk like the blind                                   v. 17a                                     1:2-5

blood poured out like dust                       v. 17b                                     2:7

gold and precious items                          v. 18a                                      2:11

earth consumed                                     v. 18b                                     1:1-2

 

AMOS 1-2: UNITY AND DIVERSITY

These prophecies are held together firmly by the same basic format employed in each. The theological import of this section, which ostensibly deals with the pagan nations, is to actually cast the light squarely on Israel's wrongdoings. The literary form serves to accomplish this in several ways.

“Thus says the LORD: 'For three transgressions of [name of country], and for four, I will not revoke the punishment.'”

This common opening formula “for three transgressions...and for four” creates an emotional intensity and climax associated with Yahweh reaching the end of his patience with the nations. (J.R. Davis)

Hicks says, “The expression for three transgressions...and for four indicates 'more than enough' (Job 33:14; Pr. 30.18).”

And the Jerusalem Bible notes: “These two numbers together indicate an indefinite quantity (small or large according to the context).” As additional examples of this literary device, Isaiah 17:6; Amos 4:8; and Jeremiah 36:23 are cited.

This opening formula is repeated exactly eight times. “There is no change whatever. What that means is that while the poet-prophet was free to vary from any repeated pattern, he was also free to stick with it without variation.” (Freedman)

McKenna feels that this familiar “x, x=1” formula indicates the nations had sinned “enough and more than enough” to call forth God’s wrath. Although there is no particular significance to the numbers 3 and 4 in this context, their usage prepares us subconsciously for a listing of seven nations in the series, when in fact there will be 7 + 1 with the last being the prophet’s major target: Israel herself. The opening formula “suggests a pattern of cumulation and surfeit in accordance with which Israel, in the larger scheme of the whole oration, is the supernumerary term,” to quote Marks.

Finally, Motyer states, “The numerical feature...probably signified that the measure of guiltiness is more than full...It also reveals the patience of God, who neither acts in haste or without cause, even delaying beyond the point where action was well justified.”

“because they/he...”

Next the reason(s) for God's judgment on the nation is given. The number of such transgressions varies from one to four, depending on the nation involved and whether one groups some sins together as the same particular type of transgression. But however one counts them, the most sins of all are listed for the last one – Israel herself. Motyer divides the transgressions of Judah into sins against society, God's revelation, and grace even though one can detect as many as ten separate offenses in 2:6-8.

One variation is worth noting here. In the Edom oracle (#4), the nation is personalized as “he” rather than the usual “they.” Carroll R explains: “The term brother can allude to the historic kinship relationship between Israel and Edom. This possibility is potentially viable because, unlike in the previous oracles, the pronominal suffix on the infinitive is singular (he pursued).” Thus, it takes us back to the conflict stories involving brothers Jacob and Esau.

That leaves only the use of “he” in the Moab oracle to explain, but commentators are hampered by not knowing the circumstances behind the particular event mentioned here. Carroll R says, “Although there is no textual evidence, some propose on metrical grounds that the name of a king has been dropped” and that he was the “he” being referred to in Amos 2:1b.

But another possibility, similar to that proposed for the Edom oracle above, is suggested by Campbell's designation of Moab as: “a nation whose affiliation with Israel may have been the closest of all her neighbors. This is indicated by the affinity of the Moabite language and writing tradition to Hebrew; by David's ancestry from the Moabite Ruth and his sending his parents for sanctuary in Moab (1 Sam. 22:3-5); by the legend of Moab's birth through the incestuous union of Lot and his elder daughter (Gen. 19:30-37); and by religious affinities to Yahwism portrayed in the Moabite Stone” as well as from the fact that Yahweh forbade Israel from attacking her in Deuteronomy 2:9.

“So I will send a fire”

The consequences of the nations' disobedience is then recounted in each case. Most of these involve God “sending a fire against the nation involved. Only in the eighth oracle is this phrase not utilized. And another variation is seen in the fifth oracle in which “kindle” is the verb rather than “send.”

Carroll R comments on this variation as well: “The term employed here [1:14] is different from that used in the other oracles...While some scholars are uncomfortable with this slight change, it is another instance of the stylistic diversity within the OAN [oracles against the nations]. Unity and coherence are maintained yet with occasional artistic variations...Sweeny says, 'The kindling of fire calls to mind the ease with which sparks will kindle dry brush at the edge of the Arabian desert'...Stanislav Segert suggests that this different expression was an intentional change to ascertain correct copying [by ancient Hebrew scribes].”

This small variation in wording has caused some scholars to declare the text is corrupt at this point, but Freedman wisely points out that an editor is much more likely to remove such variations in wording than purposely cause them.

“Judgment by fire constitutes a prominent theme in Amos (cf. Also 5:6; 7:4). In the present complex of eight oracles, only the final one, concerning Israel, mentions no fire...because fire is a synecdoche for divine destruction via warfare in these orcles. The detailed description of Israel's defeat (2:13-16) obviates the need there for a summarizing image.” (Stuart)

Part of excessive length of the final oracle is due to the presence of verses 2:9-12, labeled “A Long History of Disobedience” by Stuart, in which the prophet shows clearly that Israel's sins are not just recent in origin. In addition, Stuart says, “The oracle against Israel is longer and more detailed than any of the others because it constitutes the climax to the entire group of oracles.”

Three of these prophecies mention the presence of “walls” in this punishment section. “Walls (homot)....represent a basic element in the security system of an ancient city; thus when the judgment of the Lord comes upon the land, its people, and its main, fortified cities, the destruction of the city walls is a focus of the attack (cf. 1:7, 10, 14).” (Schoville)

And Ellul adds that “this condemnation of the city, its punishment, always consists of sending a fire (the sign of the curse) into the heart of the city, to the center of hits power, destroying by the curse that for which the city was built (Amos 1).” He considers 'the city' to be the center of man's rebellion against God's rule and defends that thesis in his important book The Meaning of the City.

“says the LORD (God)”

This closing word appears in all but oracles 3 and 7, and is used twice in the final one against Israel. There is an anomaly in the second oracle in that the full title “LORD God” appears. Interestingly, as Carroll R points out, this is the first of exactly 21 occurrences of this divine designation in the Book of Amos. Thus, it may have significance as being necessary to both bring the total up to the symbolic 7x3 as well as tying this first major section in the book with what follows.

                                        Figure 1: Summary of variations in Amos 1-2

                                1         2         3         4         5            6         7         8

“Because..”             they    they    they    he       they       he       they    they

“So I will..”            yes      yes     yes      yes      yes        yes      yes      none

“send a fire..”         yes      yes     yes      yes      kindle   yes      yes      none

“upon (the)..”         house  wall    wall    Teman wall      Moab  Judah   none

“says the LORD..” x         God   none   none    x           x         none    2x

# of verses             3          3         2         2         3            3         2          11

Notice two things about these characteristics in the set of oracles: (1) In spite of the great similarity between them, due to the small differences in bold, no two in the list have exactly the same format, and (2) The greater number of divergencies from the norm shown in the final oracle against the Northern Kingdom demonstrate that is being set apart as being particularly blameworthy in God's eyes.

The reason for the latter is explained by Hicks: “The judgment, cast into the same literary form as that used for Israel's neighbors, is portrayed in more detail because Israel had been given specific knowledge of God's requirements.”

Range of Scholarly Opinions

Hasel, in thirteen pages of text, surveys in detail the various views by earlier critical Bible commentators and concludes by stating that “until recently, there was a consensus in modern critical scholarship that the original sequence of the OAN consisted in its most minimal form of four oracles: those against Aram (1:3-5), Philistia (1:6-8), Ammon (1:13-15), and Moab (2:1-3)...It may be surprising, therefore, that this picture is totally different in commentaries published since 1987...they agree independently of each other in their assessment that the OAN derive from Amos himself.”

And the hypothetical reconstruction of the history of these oracles proposed by Jeremias is even more complicated, involving an original grouping of three prophecies to which one more was added at a later date, followed by the final four at a still later time period. (Redditt)

“This oracle moves from the periphery to the geographic center. The circle of oracles has moved round the surrounding nations leaving now only Judah and Israel in the center...It has been thought likely by a large number of scholars that this particular indictment [i.e. against Judah] is out of character with the oracles of the series and represents an addition inserted by later editors of the prophecy. The genuineness of these words is well defended by Hammershaimb.” (Howard)

And G.V. Smith constructs an elaborate scheme tying the eight oracles together based on the length of each individual section within each oracle while recognizing at the same time much individual variation within this scheme. He also critiques earlier attempts to label some of the oracles as later in date based on historical information and explains that we really have little external information regarding that particular time period on which to ground such negative opinions.

Then Stuart adds: “In the 1960s and 1970s scholarship began gradually to move away from atomism [i.e., to consider the book a compilation of many distinct units at the smallest level] and to be willing to recognize larger – sometimes multichapter – units of prophetic composition.” As he also states, “Many scholars have attempted to deny the authenticity of those oracles, or parts of them, that exhibit any individuality...Variations of style and structure are so common among individual oracles of given prophets that the attempt to impose a monolithic, subjectively induced norm upon all eight of the oracles in Amos 1:3-2:16 necessarily fails. To make Amos so ponderously uncreative and conformist that each of his oracles against foreign nations must be a precise calque of the others is needlessly anti-empirical.”

Freedman similarly concludes: “The danger for modern scholars is that they are like ancient ones and prefer everything neat and orderly. But poets and prophets are made of different stuff, cut from different cloth.”

Effect of the Oracles

There are actually a couple of lessons which can be learned from this set of prophecies. For example, Raabe says, “The collection has the overall effect of demoting Judah and especially Israel to the level of the other neighboring countries; the covenant people of Yahweh stand under divine judgment just like the other nations.”

Stuart goes one step further when he states that “the systematic excoriation of the repeated...covenant violations of Israel's neighbors, including Judah, yields in like manner to a lengthy denunciation of Israel's sins, demonstrating that Israel itself has become, in effect, a nation foreign to Yahweh ...Significant about the oracles against foreign nations is their unmistakable implication that Israel's God has a covenant relationship with nations other than Israel.”

WHAT IS 'THE LAW' THAT PAUL SPEAKS OF IN I CORINTHIANS 14:34?

There are actually two somewhat related issues here that need pinning down. In addition to the definition of “law,” there is the overall textual question as to whether this verse even belongs in I Corinthians in the first place. And if the anwer to this question is “no,” then the meaning of “law” is a moot point. I must apologize for the following discussion since it tends to move back and forth in discussing these two items.

The NRSV places all of 14:34b-36 in parentheses, for reasons explained by Richard A. Horsley: “Since these statements silencing women in the assembly are found in two different places in the ancient manuscripts, between 14:33 and 14:36 and after 14:40, they may be a marginal gloss later interpolated into the text; similar wording occurs in 1 Tim 2:11-12...”

One certainly does not have to agree with all of Horsley's reasoning here in order to take his last comment as a good hint in helping us answer the subject question about the law. Especially since Towner goes even further regarding that final comment by pointing to four close parallels between the I Corinthians and I Timothy passages.

Thus, if we turn to I Timothy 2, we read in verses 12-14: “I permit no woman (or wife) to teach or have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

We see here in I Timothy that the passage Paul quotes to prove his point is not really a law in the sense of the laws in Leviticus, but instead is a narrative example found in Genesis, one of “the five books of the law” called the Pentateuch. As to which specific passage (or passages) Paul is citing, Towner says, “the supporting material alludes to and draws together two parts of the Genesis story, three if v. 15a is also allusive: (1) the story of the creation of Adam and Eve (2:13; Gen 2:7-8,15), (2) the story of Eve's temptation (2:14; Gen 3:6-13), and (3) the pronouncement of judgment on the woman as a result of her role in the event (2:15a; Gen 3:16).”

Similarly, Knight states that 'the law' in I Corinthians 14:34 and the Genesis 2-3 passages alluded to in I Timothy are the same.

Adding to this supposition that Paul has a broader definition of “the law” in I Corinthians is the fact that the Old Testament itself appears to be known as “the law” in I Corinthians 9:8 and 14:21. The first of these passages refers specifically to Deuteronomy 25:4 while the quotation in the second passage actually comes from Isaiah 28:11-12.

J. Murray writes in The New Bible Dictionary, pp. 721-723, “There is much flexibility in the use of the term 'law' (nomos) in the New Testament.” He enumerates these various meanings as follows:

    1. All or part of the Old Testament writings, especially the five books of Moses

    2. The Mosaic administration dispensed at Mt. Sinai

    3. An expression of God's will in general

    4. A word of God specially revealed to particular recipients

    5. A negative expression about those who are still following the OT regulations

    6. A general operating or governing principle of life

So according to the above, it is possible that in I Corinthians 14 Paul may be using any of those definitions with the probable exception of #5. First, let me mention one minority opinion on what Paul must mean in I Corinthians.

As D.A. Carson explains in his book Exegetical Fallacies, 2^nd ed., pp. 38-40, “Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., has argued more than once that nomos in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 refers not to Mosaic law but to rabbinic interpretation, rabbinic rules that Paul has come to reject.” Carson replies: “This interpretation has its attractions, but it will not stand up to close scrutiny...there is no need for such a procedure of last resort. The passage can be and has been adequately explained in its context. There are ample parallels to this way of looking to the Old Testament for a principle, not a quotation (and the principle in question is doubtless Gen. 2:20b-24, referred to by Paul in both 1 Cor. 11:8-9 and in 1 Tim. 2:13)...”

But David K. Lowery states, “Gen. 3:16 [is] the text Paul probably referred to in 1 Cor. 14:34.” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament)

H. Esser (DNTT, 2, p. 446) says that “in 1 Cor 14:34 he [i.e. Paul] refers to Gen. 3:16 to support his command that women be silent in the church, a command which is probably not meant to apply generally, but specifically to speaking with tongues....” Other scholars particularize Paul's words as applying only to the Corinthian situation at that time period, to married women, or to a prolonged dialogue or argument between the teacher and a woman pupil.

“The reference to the law probably has in mind Gen 3:16.” (W.F. Orr and J.A. Walther, I Corinthians, Anchor Bible)

“Paul's omission of the words 'to their husbands' is significant since it serves to emphasize the dependent position of women in general. A command of this nature is found in the law (Gen. 3:16).” (F.W. Grosheide, First Epistle to Corinthians, NICNT)

“Given Paul's understanding of man and woman from 'the law' (v. 34, alluding to Gen 2:18-25), the subordinate position of the woman is inconsistent with her 'weighing' a man's prophecies.” (R.C. Ortlund, Jr., New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, p. 654)

And finally, a dissenting view from the evangelical scholar Gordon Fee from his massive commentary on I Corinthians in Eerdman's New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Fee, who goes to great lengths to prove that verses 34-37 are not authentically Pauline in authorship, says this regarding “the law” in v. 34: “Real problems for Pauline authorship lie with the phrase 'even as the Law says.' First, when Paul elsewhere appeals to 'the Law,' he always cites the text (e.g. 9:8; 14:21), usually to support a point he himself is making. Nowhere else does he appeal to the Law in this absolute way as binding on Christian behavior. More difficult yet is the fact that the Law does not say any such thing. Gen. 3:16 is often appealed to, but that text does not say what is here argued. If that were the case, then one must admit that Paul is appealing not to the written Torah itself but to an oral understanding of Torah such as found in rabbinic Judaism...under any view this is difficult to reconcile with Paul. Some (e.g. Martin) have argued that 'law' here does not mean the Torah, but simply 'principle' or 'rule,' thus referring to Paul's earlier instruction. But in an unqualified form that lacks Pauline precedent.”

Assuming that I Timothy 2:13 is a valid parallel to Paul's writing in I Corinthians 14:34-35, we can next add the comments of some scholars on the Pastoral Epistles:

A.T. Hanson: “Both the more ancient Targums on Gen. 3:16 interpret the verse so as to mean that because of her sin the woman is to be totally subordinate to her husband for good or evil, and to find that her God-given vocation. This would not at all accord with Paul's view of salvation.”

Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr.: “The chronological priority of Adam becomes the support of Paul's command that the women were to show a spirit of attentiveness to hearing and were to avoid an attempt at domineering men.”

Donald Guthrie: “In Cor. xi.9, Paul had already made use of the argument that the priority of man's creation places him in a position of superiority over woman, the assumption being that the original creation, with the Creator's own imprimatur upon it, must set a precedent for determining the true order of the sexes. Their relationship, as Simpson points out, was 'not competitive, but concordant and counterpart.'”

Ronald A. Ward concludes v. 13 to be “a biblical foundation for a practical policy. The woman was chronologically later than the man; physically dependent on him; and mentally oriented to him (Gen. 1:27; 2:7,22; 1 Cor. 11:8f.).”

So at this point, it is fair to say that, assuming the I Corinthians passage is authentically Pauline, the “law” he cites is, broadly speaking, found in the narrative of Genesis 1-3 though scholars may disagree on which exact verses are primarily in mind. Thus, it meets Murray's Definition #3 quoted earlier, although that does not exclude the possibility that Paul received a special revelation from God regarding the underlying meaning of that OT passage (Definition #4) or derived it from personal reflection on Genesis 1-3 (Definition #6).

But that brings us back to the question as to whether I Corinthians 14:34-35 (or as in NRSV, all of vv. 33b-36) is truly Pauline in the first place. Regarding this minority opinion voiced primarily by Gordon Fee, one of his arguments against the authenticity of these verses is that the vocabulary found there differs from that employed by Paul in his other writings. However, that claim does not really stand up to scrutiny. Consider the following:

    “silence” (oigato) appears in both I Corinthians 14:28 and 14:34.

    “learn” (manthanosin) occurs in I Corinthians 14:31 and 14:34.

    “come to” (katanntao) is found in I Corinthians 10:11 and 14:36.

Perhaps another telling fact is that “husband” appears exactly 12 times (a common biblical number symbolic of relationships) in I Corinthians 14, but only if 14:35 is included.

Then, consider the two following phrases:

    “a shame for a woman to” is utilized in both I Corinthians 11:6 and 14:35.

    “at home” occurs in I Corinthians 11:34 and 14:35.

The above verbal coincidences are well beyond the realm of possibility of occurring if 14:34-37 came from a different hand than the rest of I Corinthians.

Finally, I will turn to the writings of two textual experts who have both written notable commentaries on the text of the Greek New Testament. Regarding I Corinthians 14:34-35, they write:

“Some MSS...place these verses after 14:40, prompting some scholars to deem these verses as a gloss that was added into the text...But the earliest MSS...place the verses after 14:33.” (John Wesley Comfort)

And Bruce M. Metzger labels these textual variants as scribal “attempts to find a more appropriate location in context for Paul's directive concerning women.”

The final conclusion from all the above is that there is a reasonably strong consensus that (1) I Corinthians 14:34-36 is a genuine Pauline passage which belongs in its current position in the text, and (2) “the law” he refers to encompasses the main events of Genesis 2-3.