ZIKLAG

 

    

                          I Samuel 30   (collage, 1992)

 This city figures in to events taking place over a long period of time, from the reign of Saul to the return from the Babylonian Exile. But there still is some doubt regarding the exact location of that town.

“Ziklag appears in Jos. xv. 31 as being near the Edomite boundary, in the south of Judah. It was apportioned to the Simeonites, but later fell into Philistine hands. David, when a Philistine vassal, ruled it and was later able to retain and incorporate it in his own realm. It remained in the hands of Judah in both pre-exilic and post-exilic times. Tentative locations are Zuhailika and Tell al-Khuwailifa, the latter more favored by modern scholars.” (D.F. Payne) One such scholar is Pfeiffer, who locates the site as being “in the Negeb about twenty-five miles southeast of Gaza.”

 One the other hand, Tsumura (as well as McCarter) says that “the site may be the modern Tell esh-Sheriah, about 20 miles east-southeast of Gaza.” He personally doubts it is Tell el-Khuwalifa “since that tell seems to be located within the territory of Judah rather than that of the Philistines.”

And just to add to the list of possibilities, Myers identifies Ziklag with En-rimmon.

But in an article in the Winter 2025 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, coauthors Kyle H. Keimer, Gil Davis, Saar Ganor, and Yosef Garfinkel suggest another strong possibility:

“Over the years, scholars have identified Ziklag with more than a dozen sites in southern Israel; most can be disqualified on geographical, archaeological, or chronological grounds. Although some good possibilities remain, Khirbet al-Rai offers the strongest evidence for being biblical Ziklag. Geographically, it fits the description provided by the biblical text (Joshua 15:31; 19:5; 1 Samuel 27:6; 30:1, 14, 26; 1 Chronicles 4:30; 12:1, 20). Chronologically, it was occupied during the periods in which Ziklag was mentioned by the biblical authors. Archaeologically, it has a destruction layer dated to the late 11^th or early 10^th century, which corresponds nicely with the period of time in which the Bible says the Amelekites 'burned' Ziklag as retribution for David's earlier raids against them (1 Samuel 27:8-9; 30:1). Perhaps most important, there is a distinct change in material culture in the late 11^th and early 10^th centuries at Khirbed al-Rai, from a mixed Canaanite / Philistine culture to one that is distinctly Judahite. Indeed, its continued Judahite identity throughout the rest of the Iron Age seems to be remembered in 1 Samuel 27:6, which says that Ziklag belonged to the kings of Judah 'until this day.,' likely referring to the contemporary seventh-century setting in which the account was written.”

Another noted scholar commenting on the time of writing of that phrase says it “could refer, as the earliest possibility, to the time of Rehoboam of the late tenth century B.C.” (Tsumura)

Joshua 15:31; 19:5

This city first appears in the biblical chronicles in the book of Joshua. Whereas Joshua 13:8-17:18 is the first phase of land allotment, chapters 18-19 reflect the second phase.

I Samuel 27:6

The Philistine ruler rewards David for his supposed loyalty by giving him the city of Ziklag as his own. McCarter explains, “The granting of landed properties to favored servants was a common part of the feudal economy of the city-states of the ancient Near Eastern Bronze Age.”

As to the effect of this on David, Baldwin says: “From every point of view it was good that David should move away from Achish's capital, but especially because he needed freedom to operate his own independent policy without being observed too closely...From David's point of view Ziklag had the advantage of being well away from Saul's territory and isolated from the Philistine pentapolis...Achish stood to gain from leaving David's army to protect his southern territory; he may also have hoped to have won the support of Judah against Saul, which might have enabled him to take the whole land, as he very nearly did in the battle of Mount Gilbaeh (1 Sa. 31:7).”

“When David went raiding from Ziklag, 'he did not leave a man or a woman alive' (1 Sam 27:11), and when the Amalekites raided Ziklag, they captured all the women and children related to David's troop.” (Evans)

David's actions may seem rather bloodthirsty, but remember that he did not dare to leave behind any Amalekites alive who could possibly inform David's overlords, the Philistines, about his double-dealing. For the fact was that David fully utilized his position at Ziklag, not mainly to serve the Philistines but instead to serve as “a kind of unofficial policeman or protector of Judah.” (McCarter)

As to the underlying importance of this chapter, McCarter says that “the entire Ziklag pericope may be said to demonstrate a historical bias for a bond between David and the people of the Judahite Negeb as surely as the preceding stories do for the Wilderness of Judah and specifically the area east of Hebron. Taken together these material prepare us for II Sam 2:1-4, the proclamation of David as king of Judah.”

I Samuel 30:1,14,26

Stern: “King Saul made a concerted effort to destroy Amalek, following the prophet Samuel's call for the ban (1 Sam. 15), but enough Amalekites survived to destroy David's city of Ziklag (1 Sam. 30.1). Nevertheless, after Ziklag the Amalekites ceased to trouble Israel. 1 Chronicles 4.42-43 depicts the tribe of Simeon as eradicating the remnant of Amalek, fulfilling God's earlier promise.”

“The sight of a burnt-out, totally deserted town [as illustrated in the collage above] was more than the troops could bear...David...was held responsible for the disaster, 'for the people spoke of stoning him.' Never since his flight from Gibeah and Saul had David stood so alone..Far from blaming God for allowing the destruction of the city, David took the reprisal of the Amelekites as one of life's hazards, in which he could draw on the resources of a faithful covenant Lord.” (Baldwin)

Tsumura echoes this last thought: “In this situation [30:1] David strengthened himself in the Lord, his God. Only the intimate relationship with his personal God gave him strength in such a critical time.”

Seibert: “David...recovers people and possessions taken by the Amalekites in a raid on Ziklag (1 Sam 30:18-19).”

“David reflects Saul's generosity after the battle of Ziklag (1 Sam 30:21-25)...” (C.J.H. Wright)

II Samuel 1:1, 4:10

Ziklag is again mentioned in this first verse of II Samuel where David receives the news of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. The news is delivered by an Amelekite who has travelled roughly 80 miles to David's outpost to tell him, hoping to thus obtain an important position in David's kingdom or another reward. This Amelekite even brags untruthfully that he was the one who personally dispatched Saul. The reader knows this is a lie from I Samuel 31. “So on the first page of another biblical book we run straight into the God who exposes us, who delights in truth in the inward parts (Ps 51:6), who sets our secret sins in the light of his presence (Ps. 90:8).” (D. R. Davis)

Davis also points out that there is an almost identical story found in I Samuel 4 in which two commanders of the forces of Ishbaal, son of Saul, decide to murder him in order to get into David's good graces. But instead of a reward for their deed, they are put to death by him instead. As McCarter says, “Their treachery is born not of revenge but of crass opportunism and the hope of a reward from David...Thus we see that “David...was reluctant to press his own interests at the expense of the house of Saul, for whom he continued to carry respect and loyalty.” After all, David fully kept in mind that God Himself had chosen Saul to be the king of Israel.

I Chronicles 4:30; 12:1,20

“This list of Simeonite settlements [in verse 4:30] is drawn with only slight changes from Jos. 19:2-8.” (Williamson)

And Howard notes: “The genealogy of Simeon [I Chron. 4] (24-43) is very fragmentary and this reflects the fact that it lost its tribal identity very early, becoming absorbed into Judah...The final portion of the chapter deals with the Simeonite chiefs who were forced to migrate due to overpopulation and lack of pasture, suggesting a semi-nomadic type of life to a late date.”

Concerning I Chron. 12:1-7, Ellison states that it “gives a list of Benjamites (v. 2) who supported David. They are mentioned first because their action was the more remarkable when we consider that Saul belonged to their tribe. A comparison of v. 1 with vv. 8,16 shows that they were not the first to join David in point of time.”

Williamson: “As for the chronological setting of the material [in I Chron. 11-12] is concerned.., the Chronicler ordered his material by theme rather than strict historical order...Rather we should observe that, according to the geographical indications supplied, the material is arranged in a chiastic [i.e., mirror-image] structure,” as in Figure 1 below:

    1. Hebron (11:10)

        2. Ziklag (12:1)

            3. The Stronghold (12:8)

            3'. The Stronghold (12:16)

        2'. Ziklag (12:20)

    1'. Hebron (12:23)

This is an important observation in that this sort of arrangement of material in the Old and New Testament often follows a topical scheme rather than one which is strictly chronological. So again see here that exact chronological order in the Bible is not necessarily to be expected. Instead there may be some more topical arrangement at work.

Howard's comments on Chapter 12 are as follows: “These lists seem to be drawn from very early material...The evidence of such large-scale defections to David indicates how it was possible for him to secure the throne immediately after Saul's death. The process, however, was under the hand of God, a point the Chronicler emphasizes in the use of the words of Amasai, For your God will help you 12:18).”

Nehemiah 11:28

This verse is the last one in the Old Testament to mention Ziklag. “The verses [i.e. 11:25-36] list towns and villages in the former territories of Judah (vv. 25-30) and Benjamin (vv. 31-36). No reason can be given for the non-mention of important settlements mentioned elsewhere in Ezra and Nehemiah.” (Cundall)

Fensham: “Much has been written on the origin of this list of cities...The real problem with this list is that it creates the impression that the Jews lived in a much larger area than expected. The question is whether this list delineates the limits of the Persian province of Judah...It seems better to assume that some of the cities listed refer to areas with a partially Jewish population. The Jews are citizens of the Persian empire and could move to and fro in the different provinces.”

“I Chron ix attributes the list to the time of the return; Neh xi to that following the completion of the rebuilding the wall.” (Myers) Concerning verses 25-36 specifically, he states, “Evidently the writer was concerned primarily with relating how, after the reconstruction of the wall and the consequent multiplication of space, the authorities put on a campaign to repopulate the capital. That move emphasized the other side of the matter, namely, that many of the people were content to live in the outlying areas of Judah.” He speculates that the list could refer “to those who were not too eager to move to Jerusalem.”

WHY AREN'T ALL ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATIONS THE SAME?

That is probably a question that has confused anyone who has compared how his own Bible has rendered a particular passage with the reading of the same passage by someone in the pulpit. The immediate question is, “Which one is correct?” Of course that wasn't a problem when I was growing up in church. Way back then, any translation other than the King James Version was automatically looked on with great suspicion. The short discussion below explains a few of the factors which give rise to the many diverse renderings in English one will encounter nowadays.

Textual Considerations

I have discussed these in great detail in earlier postings (see “Introduction to Textual Criticism”). But here is a quick overview. Most Christians do not realize that the many early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the whole Bible or portions of it do not all agree in their wording 100%. So that gives rise to two basic approaches, using the New Testament as an example:

The majority text approach, used in the formulation of the King James Bible, simply tabulated the readings found in the thousands of handwritten manuscripts available at the time and went with the readings that appeared the most number of times.

By contrast, almost all subsequent NT translations other than the NKJV attach much greater weight to the earliest manuscripts since it is well known that errors in copying, either purposeful or accidental, tend accumulate with repeated re-copying over time.

Audience

Depending upon the intended audience for a translation, it may be geared toward, for example, those with only a basic English vocabulary (Today's English Version), those whose theology is basically conservative / evangelical (ESV) or much more on the liberal side (Anchor Bible), those of a specific denomination (Jerusalem Bible, Douay Translation), or designed for pulpit readings in the more liturgical churches (NEB).

Literal vs. Paraphrase

There are the more strictly word-for-word renderings such as NASB on one end of the spectrum, those such as NIV which are slightly paraphrased for more easy reading for a modern audience, and on the other extreme are the various English paraphrases such as J.B. Phillips, The Message, and The Living Bible in which the thought of a verse is presented but not the exact wording as in the original. However, sometimes what one gains in comprehension by a paraphrase is offset by the particular slant the translators may wish to impose on the text (either in a liberal or conservative direction or perhaps to emphasize or de-emphasize a particular doctrinal point).

First-Hand vs. Second-Hand Translations

In the first category would be fresh translations such NIV or NEB which begin directly with the Greek or Hebrew text and translate it into English. By contrast, renderings such as NAB begin with the KJV and change the wording only enough to modernize the language in order to make it more understandable to a modern audience. Another set of examples of English translations would be the RSV and NRSV which start with the familiar KJV wording but correct it considerably, not only to bring it up to date, but also to utilize more recent scholarship which has shed new light on areas such as the range of meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek vocabulary as well as recent finds in the area of Middle Eastern history and culture.

The Jerusalem Bible, designed for a Roman Catholic readership, is another interesting example of a second-hand translation in that it began as a French translation which was in turn translated into English.

Additional Translation Options

As one examines the various Bible editions out today, another thing becomes clear. They often vary considerably in their basic formats or layouts, and this affects how translations are carried out. To clarify: If one has a Bible which contains only the translated text, with no accompanying study helps, it becomes necessary to convey as much information as possible in the text itself. And, unfortunately, that is rarely done adequately, often leaving the reader in the dark regarding certain confusing statements which he or she might come across as well as at the mercy, for better or worse, of a pastor, Sunday school teacher, or written commentary for further enlightenment.

Thus, just looking at the editions of a few English translations in my own library, the following can be noted:

KJV – No accompanying notes, but there is a built-in guide as to how the names of people and places should be pronounced.

Scofield Reference Bible – This is probably the first reference Bible published in English, and thus it became highly popular in 19^th Century America. The main problems with it are: (1) It is rather dated today and (2) the running commentary is strictly from a Premillennial Dispensational viewpoint. Therefore, unless that happens to be your preferred theological stance, you will probably find yourself arguing with most of the comments made from that perspective.

Oxford Annotated RSV Bible – Each page contains footnotes containing valuable information regarding the various alternative translations of ambiguous words and a guide as to which original manuscripts were utilized to arrive at the words translated for those occasions in which there are alternative readings in the Greek or Hebrew. Finally, at the bottom of each page is a brief explanatory commentary explaining any other non-obvious details which make the text more understandable. The problem with these latter helps is that they are written by individual commentators and editors who may have their own theological axe to grind. Such comments should therefore be only tentatively accepted as “Gospel truth.”

NASB Reference Edition – This edition contains, in addition to the text itself, only a series of footnotes in the margins which are almost exclusively Bible cross-references to some of the verses on that page, as well as an occasional brief explanatory note as to the meaning of a phrase or custom.

NEB – The footnotes mainly provide alternative translations for certain words and phrases, including those places where the editors felt that the best manuscript readings were probably in error.

NIV – The basic editions limit themselves to short notes indicating alternative readings suggested in ancient translations, hidden puns present in the original language, and brief explanations of technical terms.

Oxford Annotated NRSV Bible – The end of the edition contains over 200 pages of general Bible articles, sets of maps, short concordance and topical index. Associated directly with the text itself are (1) introductions to each book of the Bible, (2) textual variants, (3) alternative translations of certain words, (4) extensive cross-references when applicable, and (5) numerous explanatory notes on almost every page. The main caution is that those writing the notes and articles in this edition tend to be a little more liberal theologically than some people are accustomed to. Thus, as with the Scofield Bible on the other end of the theological spectrum, the reader should be aware of possible biases in presentation.

GENESIS 40

In this chapter we learn of the events that transpired during the time Joseph was in prison.

Literary Considerations

Chapter 40 can be shown to have the following symmetrical organization:

                                                Figure 1: Structure of Genesis 40

    A. Dreaming in Jail (vv. 1-8)

            B. Cupbearer's Dream (vv. 9-11)

                    C. Interpretation (vv. 12-13)

                            D. Joseph: “Remember me” (vv. 14-15)

            B'. Baker's Dream (vv. 16-17)

                    C'. Interpretation (vv. 18-19)

    A'. Dreams Fulfilled (vv. 20-22)

                            D'. Joseph was not remembered (v. 23)

A number of commentators have noted that the phrase “lift the head” can mean either “to look upon with favor” as in Section C or “lift the head off” as its intended meaning in C'.

Barnhouse's observation that “The offenses of a butler and baker were planned with the welfare of Joseph in mind” is confirmed in the two conclusions (D and D') in Figure 1.

There is a sort of symmetry to the five appearances of the word group “interpretation/interpreted” in the chapter in sections A, C, B', C', A'.

And finally, some key words appear in this chapter a symbolically significant number of times: Joseph (10x, a “perfect number”), pharaoh (12x, “those people God chooses to work through”), cupbearer (8x, “a surfeit of perfection”), and baker (6x, “imperfection”).

Specific Comments

Kline says in reference to Genesis 40:4, “Joseph's trust was over administrative affairs in the prison; superiority over the high-ranking prisoners was not implied (cf. 41:12).”

“A foreboding or unclear dream from the preceding night can be troubling at break of day (Gen 20:8; 40:6; 41:8).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

“The Egyptian officials were dismayed by their lacked access to their favorite dream interpreters [see v. 8] but the Hebrew slave rejected such professionals as charlatans.” (Kline)

“Occurring in the Bible as often as it does, the figure of three is an evocative image, rich with connotations...Thus the dreams Joseph interprets for Pharaoh's cupbearer and baker are rife with quantities of three (Gen 40:10), and Jonah is stuck in the belly of a fish for three days and three nights (Jon 1:17). But the significance of three as a literary motif is not purely arbitrary...three consecutive occurrences of an event serve as a rhetorical signal indicating special significance.” (DBI)

Hunt states, “Two dreams (Gen 37) depicted Joseph's promotion over his brothers. Also, Pharaoh's butler and baker each dreamed (Gen 40) about how Pharaoh would lift their heads [cf. vv. 13, 19]. Finally, Pharaoh had two dreams regarding the future of Egypt. This doubling of messages may have enabled the mantic [i.e. trained interpreter] to decode the message more easily.”

Bruckner says, “In the Pentateuch, hesed ['unrelenting love'] (21x) is a virtue in human affairs (Gen 20:13; 21:23; 24:49; 40:14; 47:29). It is declared and expanded by God as the central feature of his name (Yahweh), his promises and his active reputation...Mispat ('justice') is also understood as part of hesed (see Gen 39:21; 40:13-14...).”

“His very natural plea for help (14) fell on deaf, or rather forgetful, ears (23). Thus once again it is emphasized that God and God alone controlled Joseph's affairs.” (Payne)

Kline says regarding Birds will eat the flesh [v. 19], “The impaling and devouring of the corpse was an extreme aggravation of the penalty and disgrace (cf. Dt. 21:22), particularly for an Egyptian courtier, for whom mummification and a splendid sepulchre was of paramount concern.”

Applications

Verses 2-3 Raymond Brown sees a parallel between Jesus punished alongside two others, one of whom will be hanged on a tree and the other one elevated.

Verse 4 Remember that the two prisoners held high positions in the government and might be pardoned later, so Joseph is not a mere servant in the prison.

Verses 6-7 Look at how God provided a “teachable moment” which Joseph took advantage of, when he could have just ignored the situation.

Verse 8 Egyptians held schools of dream interpretation. Joseph, by contrast, says that it is in God's hands, but proceeds to act as if he knows that he is the one to whom God will reveal the secrets. It demonstrates that he has not lost his faith, and perhaps that he has tempered his earlier egotism and is giving God his due.

Verse 14 Intervention did not come by scheming, but eventually by God's will. Notice that Joseph did not tell the whole story (his own brothers sold him) for fear that it would raise suspicions concerning Joseph's innocence. Is this partial truth the same as lying?

Verse 16 People seek prophecies of the future but are disappointed when the answer is not a favorable one for them. This is like the Israelites looking forward to the Day of the LORD.

Verses 18-19 There was the temptation for Joseph to tell the baker what he wanted to hear (he was an influential man) in the same manner that some preachers like to “tickle the ears” of the congregation. Notice Joseph's brusque manner and apparent lack of interest in the baker, compared to his conversation with the wine server. What do you think about it? Joseph's concern seems to be mainly about himself.

Verse 23 We may tend to blame the steward for forgetting Joseph in the excitement of his good fortune. But what about us forgetting to thank God when he has answered our prayers?

JEREMIAH 31:35-37

The Book of Consolation (chs. 30-33)

The uniquely hopeful tone of these chapters (which some such as Bullock and Guthrie would limit to chs. 30-31) marks them out in contrast to the lamentations found in the rest of the book. And others such as Cawley and Millard actually limit that section to Chapter 30 only.

Rosenberg: “The poetic material in Jeremiah is most concentrated at the beginning (chaps. 1-25), middle (chaps 30-31), and end (chaps 46-51).” And that statement certainly holds for Jeremiah 31:35-37 even though it is bounded both before and after by large chunks of prose.

The specific verses in question directly follow what is perhaps the most well-known pronouncement in the whole book, namely the prophecy of the New Covenant in 31:31-34. And Wiseman, for one, considers the whole of vv. 31-37 as a single literary unit.

Then there is Bright's piecemeal theory, followed by few evangelicals in its entirety: “All in all, the safest conclusion is that chapters xxx-xxxi contain genuine sayings of Jeremiah addressed to northern Israel and uttered relatively early in his career (xxxi 2-6, 15-22), together with other words of his uttered much later, and that the material has in certain cases subsequently been expanded and supplemented ...to apply Jeremiah's prophecies more directly to the exiles living in Babylon...The final poetic piece (vss. 35-37) may have originally formed the conclusion of the collection introduced in xxx 1-3...”

And we also have to take into account that the ancient Greek translation of Jeremiah, the Septuagint, actually places verse 37 before 35-36. Most scholars take the Hebrew order to be the original one.

General Comments on 31:35-37

Chisholm: “The Lord concludes this promise of a new covenant with an assuring word. He affirms that his commitment to Israel's descendants (both Israel and Judah are probably in view here; see v. 31) is as constant as the cycles of nature he has set in place (vv. 35-36). To emphasize the point, he states that it is impossible for him to reject his people as it is for a mere human being to measure the extent of the heavens or the subterranean regions (v. 37). Regeneration would indeed come, highlighted by the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which in its entirety would be set apart as a holy city (vv. 38-39).”

Thompson also summarizes verses 35-37 by stating: “Two sayings, semi-proverbial in character lie behind this brief passage, which declares the impossibility of Israel ever being forsaken again by Yahweh.”

And Wiseman similarly says, “The security of the covenant is the faithfulness of the Creator, whose mercies never fail (35-37; cf. 33:19-22). This is a classic passage for understanding the Lord's unchanging nature as the God of order (hosts) in heaven and earth. This is basic to His being as God of law and love. His covenant and His love are consistent.”

Matters of Timing

“The reference to rebuilding the city (31:38) seems to fix the date at the end of the Judean kingdom after Jerusalem had fallen. (Bullock) If this is true, then the same may certainly apply to the dating of vv. 35-37.

Then there is the question regarding the time period which is being referred to in this prophecy of the future as well as the nature of its intended fulfillment. Payne's opinion is that the time of fulfillment will be during the time of “the millennial establishment of God's people as a permanent, political entity.” But he does not define who “God's people” are.

Thus, speaking from a dispensational viewpoint which concentrates on the fate of the Jews to a much greater degree than other schools of evangelical theology, Ryrie states: “The [amillennial] interpretation stulifies any hope of Israel for a national future. Their only hope is spiritual, by entering into faith in Christ in the present interadvent age...The theme of regathering [in Jer. 31:8] is linked in this chapter with the new covenant with the house of Israel (Jer. 31:31-34) and the solemn pledge that Israel shall continue as a nation as long as the sun, moon, and stars continue (Jer. 31:35-37).”

However, many other scholars, such as Clowney, take a less literal view of this admittedly poetic prophecy: “The new covenant is spiritual, bringing the covenant principle to its actualization (Jer. 31:31-37; Ezek. 36:24-28)...The very fulness of the blessing, however, transcends the form of the covenant that is restored, so that the spiritual realities symbolized in its ceremonial types are actualized...The old covenant in its full restoration becomes the new covenant.”

Bruce also takes the far more defensible hermeneutical stance of evangelical interpretation which looks upon the New Testament pronouncements as the definitive, literal ones by which the more poetic statements in the Old Testament are to be understood, instead of vice versa. Thus he says, “Whether the expression 'the Israel of God' in its one appearance in the New Testament (Gal. vi. 16) denotes believing Jews only, or believing Jews and Gentiles without distinction, is disputed; the latter is more probable, especially if the expression is to be construed in apposition to 'all who walk by this rule'. But that the community of believers in Jesus, irrespective of their natural origin, is looked upon as the new Israel throughout the New Testament is clear. They are 'the twelve tribes in the dispersion' (Jas. i. 1), 'the exiles of the dispersion' (I Pet. i. 1), who are further designated, in language borrowed from Old Testament descriptions of Israel, as 'a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people' (I Pet. ii. 9).”

D.R. Jones says of these verses, “This is the ground of confidence that he will restore his people and establish a covenant which shall not be broken...At the same time the contrast between the old covenant which was broken, and the new, which is based on an inner apprehension of the divine Torah, presupposes that the new covenant will not be broken and the guarantee again is to be found in God.”

This statement should remind us that even the traditional division of the Bible into two testaments (i.e. covenants) goes against the contention of the dispensationalists that the present time of the Gentiles is a “mere parenthesis” in God's overall plan for the Jewish people.

Literary Structure

There is a fairly obvious two-part division to verses 35-37 which can be diagrammed thusly based on the order of words in the original Hebrew:

        A. Yahweh says

                B. who created the heavenly bodies

                        C. who stirs up the seas

                                D. If this order departs

        A'. Yahweh says

                                        E. then shall Israel cease

        A''. Yahweh says

                                D'. If

                B'. the heavens be measured

                        C'. and the foundations of the earth explored

                                        E'. then I will cast off Israel

        A'''. Yahweh says

Jeremiah 31:35

“Verse 35 is in the form of a participial hymn of praise and ends with the refrain the LORD of hosts is his name that is so marked in Am. 4.13; 5.8-9; 9.5-6...Here the familiar form of the doxology is used, not as the solemn prelude to judgment, but as the equally solemn introduction to the divine announcement of the indestructibility of the kingdom of God. Thus v. 35 is in effect a particularly striking and even momentous way of introducing the divine assurance. The allusion to the fixed order of nature is of course particularly apt, since this is the sign of the unchanging purpose of God.” (D.R. Jones)

“The verse harks back to Gen. 1:16, where the verb natan, 'give,' is also used in reference to the sun, moon, and stars. The reference to the stirring up of the seas and the roaring of the waves is known elsewhere (cf. Isa. 17:12; 51:15; Ps. 46:3).” (Thompson)

Jeremiah 31:36

“But it all operates according to Yahweh's fixed order or 'decrees' (huggim). If these should ever cease, which they will not, then the descendants (zera') of Israel will cease (sabat) to exist. It is an argumentum ad adsurdum, and the saying would have given strong confidence to a people so beset by troubles as Israel.” (Thompson)

Beale and Carson state: “Almost all of Jer. 31 describes the future days of God's new covenant with his people...Verses 23-30...employ the form of future predictions, leading to the passage that explicitly anticipates a 'new covenant' (31:31-35), a passage quoted at length in Heb. 8:8-13 as having been fulfilled in Jesus (see also Heb. 10:16-17).”

“Two pledges are seen here that Israel shall endure, the world itself being an illustration. The perseverance of Israel rests on the persistence of Yahweh (cf. Heb 13:8).” (Cawley and Millard)

The famous words in Jeremiah 31:31-34 are widely quoted and alluded to in all four gospels, Romans, II Corinthians, and I Thessalonians.

Guthrie says, “The clause 'the days are surely coming' is an eschatological formula also used in 31:27-30, 38-40.”

Jeremiah 31:37

Regarding this verse, Thompson says, “The second figure is based on a different figure but amounts to the same thing. No one (in those days) could measure the heavens above or explore earth's foundations. No more could Yahweh cast off ('refuse, spurn,' ma'as) the whole people of Israel. He had done too much in past days for his people for all his work to be wasted.”

GENESIS 39

                                                       Literary Structure of Genesis 39

        A. Joseph in Potiphar's House (vv. 1-6a)

                B. Trouble with Potiphar's Wife (vv. 6b-18)

        A'. Joseph in Prison (vv. 19-23)

Not everyone sees these same divisions. For example, Ross divides the chapter into vv. 1-6, 7-20, and 21-23. But despite these differences with Figure 1, he does note, “The first and last sections are parallel and frame the account of the temptation. In the two framing sections the emphasis is on the Lord's presence with Joseph...”

Section A can be best characterized by the similar key wording shown in the two-part structure shown in Figure 2.

                                            Figure 2: Organization of Genesis 39:1-6b

                1. the LORD was with Joseph (v. 2a)

                        2. master (v. 2b)

                        2'. master (v. 3a)

                1'. the LORD was with him (v. 3b)

…........................

                        2''. He made him overseer in his house (v. 4a)

                                3. in charge of (v. 4b)

                                        4. all that he had (v. 4c)

                        2'''. He made him overseer in his house (v. 5a)

                                        4'. all that he had (vv. 5b,6a)

                                3'. in Joseph's charge (v. 6b)

The first half of these verses begins with Joseph being taken as a prisoner while the second half begins with him being made an overseer. And another way to see that change is illustrated by Joseph having a master in part 1 and being one himself in part 2. Further tying the two halves together are the repetition of the phrase “the Egyptian's house” in both v. 2 and v. 5.

Section B

Trouble begins with Joseph when his master's wife becomes sexually attracted to him. The action in this sub-section can also be divided into two halves, the first one between Joseph and his master's wife and the second one involving the whole household. The action in both of these sub-sections is carried along mainly through conversations.

                                        Figure 3: Organization of Genesis 39:6c-18

        1. Wife to Joseph: “Lie with me”

                2. Joseph to Wife: “How could I sin against God?”

                        3. He would not lie with her

        1'. Wife to Joseph: “Lie with me”

                2'. Joseph flees from the house, leaving his garment behind

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

        1''. Wife to household: “My husband has brought a Hebrew to insult me”

                        3'. “He wanted to lie with me”

                                4. “I cried out”

                2.'' “He left his garment behind and fled”

        1'''. Wife to husband: “The Hebrew you brought insulted me”

                        (3''. “He wanted to lie with me”)

                                4'. “I cried out”

                2.''' “He left his garment behind and fled”

The only flaw in this otherwise symmetrical arrangement is the absence in the final comments to Potiphar of the specific charge of attempted rape. One wonders if the wife had by this time realized that she had gone a bit too far in her accusations and began to back-pedal slightly. Confirming that view is Hamilton's observation that in vv. 16-18 “her words shade into ambivalence, making room for more than one interpretation.”

Hamilton notes at the same time that the early manuscript Codex Andrinus provides the missing words “I will sleep with you” as do most early copies of the Greek Septuagint at v. 17.

Similarly, Wenham observes the subtle differences in wording the wife utilized in her last account of events. He states that “the wife is cunning enough to word the accusation in such a way that he [her husband] will be left the choice of taking it as a direct rebuke or only an implicit and mild one.”

Section A'

The third major sub-section in Genesis 39 is shorter, but still has its own literary structure. Note first the back-and-forth alternation between the words “prisoners” in 20a, “prison (5x in 20b-22a), “prisoners” in 22b, and “prison” in 22c. Then there is the repetition of the specific phrase “the LORD was with Joseph” in verses 21 and 23.

And Hamilton notes the three-fold use of the verb meaning 'placed.' It appears in v. 20 where Joseph is placed in jail, v. 21 in which Yahweh places Joseph in the chief jailer's favor, and in v. 22 where Joseph is put in charge of the other prisoners.

Sections A and A'

Finally, Figure 1 indicates that there is a strong correspondence between the first and final sections of this text. Confirming that supposition are the following parallels in language between A and A':

        “his master” (vv. 3, 19,20);

        “put him in charge” (v. 4), “in Joseph's charge” (v. 6), “committed to Joseph's care” (v. 22), “in Joseph's care” (v. 23)

        “he had no concern for anything” (v. 6) // “paid no heed to anything” (v. 23)

        “Joseph found favor in in his sight” (v. 4) // “He gave him favor in the sight of” (v. 21)

Lastly there are the following symmetrical occurrences:

        “The LORD was with Joseph” (v. 2)

                “The LORD was with him (v. 3)

        “The LORD was with Joseph (v. 21)

                “The LORD was with him (v. 23)

Longacre additionally notes that in a general way, “The closure of this episode is remarkably parallel to the recounting of Joseph's rise to prominence in Potiphar's house; just as Joseph had gone to the top in Potiphar's estate, he now rises to the position of first trustee in the jail, and everything prospers under his management (Gen 39:20b-23).”

Parallels Elsewhere in Scripture

Next is the question of intertextuality, i.e. the similarities in wording and theme with other portions of Scripture. Beginning with the general theme of Genesis 39, we have the comment of Wenham: “Joseph's unfair dismissal and imprisonment may be seen as typical of the suffering the righteous often must endure. 'For a righteous man falls seven times and rises again (Prov 24:16).' Moses, Job, Jeremiah, and the suffering servant of Isa 53 are examples of this career pattern in the OT, while Jesus is the supreme model in the NT.” The more specific parallels are given below in their order of appearance in the Bible.

“39:2-6 shows particularly clearly the meaning of blessing in the OT...the narrator simply assumes that the blessing on the one whom the LORD is with can overflow to a foreign people and adherents of a foreign religion because of God's presence with that person” (Westerman). Wenham adds, “Thus in Joseph's experience here we begin to see how all the families of the earth are to find blessing (cf. 12:3) in Abraham's descendants.”

Hamilton echoes the above thought: “Yahweh prospers (salah) Joseph (vv. 2-3), but he blesses (barak) Potiphar and his household because of his good treatment of Joseph. This verse [v. 5] must be read as fulfillment of 12:3a, 'I will bless those who bless you.' Just as Yahweh blessed Laban because of Jacob (30:27,30), he now blesses Potiphar because of Joseph.”

“As at Sodom [Gen. 13], the worst crimes seem to be sexual. Such breaches subvert the family in a culture that defines itself entirely by bonds of kinship. A similar importance is assumed in Joseph's refusal of Potiphar's wife in urban Egypt (Gen 39:9).” (Fleming)

McKnight states that “ 'et ('with') evokes the regular presence of the Lord with the patriarchs (cf. Gen 21:20; 26:24; 39:2).”

In 39:6b we are informed that Joseph was handsome. “The description reminds the reader of the appearance of Sarai and Rebekah (12:11 and 26:7) that make them susceptible to the sexual advances of potentates, an Egyptian in the case of Sarai, and then Abimelech a Philistine.” (Ross)

Pratt says, “The story of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38:1-30)...reports an event that took place in Canaan near the time Joseph was in Potiphar's house...These stories have been juxtaposed to develop the theme of patriarchal morality. Judah fell into sin and suffered severely. Joseph remained pure and God rewarded his righteousness. This topical connection is vital to understanding why these chapters appear together.”

Ciampa and Rosner also note that Gen. 39 forms a contrast to Tamar's prostitution in Gen. 38 while garments play key roles in both stories as forms of evidence. And Payne adds, “The attempted seduction of Joseph (6-12) contrasts with Tamar's successful seduction of Judah in ch. 38. Judah had voluntarily deposited with Tamar certain personal objects (38:18); involuntarily, Joseph left hs cloak with Potiphar's wife (12). Both women made the fullest use of these items.”

“Esther shares many thematic and structural similarities with the narratives of Joseph in the foreign court...Verbal similarities include: “'And though she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to go to bed with her or even be with her' (Gen 39:10) and 'Day after day they spoke to him but he refused to comply' (Esth 3:4a). The most significant comparison between Joseph and Esther relates to divine providence. Genesis says things like 'Yahweh was with him' (Gen 39:3,21), but readers of Esther are left to imagine potential invisible divine causality in the face of striking 'coincidences.'” (Schnittjer)

Postell sees parallels between the affair of David and Uriah's wife and the events in this chapter. But as Schnittjer points out, this theory is based almost entirely on common phrases such as 'laid with her' (II Samuel 11:4 // Genesis 39:7) and 'house of your / his lord' (II Samuel 12:8; Genesis 39:2). He concludes: “The overlap seems more like similar type-scenes than an exegetical allusion.”

As commentators note, Psalm 105:16-22 is a brief retelling of Joseph's career, as Kselman says, “With significant variants.” You might want to compare those two passages for yourself some time.

Ross says, “As von Rad had pointed out, the passage [i.e. Gen. 39:7] recalls the warning of Proverbs about the seductress who casts her eyes on the young man and invites him to take his fill of love with her because her husband is away (Prov. 7:6-27).”

“The parable of the Faithful and Prudent Manager in [Luke] 12:42-46 possibly alludes to Gen. 39:4-5...The words of 12:42 are often quoted in Jewish writings about Joseph...Key words of 12:42 are prominent in the traditions about Joseph: ho kyrios, 'the master' (e.g. Gen. 39:3-4); phronimos, 'prudent' (cf. Gen 41:33,39...); doulos, 'servant' (cf. Gen. 39:17)...Biblically informed readers of Luke's Gospel would find in Joseph an example of a faithful servant who is eventually rewarded, the antithesis of the servant in the parable who reasons that since his master is delayed in coming, he can begin 'to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk.” (Pao and Schnabel)

Stephen recites the story of Joseph to the hostile crowd in Acts 7:9-10. Hill comments that “the story of Joseph, betrayed by his jealous brothers, but raised to high distinction by the hand of God has always been seen by Christian writers as a foreshadowing of the experiences of Christ.”

Despite the suggestion that Paul in I Corinthians 6:18-20 may have been quoting directly from Genesis 39, Ciampa and Rosner feel instead that Paul may have been quoting from the apocryphal writing Testament of Reuben 5, which was itself based on Genesis 39.

Extra-biblical Parallels

Matthews: “The Egyptian Tale of Two Brothers, echoing the sentiments expressed by Joseph to Potiphar's wife (Gen 39:8-9), calls adultery a 'great crime,' which is not even to be considered by an honest man or woman. This was an attack on a man's household, stealing his rights to procreate and endangering the orderly transmission of the estate to his heirs (see Ex 20:14).”

Hamilton states in this regard, “These parallels...may be purely coincidental, or they may lend credence to the view that the Joseph story was in the process of formation as early as the 15^th century B.C.”

And Payne says, “The stories are by no means identical, however, and few recent writers are inclined to make one dependent on the other. Seduction, attempted seduction, and false accusations are age-old human misdeeds, and it would have been surprising if there were no parallels to Gen. 39.”

The Joseph story is later re-told in the apocalyptic book of Jubilees (ca. 175 B.C.). In it Potiphar's wife is said to have begged Joseph to lie with her for a whole year.

COMBATING BIBLICAL ILLITERACY IN THE CHURCH

 

                "A Weariness of the Flesh" (2010, collage) 

A recent article by Jen Wilkin in Christianity Today magazine was titled “Go and Make Learners: How the church ended up in a Bible literacy crisis and what we need to do to recover.”

There are probably many reasons behind the general lack of Bible knowledge in the church today including our often crammed schedules, lack of space in many church buildings in which to hold classes for adults, pressures of work, and a dearth of qualified teachers. In a related article in that same CT issue, Russell Moore quotes Wendell Berry as saying, “Short-term practicality is long-term idiocy.”

And in some churches, learning more about the Bible is actually discouraged. We probably all know of congregations where the pastor or priest feels that he or she must project an image of absolute omniscience in order to discourage parishioners from asking embarrassing questions which they cannot adequately handle. And such discouragement can even come from fellow congregants. An acquaintance of mine who attended a mainstream denominational church told me that each Sunday when he entered church with his Bible in hand, he had to face a gauntlet of men making fun of him by calling him “holier than thou.”

The statistics from carefully conducted polls are evidence of the widespread problem the church faces today. One such recent poll actually revealed that just 28% of evangelicals agreed with the statement: “Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God.”

So what is the solution to this crisis? Wilkin offers five basic suggestions, which I have summarized below with added comments based on my own experiences after 80+ years of church attendance and approximately 60 years of Bible teaching. 

Focus on Your Church

She starts with the admonition: “Recognize that the problem is in your congregation, not just someone else's.” And to do that she suggests that those in the church be given a simple Bible literacy test to gauge where they stand. I have done that in the opening lesson of almost every Sunday school series I have taught. It accomplishes several things right off the bat. First, it shows the teacher exactly how high or low he or she much pitch the intellectual and knowledge level of the whole class semester. Secondly, by going over the the correct answers that week or the following one, class members (1) begin to realize their own lack of understanding and need for further instruction, (2) may become more excited about the attending the coming series of lessons where they could begin to learn more, (3) and a give-and-take atmosphere is established in which those in the class can interact freely with each other and the teacher without fear of being looked down upon.

Clarify Terms

Wilkin suggests that the teacher clearly explain the different types of Bible studies (i.e. devotional, topical, book study) in order to clarify expectations.

For years in the Sunday school class I led, I would rotate regularly between an Old Testament study, a New Testament study, and a topical study. And each lesson would attempt to conclude with some sort of call to action or devotional thought.

Ask a Different Question

Wilkin says, “Instead of asking 'What do our people want?' ask, 'How are disciples formed?'”

Actually, when I was in charge of a teaching team at one church, we were very successful in both attracting people to our class and providing them a well-rounded Christian foundation by using one very simple technique. As one semester was coming to a close, we would describe two to four potential subjects for the coming semester and then hand out ballots on which we asked them to rank these according their interest level. Using that input, we chose our next subject based on both which subject was of most interest to them and which one was their least. That way we could find out immediately “What our people wanted.” And since the original slate of choices was based on the teachers' view of what they most needed (i.e., to best form disciples), we were able to satisfy both of Wilkin's requirements at the same time without having to make the difficult choice between the two.

Bring Back Active Learning Environments

Concerning this parameter, Wilkin says, “Create classroom opportunities where students are actively invested in the learning process through pre-work, thought-level group discussion, and dialogic teaching.”

The only problem with requiring pre-work is that 90% of students won't do any, other than possibly reading the Scripture passage in advance (It is imperative that they at least be told a week ahead of time the subject and Bible verses which will be discussed). And if they think that they may be called on in class to discuss that pre-work, some people won't even show up on Sunday rather than take the chance that they might be embarrassed in front of others.

On the other hand, there should definitely be a time during the class period in which a thought-provoking question or two be thrown open for discussion. I have found that many Sunday school teachers simply do not have the knack of doing this. All too often I have run into teachers who will read one verse of Scripture such as “God is love,” and then ask a class of adults, “What is God?” Of course, only the class teacher's pet will pipe up with the right answer. The others will just keep their mouths shut.

We had one man on our teaching team who once asked such an obvious question and no one bothered to answer him. His response was to tell us, “It looks like I am teaching over your heads. In the future I will try to simplify my words so you can comprehend them.” Actually, the reverse was true since he was already treating a class of rather knowledgeable Christian adults as if we were all grade school children.

As far as dialogic teaching goes, there is a definite knack to reducing that advice to practice. I have found that the only way I can get a dialogue really going, is to devise a question to ask that is truly open-ended even if I may feel that I already know the correct answer. The teacher at that point must at least appear to show a little humbleness in front of the class by admitting that he is not exactly sure of the answer himself. It is amazing when you do that how open and sharing the class becomes at that point because they no longer feel that you already know the answer and are just waiting to pounce on anyone who doesn't guess what that answer is (or what the teacher thinks it is).

In my years of teaching I utilized a number of different, somewhat off-the-wall techniques to better engage the attention of the class. These included several types of role plays, dramatic readings, dividing the class into two or more groups to discuss a question and then present their findings to the class as a whole, guest devotional messages before the main speaker, tag-team presentations by more than one teacher, etc. The main problem most Sunday school teachers have with such techniques is their fear of what might result if they loosen up their control over the class.

Raise the Bar

Wilkin says regarding this subject that we need to “Ask more of people, believe they are capable, and call them to a beautiful vision.”

I would have to agree with her on this point. However, the time limitations and mixed class make-up of most adult Sunday school classes make it very hard to accomplish this goal in a one-hour time slot. That is why I have found the most successful churches by far in really making knowledgeable and motivated disciples is by supplementing what happens on Sunday morning with more in-depth teaching during other time periods during the week. These can take many forms from small sharing-caring home groups to almost university-level classes attended by up to 100 students at a time to scheduled debates between trained apologists and atheists in the community.

Final Caution

There is much more which could be said in relation to ways in which meaningful learning can take place in the church other than on a Sunday morning. However, all of them involve a certain giving over of total control by the pastors. And we all have to admit that there are some pastors who feel that the local church is theirs and theirs alone. Such leaders get quite threatened to give up their monopoly on all content taught in “their” church. And they aren't completely wrong in feeling that way. I have personally witnessed and been told more than one horror story regarding renegade Sunday school teachers basically starting what amounted to deviant cults which attracted certain members of a congregation and ended up almost splitting the church. Therefore I would take to heart my experiences years ago at two congregations in which I was a new member. The church leadership at both churches made it a regular practice to test out new adult teachers before giving them free rein over a class. One church accomplished this by first having me team-teach with a long-time respected member of that congregation. That way the more trusted teacher could gauge both my effectiveness and orthodoxy. And in another church where I had volunteered to teach a series of special classes in the evening, the head pastor personally attended the whole series before trusting me to teach further subjects later on without being so closely monitored for content.

Conclusion

As Wilkin summarizes: “Two thousand years of faithful instruction and transmission are the reason anyone reading this is a Christian today.” And regarding those, “It is their heritage to receive with joy, and it is their heritage to transmit with diligence.”

AMOS 1:2-12

 Allen labels verses 2-12 “Calls to Lamentation” and divides it into four sub-sections:

    a. general appeal and introduction (1:2-4)

    b. to drinkers (1:5-7)

    c. to Zion (1:8-10)

    d. to farmers (1:11-12)

Scholars Chisholm, Bullock and Stuart chose to conclude the overall passage at v. 20. Other commentators, such as Dorsey and Mobley prefer to end the section with verse 14, a decision which has strong support from the close relationship between the wording in verses 2 and 14:

    “Here this, O elders; give ear, all      inhabitants of the land.” (v. 2, NRSV)

    “Gather the elders            and all the inhabitants of the land.” (v. 14, NRSV)

As to the most appropriate title best describing this passage, there appear to be two types suggested. Allen highlights appropriate proper response of the people to conditions in Israel at the time by using the word “Lamentation,” as do the editors of the Jerusalem Bible and the NRSV. However, commentators such as Terry, Bourke, and Garrett chose to zero in on the conditions which gave rise to this lament, labeling the section with descriptions such as “Plague of locust,” “Agricultural curse,” and “Disruption of crops.”

Parallels between various sub-sections in terms of theme and specific vocabulary prompts one to propose the overall literary structure of this passage as shown in Figure 1 below:

                                           Figure 1: Organization of Joel 1:2-14

    A. Introductory Appeal (vv. 2-4)

            B. To Drinkers (vv. 5-7)

                    C. To Zion (vv. 8-10)

            B'.To Farmers (vv. 11-12)

    A'. Concluding Appeal (vv. 13-14)
We have already given adequate reasons above for A and A' to be paired up as in Figure 1.

Concerning B and B', one could say that thematically speaking B' addresses the producers while B deals with the consumers of agricultural products. In addition, both sub-sections specifically mention vines and fig trees. Schnittjer adds that “The combination of the vine and the fig tree of themselves reflects a commonplace figure of speech.”

That leaves section C, which is again, as in A and A', a more or less general call for the nation to mourn. Confirming its central position within this passage are its verbal parallels with the sub-sections directly flanking it: “wine” at vv. 5 and 10 and “dries up” at v. 10 and 12. Even more telling are the exact parallels between the center and the concluding general appeals. Thus, both priests and ministers appear in C and A' as well as the long passage reading “grain offerings and drink offerings are cut off / withheld from the house of the LORD” (vv. 9 and 13). And the phrase “house of the LORD” is repeated in v. 14.

As to the exact time frame to which the events in this passage occurs, Payne says that “while some scholars think of Joel as the oldest of the writing prophets and place him in the 9^th century B.C...others speak of Joel as the latest prophet to be named in the OT and date his book to the 4^th century...”

Schnittjer points out, “Joel's several references to the temple suggest he writes before the destruction of Solomon's temple or during the Second Temple period (see Joel 1:9,14,16; 2:17; 3:18). But this hardly narrows things down.” Leonard concludes, “There is no easy solution to the problem...the timelessness of the prophecy itself renders the need for a decision relatively unimportant.”

Joel 1:2-4

McKeown: “The book of Joel is written in the context of a cataclysmic plague of locusts which have ravaged the Judean countryside (1:2-4). The message of the book deals with the immediate circumstances but also looks beyond them to the eschatological 'Day of the Lord' when God will judge the nations.”

Mobley points out that in v. 2 “The elders appear to be the chief leaders, as was the case in the postexilic era (Ezra 5:9; 6.8,14; 10.8,14). No king is mentioned.”

Leonard says, “Because such infestations are not uncommon in the near-east, the special significance of this one related not only to its severity but also to the fact that it is seen as a prelude to the divine devastation the prophet envisions for the disobedient people of God and those nations which have oppressed her.”

“Four different words are used for locust.., but there is no need to assume four separate plagues. There are at least nine possible words for 'locust' in Hebrew; these four are doubtless chosen for poetic variety, and perhaps because they describe various stages of the locust's growth, and thus stages of the plague's onset...Hebrew often heaps up words in order to stress the total nature of an event (e.g. Is 3:1-3), and here means, so to say, a 'plague par excellence.' It well represents the completeness of the judgment of God; absolutely nothing can escape.” (Cole)

Interestingly, the order of these four words differs in Joel 2:25, possibly working against the theory that different stages of development are in mind.

“The portrayal in [Rev.] 9:7-9 is based on Joel 1-2...This judgment in Joel is modeled on the plague of locusts in Exodus 10 (note the clear allusions in Joel 1:2; 2:2 [=Exod. 10:6,14]; 1:3 [= Exod. 10:2]...” (Beale and McDonough)

Joel 1:5-7

“Here begins the call for response,the description of the tragedy having been concluded for the moment at v 4...It is drunks and 'drinkers of wine' who represent a heedless, incautious attitude; they are people capable of being unaware of what is happening around them. This sort of complacency is what Joel is attacking.” (Stuart) Douglas adds: “The first to be mentioned, perhaps in derision, is the loss to the drunkard of his solace.”

“Either the contentment resulting from drinking sweet wine under one's own fig tree or lethargy induced by constant consumption of intoxicating drink (cf. Hos 4:11) furnished an effective symbol for the national oblivion to divine action concealed in the locust hordes.” (Crenshaw)

Chisholm comments on v. 5 by staying, “With lion-like capacity to rip and tear, the innumerable swarms had devoured the vines and stripped even the bark from the fig trees, leaving the branches white (vv. 6-7).”

Mobley notes that Revelation 9:7-8 “draws on the imagery of Joel.” for the description of locust like lion's teeth.

Joel 1:8-10

Stuart says, “Betrothals in ancient Israel long preceded marriage. They might take place even before persons were born...here the wailing is to resemble the sort of bitter disappointment experienced by a woman who had long expected marriage to the one she now mourns.”

Wenham expresses another possible interpretation of verse 8 based on the fact “that betula alone never means virgin but refers to a young woman without specifying whether or not she has had any sexual experience...The wife of one's youth could also refer to the period between betrothal and wedding, but it more naturally recalls the early years of marriage.” (Crenshaw)

For grain and drink offerings utilized during sacrifices, see Numbers 29:12-16. “Without grain and drink, a vital mediation, the daily offering, is imperiled.” (Mobley)

The same combination of grain, new wine and oil appears in Haggai 1:11.

“The alliteration in suddad sadeh, 'abela 'adama, and vocalic inversion in hobis tiros cannot be reproduced in English. Joel's dirge-like language imitates the heavy blows being reported, falling with hammer-like force.” (Crenshaw on v. 10)

Joel 1:11-12

Chisholm: “Eight items are specified [in vv. 8-11a], suggesting that the locusts were more than thorough. A sevenfold list would have indicated completeness, but by adding an eighth item to the list, the prophet stressed utter and total destruction caused by the locust.” He explains that 'harvest of the field” in v. 11b refers to the wheat and barley previously mentioned and therefore should not be counted as a separate item.

Joel 1:13-14

Cole states that these verses “go further than v. 9. The priests are now summoning the people to solemn fast and prayer in the Temple, as was customary in days of national calamity.”

As Leonard says, “It is not enough that the leaders repent. They must gather the elders and all the people to the house of the Lord and beseech him for mercy. At this juncture the prophet warns that the present sadness is merely a prelude to an even more disastrous possibility.”

“Fasting was...frequently the response of sinners in their acts of confession (1 Sam. 7:6; Joel 1:14; 2:12-15).” (Pao and Schnabel)

II THESSALONIANS 1:3-12

In the overall organization of II Thessalonians, the title verses are parallel to 2:13-15, as indicated by exact repetition of the phrase in bold shown in Figure 1.

                                 Figure 1: Literary Structure of II Thessalonians 1:3-2:15

A. Thanksgiving (1:3-12) “We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren.”

B. Satan in Action (2:1-2:12)

A'. Thanksgiving (2:13-15) “We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren.”

There are a number of reasons for drawing the boundaries of Section A as pictured above:

    a. This letter contains exactly seven addresses to “brothers,” some of which mark the beginning of a new section (as in. 1:3; 2:1; 2:13; and 3:1). Section A begins with one of these addresses just as Section B begins with the next one.

    b. The word “faith” at 1:3 and 1:11 serves as an inclusio [i.e. a set of bookends] for the section under our consideration.

    c. Section A contains exactly seven (the biblical number symbolic of completeness or perfection) mentions of “God,” beginning in v. 3 and ending with v. 12.

    d. There are similarly exactly seven times in Section A that words denoting various kinds of suffering appear, a tip-off as to the main theme of these verses.

Next, zeroing in on our particular verses of interest, we again see a form of symmetry:

                                     Figure II. Literary Structure of II Thessalonians 1:3-12

    1. We give thanks for you (3)

        2. Your love and faith are increasing (4)

            3. “make you worthy of the kingdom of God” (5)

                4. God's Judgment (6-11)

                    a. on persecutors (6)

                        b. relief for believers (7)

                    a'. on the wicked (8-9)

                        b'. believers marvel (10)

    1'. We pray for you (11a)

            3'. “make you worthy of his call” (11b)

        2'. Fulfill every work of faith and glorify Jesus (12)

In this case, both the center section 4 and the passage as a whole end with the same Greek root for “glory/glorify.”

There is so much that could be, and has been, said regarding the individual verses in this passage that I am going to limit myself to only citations from the anonymous contributors to Dictionary of Biblical Imagery to again demonstrate the value of that resource in Bible study.

“Faith is frequently measured in quantitative terms...Though the faith of some may be weak (e.g. Rom 14:1), there is always room for it to grow (Lk 17:5; 2 Cor 10:15; 2 Thess 1:3).”

“God provides the resources for the harvest of righteousness to increase (2 Cor 9:10) and in which faith and love increase (Phil 4:17; 1 Thess 3:12; 2 Thess 1:3).”

“Justice is one of the most outstanding attributes of God in Scripture...'a faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he' (Deut 32:4 NIV; see also Neh 9:13,33; Is 58:2; Jn 5:30; 2 Thess 1:6).”

“We find approximately thirty reference to God's vengeance in the OT prophets, buttressed by similar references in the eschatological passages of the NT (Mt 16:27; Lk 21;22; 2 Thess 1:8; Rev 18:6).”

“Hell is ...pictured by the image of darkness..This image appears to indicate consignment to chaos, being shut out of God's favorable presence and his good creation, since creation began with God calling light and darkness (Gen 1:1-3; see also 2 Thess 1:9; 1 Jn 1:5).”

“The Thessalonians have 'turned to God from idols...to wait for his Son from heaven' (1 Thess 1:9-10 NRSV), an event associated with the climactic movement when he will 'descend from heaven' (1 Thess 4:16 NRSV).”

When Paul speaks of the Day of the Lord (e.g. 1 Cor 5:5; 1 Thess 5:2,4; 2 Thess 1:10; 22) he quite naturally uses the image of the divine warrior's day of triumph. The parousia, or arrival, of Christ is a christological interpretation of the coming of the divine warrior.”

“The context [ of 2 Thess 1:10] sets the scene for us to picture Christ's coming from a place off the world stage.”

I will close with a citation from Abraham Smith regarding 2 Thessalonians 1:12 concerning which he notes that it “draws on Isaiah (66:5), but avers that Jesus (not God, as in Isaiah) will be glorified.”