tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44494991419031119102024-03-27T18:54:06.646-05:00Bible Passages Explained and IllustratedBible passages explained and illustrated with original art in acrylics and collage.Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.comBlogger2115125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-930117167952201972024-03-27T10:16:00.003-05:002024-03-27T10:16:57.150-05:00HELL REVISITED<p> </p><p><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidpo3_xkptbvffpxJz3R7r1YcxafpRB4JVZW_eNsGXEmcNKzqSPSy3NfEIFhRd_XBc4g7TVErCba8r5i5mlrunALm2Ss72kDprpm_Vxd8Ip2YLtoFw7UAT8JkiWqpu_OPaP3bzCYDcP4c/s1600/66_Homage+to+Bosch.jpg" width="504" /></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Homage to Bosch (collage, 2003) <br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">There are several different general
stances which have been taken by those who would consider themselves
Christians regarding the subject of eternal damnation of those not
saved. Here are a few comments on each. Only the first two options
would be considered to represent orthodox Christian doctrine.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <b>1. Hell exists, but wish it didn't.</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I would guess that this is probably a
common attitude of Christians today since it speaks of an overriding
concern and pity for the fate of the lost, including some of our own
family and friends. It is this feeling which has helped fuel the
impulse to mission over the years. In addition, it speaks to some of
God's basic characteristics: his love, forgiveness, and grace.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The prominent scholar Richard Mouw of
Fuller Theological Seminary brings up one practical objection against
this stance: “I am concerned...about theological slippage in our
evangelical community. To tell our younger generation that we wish
the Bible were not so clear about the reality of hell could
encouraged them simply to take the step that we resist taking.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <b>2.</b> <b>Hell exists, and I am
glad it does.</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This is a much rarer response to the
question unless one is talking of some die-hard fundamentalists who
just relish the idea that they will be going to heaven while very few
others will. But there are other, compassionate Christians who also
take this view, but for more acceptable reasons. For example, Mouw
has recently defended it in an article in Christianity Today
magazine. Below are some quotes from that article:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <b>3. Hell does not exist. All will be
saved in the end.</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This view is called universalism and is
commonly stated as “All roads lead to heaven.” You will hear such
sentiments mainly from non-Christians or nominal Christians.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Mouw says, “I am convinced that the
idea of universalism fails to capture some important elements in the
Bible's teachings about the requirements of divine justice. The
Scriptures make it clear that God heeds the cries of the oppressed
and that on the Day of Judgment all evildoers will be dealt with
according to their deeds (Rev. 20:12). Universalism tries to get
around the unspeakable harm that people do to each other, evading the
need for repentance, while detracting from the Cross [If all are
going to be saved anyway, why was it necessary for Christ to suffer
and die.] and a real joy in God's justice.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <b>4. Those not saved will simply
cease to exist.</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Here is one way that some attempt to
get around the idea of eternal suffering. This view is labeled
annihilationism. I have extensively critiqued this unbiblical
theology in four previous posts titled “Annihilationism:” with
the respective sub-titles “Old Testament Scriptures,” “An
Introduction,” “The Gospels,” and “Book of Revelation.”
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">One poster child illustrating the
possibility of what View #1 can lead to is the once firmly
evangelical scholar John Wenham. In his book <u>The Enigma of Evil</u>
he stated that he didn't want to believe in the concept of hell for
humane reasons. However, he also warned that we should be on the
lookout for rejecting spiritual beliefs just because we personally
don't like them. But, by the time his final book, <i>Facing Hell, An
Autobiography 1913–1996</i><span style="font-style: normal;">,</span>
was published just before his death, he was a confirmed
annihilationist who wrote, "I believe that endless torment is a
hideous and unscriptural doctrine which has been a terrible burden on
the mind of the church for many centuries and a terrible blot on her
presentation of the Gospel. I should indeed be happy, if before I
die, I could help in sweeping it away."
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> 5. <b>Three</b> <b>Other Approaches</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">A.
The famous apologist C.S. Lewis suggests in his fictional writings
two ways in which one can mitigate the horror of imagining an
eternity of unceasing pain that appears to be for some unbelievers a
case of overkill. In </span><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Great Divorce</span></u><span style="font-weight: normal;"> he
imaginatively pictures an afterlife in which the dead have the free
choice of visiting the outskirts of heaven and deciding to stay there
or moving further and further away from the bus station to heaven in
order to be by themselves and away from even the hint of God's
presence. </span>
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">This view fits in
with Lewis' famous statement “The gates of hell are locked from the
inside.” In other words, those who have rejected God's presence
when they were alive are not likely to want to be around Him when
they have died. So God grants them the dignity of their wishes.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">B. But that does
not help us understand the sad fate of whose who grew up in an
environment in which the Gospel was never presented to them.
Calvinists might simply state that God had predestined those people
to damnation. Romans 1-2 seems to deal with this situation by stating
that the Creation itself is testimony to God's power so that no one
is without excuse for rejecting Him (1:18-23). On the other hand,
Romans 2:12-16 can be interpreted to state that those who have never
heard God's law may possibly obey His will anyway and have their sins
accused on the Day of Judgment.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Lewis
deals with this possibility, remote as it might be, in the final book
in his Narnia Chronicles, </span><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">The</span></u><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">Last Battle</span></u><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
On Judgment Day, and all the inhabitants of Narnia parade one at a
time into a tent where they are confronted by Aslan. Most of the
Narnians are joyfully welcomed. However, one country is populated by
a warring people who worship a bloodthirsty god. When those people
(“who knew God but did not honor him as God or give thanks to him,
but became futile in their thinking...and exchanged the glory of the
immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or
four-footed animals or reptiles.” – Romans 1:21-23), enter the
tent, all they see is the terrible deity they worshiped and are
devoured by him. But there is one sole person from that tribe who for
some reason had always pictured their national god as the loving and
merciful deity which Aslan is in reality. That one person is saved.</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">I won't vouch for
the theological correctness of these two view by Lewis, but they do
perhaps give us insights to help rid the seeming arbitrary punishment
of hell from our mind.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">C. And Mouw even
considers a recent contribution to the universalist view from David
Bentley Hart, who says (in Mouw's words) that “each person will
eventually want Jesus as Lord – that no one chooses hell when they
see him.” Mouw's judgment on such a view is as follows:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">This
is a much stronger argument than simply that the God we love wouldn't
(despite what he said) condemn people. This is also what Hart argues.
He says we have to ask whether a proper understanding of human nature
allows us to believe that 'this defiant rejection of God for all
eternity is really logically possible for any rational being.'”</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Mouw identifies
this idea as coming from Platonistic philosophy. “Plato taught that
since evil is the absence of the Good, no one willingly chooses that
which is evil. This perspective allows Hart to argue that what we
might want to label in [Hitler's case] as 'intentional perversity' is
in reality a state of ignorance '' due to the 'external
contingencies' that Hart has listed, “such as disorders of the
mind.”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Mouw's conclusion,
however, is that each of us is choosing to follow a trajectory either
toward God or away from Him, and God will not willfully change that
personal trajectory.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">Embracing
universalism means theological and spiritual loss. We miss out on the
glory of redeemed people and the fullness of the divine glory. In a
universalist future, God brushes off the degradation of his
creatures. The wedding supper is not filled with guests dressed in
the clothes of righteousness but with people trying to pass off their
sins as inevitable, and therefore able to be dismissed. And God lets
them. I find such a present (and such a hypothetical future) to be
disheartening. I find it to be something far short of the joyful and
triumphant repudiation of wrong the Bible promises.”</span></p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-57352090638281352662024-03-26T12:22:00.000-05:002024-03-26T12:22:27.368-05:00"ON THE THIRD DAY" (I CORINTHIANS 15:3-4)<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">As I am writing this, Easter is
approaching. So it is appropriate to consider Paul's words in I
Corinthians stating “that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day
according to the Scriptures...”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Andrew Wilson notes that there is no
problem finding Old Testament passages regarding the death of the
Messiah, but not as many specific references to His resurrection on
the third day. But that doesn't mean that there aren't any. Wilson
states that this idea is in fact everywhere in the OT. “Seeing how
and why this is can teach us how to read the Bible more attentively –
which, more often than not means listening for refrains and echoes in
a symphony rather than Googling phrases for an exact match.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Well, I didn't use Google, but I did
consult an analytical concordance. It indicated that there were
almost exactly 100 passages in the Bible containing “the third day”
or “three days,” evenly divided between the two phrases. 23 of
these were New Testament references to Christ's resurrection. But
what about the OT?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">While not referring directly to the
coming Messiah, there were still some “refrains and echoes,” to
use Wilson's wording:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>A. </b>First, there are those
occasions when a three-day wait is mentioned before some important
event takes place. These include:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Genesis 1:12: Wilson states, “On day
three, the land brings forth plants and fruit trees, and they carry
seed 'according to their kinds', with the capacity to continue
producing life in subsequent generations. From that point on, the
rising to life of God's life-giving 'seed' on the third day becomes a
pattern.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Genesis 40:20: The wine-steward and
baker wait in jail for their sentences to be pronounced, one being
“resurrected” and the other executed and his body hung on a pole.
The echoes here are obvious.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Genesis 42:18: Similarly, Joseph puts
his brothers in prison for three days while they await their fate.
Paul also waited in prison for three days while the Jewish leaders
outside plotted to kill him. Fortunately, Festus protected him from
being returned to Jerusalem (Acts 25:1)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> In Exodus 19:11,16 Moses informs the
people that God will come <u>down</u> on the third day. This is sort
of a deliberate twist on Jesus coming <u>up</u> to the people on the
third day.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> OT characters sometimes conceal
themselves from danger for three days while they wait for news. These
include David in I Samuel 20:5,19-20 and the Jewish spies hiding from
their pursuers (Joshua 2:16,22).
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> In II Kings 2:17, we read about the
prophets who futilely searched for Elijah for three days, but he was
in heaven with his Father. And, although by no means hiding from his
parents, it took three days searching before they managed to find
Jesus in the temple impressing the Jewish leaders there (Luke 2:46).
And like Elijah, he was also in his “Father's house.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Esther requests the Jews to fast for
three days and nights prior to her taking her life in her hands and
approaching the king with her request (Esther 4:16; 5:1). Other
three-day periods of fast are recorded in the NT also (see Acts 9:9;
27:19; Matthew 15:32 // Mark 8:2).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> The Jews halt for a three-day
preparation period prior to crossing the Jordan into the Promised
Land (Joshua 1:11; 3:2).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Ezra mentions three different
three-day waits before important events taking place (see 8:15; 8:33;
and 10:8-9).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Turning to the New Testament for more
parallels, we find:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Three days represents the time period
between Jesus calling his disciples and performing his first miracle
(John 2:1).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Three days after being in a Roman jail,
Paul preaches the gospel to Jews living in Rome (Acts 28:17). And
this itself is an echo of Jesus preaching to the souls in hell and
during his various resurrection appearances.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>B.</b> Then we have the many times
in the OT that a journey of three-days is mentioned.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Most prominently, this happens as
Abraham and his only son Isaac travel to the spot where he is
destined to be sacrificed until God intervenes with a substitute
animal. This incident has always been associated among Christian
circles as a type of Christ dying on the cross in our place (Genesis
30:36).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Other three-day journeys appear during
the wilderness wanderings of the Jews as they continued to escape
from danger and toward the new life in the Promised Land, a foretaste
of believers' future resurrection to a new life in heaven (Exodus
3:18; 5:3; 8:27; 15:22; Numbers 10:33; 33:8).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>C.</b> Three days can also represent
a time of darkness. Thus, during the plagues of Egypt, the land was
totally dark for three days (Exodus 10:21-23); Jonah was in utter
darkness for three days while in the belly of the fish; Jesus was in
the darkness of the tomb for the same time period; and Saul was
struck blind for three days prior to his conversion and restoration
by God (Acts 9:9).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>D.</b> After a three-day period,
people are healed in I Samuel 30:12 and II Kings 20:5,8. These
prefigure Jesus' resurrection as well as Saul's conversion.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“Three days” also figures in
stories where bad news is shared. Jacob had escaped from Laban three
days earlier before the latter was told of it (Genesis 31:22); David
hears of Saul's death after a three-day period; and the guards inform
the chief priests of Jesus' “escape” from the tomb three days
after his death had occurred (Matthew 28:11).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Some of the above themes come together
in the two closest OT passages looking forward to Jesus'
resurrection:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>The Book of Jonah</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Most obviously,
the prophet spent three days and three nights in the belly of the
fish (Jonah 1:17), a passage quoted in Matthew 12:40 as predicting
what happened to Jesus. The other passages in the NT talking about
the resurrection simply say that it occurred “on the third day,”
expressing the literal truth. But the phrase “three days and three
nights” has caused commentators trouble since the Gospels appear to
only account for a few hours on Friday, all of Saturday, and a very
short time on Sunday morning. This “discrepancy” is generally
explained as due to the common Jewish practice of considering even a
small part of a day as the whole day instead.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">Three
days” also appears in Jonah 3:3, where the text says that it took
him a three-day journey to walk through all of Nineveh. It was a
popular understanding in ancient times that the soul of a dead person
had to undergo a three-day journey in order to reach the land of the
dead. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Hosea 6:2</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">This poetic
passage has also often been cited as a veiled prophecy of Jesus' time
in the tomb. It reads, “After two days he will revive us;
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> on the third day
he will raise us up that we may live before him.”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">If we were to read
this as prose, then it might be wrongly interpreted to say that
either (1) the prophet can't seem to make up his mind how many days
it takes or (2) it will be a two-step resurrection with “reviving”
being the first step only.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">In fact, as Hebrew
poetry, this verse shares two characteristics of that genre. Both
lines express basically the same thing, and it is a form of numerical
poetry of the type “x, x+1.” Other examples of this latter poetry
are found in Proverbs 30:15-31 and Amos 1:3-2:8. In all these cases,
it is the last number which is the one in mind by the poet, with the
first number merely preparing for it. We might think of rocket
countdowns from 10 to “blast-off,” or the ditty “One for the
money, two for the show, three to get ready, and four to “go.”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">As Anderson and
Freedman put it, “Explicit hope for resurrection of the body can
hardly be denied in this passage, but commentators have been
reluctant to admit it [tending instead to feel the passage refers to
a communal or national renewal instead]. The sequence 'two days...on
the third day' is an artistic turn, not a time schedule, though it
may reflect the widespread belief that there was a three-day period
after death before the final separation of the soul from the body.”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Dearman notes that
the verb pair “revive and raise up” is also found in Isaiah 26:14
and 26:19, and Paul may have the Hosea passage in mind in I
Corinthians 15:4, but “Tertullian appears to be the first Christian
writer to cite Hos. 6:2 explicitly as scriptural proof of Christ's
resurrection. However, Davies adds that “this understanding of it
may well go back to the earliest Christian communities.”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Wilson concludes
his short essay with the words, “So when Hosea talks about Israel
being raised up on the third day, he is not plucking a random number
out of nowhere. He is reflecting a well-established theme originating
in the Bible's first chapter.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>I Kings 3:18</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">There is this one
remaining mention of “three days” in the Bible, which has some of
the same elements associated later with Jesus' death and
resurrection. It is the story of Solomon's judgment regarding the two
prostitutes who had babies at the same time. But after three days,
the child of woman #1 died at night. So that woman secretly switched
babies with her roommate's baby and falsely claimed that it was her
own. Solomon's judgment was that the baby be cut in two so that both
of the woman could share. Only woman #2 objected to this arrangement
and agreed to let #1 keep the baby. At that point, Solomon knew who
the true mother was.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Thus we have the
death of an innocent person, the time frame of three days, a
substitution of one life for another, the selfless giving of one
person to ensure the life of another, and a “final judgment” by
the king. The problem is that these elements are jumbled together to
the point where it is hard to tell if there is any relationship
whatsoever intended with later NT events. I will leave that to you as
a homework assignment to see if I am on the right track here or not.</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-14217688353489995052024-03-24T11:31:00.004-05:002024-03-24T11:31:48.021-05:00CAN WE REALLY BELIEVE THE EXODUS STORY?<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I discovered another site on the
internet which is antagonistic toward Christianity and the Bible. It
is called “Medium” and is put out by Tim Zeak, who is described
as: “formerly an evangelical who read the Bible from cover to cover
a dozen times.” In one of his posts he gives the various reasons
one can simply not take the story of the Jews' exodus from Egypt
seriously. I have listed them in italics with my own comments
following.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Many of these objections can be
eliminated or at least mitigated greatly if the number of Israelite
men (said to be about 600,000 in Exodus 12:37, and consistent with
census figures in Numbers 1:46 as well as with the redemption money
listed in Exodus 38:25-26). That would calculate to approximately
2,500,00 total Israelites taking part in the exodus. Thus, I will
discuss that problem first before going to Zeak's objections. I turns
out that there have been various ways of understanding Exodus 12:37
in addition to either accepting the number at face value or totally
rejecting it as being entirely fictional.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>1. Cole: “We may assume, if we like,
that the figures have been wrongly preserved in the manuscripts
(perhaps in earlier days having been written in cipher, not in
full)...It was great enough to terrify the Moabites (Nu 22:3), yet
small enough to be based on the oases around Kadesh-barnea (Dt.
1:46). No theological point depends on the exact numbers, and so the
question is unimportant. Whether there were six thousand or six
hundred thousand, their deliverance was a miracle.” It is a well
known fact that there is little to no redundancy to numbers compared
to words, which makes it next to impossible to restore a number in
the text which has been wrongly copied by a scribe.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>2. “Doughty observes a Bedouin
tendency to hyperbolically magnify numbers by factors of ten.”
(Propp) Other ancient Near Eastern cultures inflated their numbers
even more so.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>3. Durham cites Beer, who feels the
phrase 'about six hundred thousand' in Exodus 12:37 came from
gematria, a practice in which each Hebrew letter stood for a
corresponding number, all of which could be added up. Using this
method the numerical value of the phrase “sons of Israel” in the
verse equals 603,551, amazingly close to the 603,550 of Numbers 1:46.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>4. Thompson on Numbers 1:1-46:
“Assuming that the terms in Nu. 1-4; 26 and 31 are military in
nature and that the lists were ancient and authentic, it is possible
that a later compiler of ancient source material misunderstood the
true meaning of the terms, and assuming them to be numbers [instead
of military leaders or units], simply added them up and arrived at
the total of 603,550 in 1:46.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>5. “Or alternatively the term
<i>'allup</i>, 'captain', may have been confused with <i>'elep</i>,
'thousand', so that, e.g., in 1:39 the 62,700 men of Dan may have
read originally '60 captains, 2,700 men', or even '60 captains, 27
<i>me'ot'</i>. The problem is thus complex and a variety of
mathematical solutions has been offered.” (Thompson)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Depending on which of these
mathematical solutions is correct, we arrive at much more realistic
numbers for the total population of the Israelites at the time –
between 16,000 people (according to Ramm) and 27,000 by the reckoning
of Mendenhall and Jarvis.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Gordon also mentions these two
possibilities but notes that they would not explain the number
deduced from Exodus 38:25-26 and Numbers 1:17-46. However, he does
not count on the fact that these passages may have been composed by
another author or later editor who misunderstood the meaning of
'<i>eleph</i> in Exodus 12:37 and adjusted their figures accordingly
so as to be consistent.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>6. Freitheim explains another
approach, which is to “understand the number in terms of the
approximate population of Israel at the time of David and Solomon;
the number would be a way of confessing that all Israel from this
later time came out of Egypt.” Ramm echoes this possibility: “In
Israel's concept of 'corporate personality' (a group viewed as one
person) all Israel did participate in the exodus as Christians
believe that all Christians participated in the cross.” See Romans
6 for this idea.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Also illustrating this principle, and
even closer to the context, is the way the census of all the
Israelites coming <u>to</u> Egypt is enumerated in Genesis 46:8-27 as
70. It actually counts children who had not yet been born to the 12
patriarchs at that time. They are included because the potential for
their birth was already present. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Keep the above possibilities in mind,
as I go through Zeke's objections.</p>
<p><a name="f351"></a><a name="48e5"></a><strong>A:</strong> <i>The
Bible, in its story about the Exodus, would have you believe that
2,500,000 runaway slaves outran the entire Egyptian military who were
chasing them on horses and chariots. That would have created a line
over 200 miles long (at eight abreast) not including their animals,
that the Bible says were many. </i>
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal;">In the first place, there was no
question of the Israelites “outrunning” the Egyptians who were
right at their heels. If you read the account, you will clearly see
that the Jews had left some time earlier, having time to make two
stops along the way. Only then, after an undisclosed period of time,
did Pharaoh call out his army to chase them down. Not only that, but
Exodus 14:1-9 God told the Jews to actually turn back toward Egypt so
that the army could find them more easily, in order to eventually
trap them in the Re(e)d Sea.</p>
<p><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Kitchen
states, “That a large group of subject people should go out from a
major state is neither impossible nor unparalleled in antiquity. In
the late 15</span></span><sup><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">th</span></span></sup><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
century BC people of some 14 mountain regions and townships
apparently decamped from their habitats within the Hittite kingdom
and transferred themselves to the land of Isewa...”</span></span></p>
<p><a name="9ace"></a><b>B:</b> <i>The story of the Exodus only
appears in the Hebrew Bible/the Christian Old Testament and nowhere
else. Not in Egyptian history, nor in any other history. Despite
decades of extensive archaeological endeavors, not one trace of it
has ever been found...</i><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">nothing
from the 42 largest and most populated “cities” that the Bible
claims were in the same area.</span></i><i> </i>
</p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">As many Bible scholars
have pointed out, it is actually quite rare for the annals of a
country to record their military losses. Of his early military
campaigns, the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptal recorded in his fifth year
that “Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe; Ashkelon
has been overcome; Gezar has been captured; Yano’am was made
nonexistent; </span></strong><strong><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">Israel
is laid waste, its seed is not</span></u></strong><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">.”
The Merneptal Stele is the first (and only) mention of “Israel”
in ancient Egyptian records. </span></strong>
</p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">And since Israel
obviously continued to prosper and grow numerically for years to
come, the bragging words concerning their disappearance prove to be
just that – a case of fake news. The pharaoh was, however, not
telling a total lie – the Israelites were not...in Egypt anymore.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">It is also well
recognized that the Egyptians attempted to expunge from their records
and statuary the whole time period during which the Hyksos people
were in charge of the country until the native Egyptians drove them
out of power. </span></strong>
</p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">R.P. Gordon cites
historical examples ranging from a battle fought by Rameses II's
troops in ca. 1285 BC to a devastating earthquake in China in 1976 in
which 5000,000 people were killed. In both cases, the nations
involved perpetrated cover-up attempts to minimize the amount of
damage.</span></strong></p>
<p>It is telling how the word “Israel” is written. At the end of
every other mention of a people group is a hieroglyph of three hills,
standing for “country.” At the end of “Israel” is the drawing
of a man and a woman, a glyph denoting that Israel is not yet an
established place, not yet a country. It is still a people wandering
in the Sinai wilderness.
</p>
<p>Next, in regard to the “42 largest and most populated cities”
in the region of wandering, almost none of the place-names can be
identified with certainty, which is not surprising since none of them
need be a “city” at all. Some of the names obviously refer to
small towns, oases, temporary camping places or villages instead. The
Hebrew word for “city” does not even appear in the Exodus account
of the wanderings and rarely in the Numbers parallel.
</p>
<p><b>C.</b><i> The Bible tells us that all two million plus of them were
informed that the very next day, they would be escaping from Egypt
and had to immediately get prepared. </i><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">(see</span></i></strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></i><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Exodus 11:2–4
and Exodus 12:21–24). How could that many be told without the use
of bullhorns?</span></i></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
saying that, Zeak has obviously never worked in a large company or
the military. Even before the days of the computer (I am dating
myself here), our lab director would have his secretary tell the
department managers some piece of news for them to spread to the
troops; they would in turn inform the supervisors, who would then
tell all the people reporting to them. It was not at all unusual for
those at the bottom of the totem pole to know about the news well
before the supervisor informed them of it a little later in the day.
Even in prison, there are methods of incarcerated prisoners rapidly
communicating with one another even while in their individual cells.</span></span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Also,
the people would have been already prepared to leave at a moments
notice when the word came since Moses had warned them well in advance
that the exodus was to be expected soon. It at least gave them the
time to gather their things together as well as contact their
Egyptian neighbors for any parting “gifts” they wished to give
them. </span></span></strong>
</p>
<p><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">For
another thing, there was a least a two-week delay between the warning
given by Moses and the time of the actual departure (see 12:1-13).
This would have allowed plenty of time for them to prepare for the
trip. </span></span></strong>
</p>
<p><b>D.</b><i><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Despite the Bible saying
elsewhere that they only took food wrapped in their shoulder sleeves
and some treasure they obtained from the Egyptians, we see soon after
this one-day escape that they all had tents to live in, along with
tools and weapons. They also had plenty of wood and unblemished,
one-year old male lambs for the many required daily sacrifices that
their God demanded. (see </span></i><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Exodus
29:25). </span></i></strong>
</p>
<p><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
the first place, Zeak has misspoke here. It doesn't say that besides
the treasures they </span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">only
took food</span></u></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
wrapped in their sleeves. It says that the </span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">only
food they took</span></u></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
was that which was wrapped in their sleeves. The text says nothing
regarding all the other things they took with them.</span></span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">At
this point, it is also obvious that Zeak has not at all understood
the way the Exodus story is being told. The account goes back and
forth between telling the story of the actual exodus and outlining
the detailed procedures for later years when the Jews were to
celebrate the event annually. Thus, the elaborate instructions
regarding how they were to celebrate, how the tabernacle was to be
outfitted, and the later daily sacrifices to be performed applied to
the time once they were settled in the land, not to requirements
during the exodus period itself.</span></span></strong></p>
<p><strong>E.<i><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Water distribution in
the desert would require an amazing network of wells, cisterns, and
piping, assuming you can find the water to begin with. Since their
food was rained down for them as manna, we can skip that necessity.
Sanitation would be huge, manufacturing of clothes for those born in
the wilderness, hospitals, first aid stations, schools, day care,
where to gather wood for the many daily sacrifices (in the desert),
medicines, soap, blankets or sleeping bags for those cold nights, and
countless other needs that cannot be ignored. Factories and mining
facilities were needed as they all had spades, tools, and weapons.</span></i></strong><strong>
</strong>
</p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Ramm points out that
“The Sinaitic Peninsula could have supported about 16,000 people at
that time for it was much greener, but it could not have supported
2,500,000.” So Zeak's objection is only true if one demands that
there were millions of Israelites on the journey. And as to all the
other elaborate paraphernalia he mentions, apparently the nomadic
tribes of that area managed to subsist quite well for generations
without having most of those items which he enumerates.</span></strong></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><strong>F.<i><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Obviously,
these slaves were apparently wealthy, as they all had houses with
doors and a sizable herd of sheep.</span></i></strong></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
the first place, even slaves had to have someplace to sleep at night
even if it was just an improved lean-to or tent. And since the Jews
had lived in Goshen for quite a while before a pharaoh put them to
hard labor, there is no reason why they couldn't have continued to
live in the houses they had already built for themselves. Similarly,
they had been raising sheep there for generations, and there would
have been no reason for the Egyptians to take those away from them
since (1) we know that the Egyptians themselves refused to eat goats
or sheep and (2) by allowing the Israelites to keep their livestock,
that would have greatly alleviated the necessity of the Egyptians
having to provide food for them.</span></span></strong></p>
<p><strong>G.<i><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Moses did not write
any of the Torah:</span></i></strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></i><i>It is very easy to confirm and to understand why the
overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars today have determined that
the “Books of Moses,” the first five books in the Old Testament,
were not written until during or after the post-exilic period (later
than 586 B.C.E.) and absolutely not by Moses, who would have died
many centuries before. </i>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-style: normal;">Although
we are told several times in the Pentateuch that Moses wrote
something or other down, it never states that he wrote the Pentateuch
itself. “The Books of Moses” is a title that can just as easily
and naturally be understood as books concerning Moses as its main
character or the times in which Moses lived. But even if a
post-exilic date is determined (and that statement is by no means as
established as many liberal scholars would have you believe), that
does nothing to disprove the historical accuracy of the account. In
basically preliterate cultures around the world, it has been
demonstrated that even detailed oral traditions are able to be
accurately preserved from generation to generation.</span><i> </i><span style="font-style: normal;">Thus,
a combination of preserved written and oral traditions dating back to
Moses' day is by far the best explanation for the wealth of accurate
cultural information regarding Egyptian customs found in the
Pentateuch, information which would have been hard to capture if the
whole story were merely fabricate at a much later date. </span>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>H. </b><i>Many locations named in this story
were not even in existence at that alleged time, clearly proving the
story was developed at a much later time than it claims to be. This
is called an anachronism, one of several factors that scholars use in
dating old manuscripts.</i></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">The previous
explanation above well explains this objection also. It is as if
someone took original accounts of the early populating of North
America by Europeans and said, for the benefit of a current audience,
that the Dutch settled in New York City (rather than the pedantically
correct “New Amsterdam”).</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-75296864826683904062024-03-22T11:54:00.002-05:002024-03-22T11:54:27.877-05:00THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND (MATTHEW 12:9-14; MARK 3:4-6; LUKE 6:6-11)<p>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVhOGYh3e57jpRaZ-MWpsDVkqmjUuJVyt_-3qEh7Bdbq_3vmYSW8t5gccu90TnqnKr6i3bF3CEz1K9VmhEJz3NpJt-juXKS4hSuQdxGCNyhoO3E8FK5CnozMeKDyaCqLn6FLqw8R6RmWQ/s640/188_While+They+Watched.jpg" width="438" /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> While They watched (collage, 2009)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This is another example of a miracle
which is attested in all the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus heals the
withered hand of a man while in the synagogue on the Sabbath with
disapproving Pharisees looking on. Since Matthew's version is the
most complete narrative, we will go with it while recognizing two
major departures from it in Mark and Luke:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> At the start of the story, Luke gives
the added detail that Jesus went into the synagogue in the first
place in order to teach.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> What Matthew reports in his verse 12
as a statement by Jesus to the Pharisees, Mark and Luke pose as a
question: “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm?”
And when the Pharisees refuse to answer, Mark adds that Jesus was
grieved at their hard hearts.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Since what is involved in this story is
a question regarding the Jewish law, the short discussion below will
concentrate on the historical situation at the time. And as
background, it is necessary to go back to the previously mentioned
healing in Matthew 12:1-8. Robertson notes the arguments Jesus
adduced there for his justification for working on the Sabbath:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>1. historical appeal to the example of
David eating the consecrated bread (I Samuel 21:1-6)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>2. the Old Testament law of Numbers
28:9-10 regarding the priest's required duties they needed to carry
out on the Sabbath.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>3. the voice of prophecy recorded in
Hosea 6:6, stating “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>4. the overall purpose of God in the
Sabbath</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>5. his right to do what he wished
since the Messiah was the lord of the Sabbath</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>6. In our passage at hand, another
argument is offered by Jesus, namely, the common practice of the Jews
to rescue animals in distress on the Sabbath</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>7. And then John 7:20-24 adds a final
precedent, the Jewish practice of circumcising newborn boys on the
Sabbath.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Matthew 12:9-10</u> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Kistemaker speculates: “Perhaps the
clergy had told the man to come to the worship service and petition
Jesus to heal him. If Jesus fell into their trap, they could accuse
him of desecrating the Sabbath and bring him to court. In their
legalistic minds they reasoned that only a patient whose life was in
danger should be healed on the Sabbath; a man with a withered hand
could wait until the next day...The Pharisees considered his
shriveled right hand a blemish that restricted the man from fully
participating anywhere in society and the synagogue. Instead of
expressing sympathy and love, they looked down on him.” </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">F.F. Bruce quotes St. Jerome, who
preserved a story from “the Gospel which the Nazarenes and
Ebionites use, and which many regard as the original of Matthew.”
It read, “I was a stonemason, earning my living with my hands. I
pray you, Jesus, restore my health to me, so that I may not be
shamefully reduced to begging for my food.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">At this point in the Gospel story, the
Pharisees ask Jesus their trick question: “Is it lawful to cure on
the Sabbath?” And actually, it turns out that the various Jewish
sects at the time had differing opinions on that subject. In the Ten
Commandments, they were obviously told not to work on the Sabbath,
but how exactly was “work” defined and were any exceptions
allowed? Dunn explains that detailed rules regarding acceptable
activities “had already been well developed by the time of Jesus,”
leading to differing conclusions by the Dead Sea community, the
Essenes, and the Pharisees.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Matthew 12:11-12a</u><br />Jesus
replies by appealing to them on the basis of rules governing the
saving of animals in distress on the Sabbath. Pertinent to the
example Jesus gives, Hock gives some interesting historical
background information: “At times parallels from the [ancient
Greek] romances do more than corroborate [NT texts]; they also
clarify. For example, the brief mention of a pit into which a sheep
might fall (Mt 12:11) finds clarification in Longus's romance [i.e.
Daphnis and Chloe], where the practice of digging pits is more fully
described: they are the work of a whole village, are six feet across
and four times as deep, are camouflaged with branches and are
designed to trap marauding wolves.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Regarding the legal issue, the
Pharisees were actually among the most liberal interpreters of the
law and apparently saw nothing wrong with saving an animal which had
fallen into a pit and couldn't get out. (Nixon)
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">But not all Jews applied the Sabbath
law in the same way. Thus, “B. Shab. 128B and Bab. Metzia 326 were
rabbinical rulings that allowed the rescue of an animal who had
fallen in a pit or was in danger elsewise...the general principle was
that it was contrary to the Law to allow an animal to continue to
suffer without help.” (D. Hill)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">However, as Dunn says, quoting the Dead
Sea scroll labeled CD-AXI, 'No one should help an animal give birth
on the Sabbath. And if [it falls] into a cistern or a pit, he should
not take it out on the Sabbath...and any living man who falls into a
place of water or into a [reservoir?], no one should take him out
with a ladder or a rope or a utensil.” Dunn concludes, “So the
episodes fit well into the context of Jesus' mission and give us a
vivid impression of the sort of halakic [legal Talmudic] disputes
that must have been a feature of the factionalism of Second Temple
Judaism.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And in reference to reason #7 above,
another ruling in the Halakah was that circumcision was not only
permissible, but demanded, on the eighth day after birth if it fell
on a Sabbath, though there was no such exception given anywhere in
the OT. (Maccoby)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jesus employs the common argument from
the lesser to the greater at this point to reason that a man is worth
more than an animal, and therefore helping him on the Sabbath is
certainly permitted.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">C.A. Evans cites another ancient Jewish
legal ruling that is even more to the point: “To be sure, the
rabbis taught that the saving of life overrides the sabbath' (<i>Mekilta</i>
on Exod. 31:31), after all, 'the sabbath was made for man, not man
for the sabbath' (Mark 2:27). (It is possible, of course, that the
tradition in <i>Mekilta</i> is dependent upon Jesus.)...Obviously the
difference between Jesus and his opponents lay in the interpretation
and application of the sabbath laws; they did not dispute their
validity.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I can remember way back when I was in
high school Sunday school class and one of our elders was a guest
speaker. He gave us a pamphlet outlining the major problem with rock
and roll music. It was based on a pagan jungle rhythm, and therefore
listening to it was akin to worshiping a pagan deity. I argued with
him on the point, but neither of us disputed the validity of the law
prohibiting the worship of other gods.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Matthew 12:12b</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Next both Mark and Luke's parallel
accounts report that Jesus asked a second question (part of which is
given as a concluding statement instead in Matthew): “Is it lawful
on the Sabbath day to do good, or to do harm, to save a life, or to
kill?” I will admit that I could never quite get the gist of what
Jesus was driving at with this question.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The answer comes from an added comment
given us by Luke, namely that Jesus could read the Pharisees'
thoughts and knew that they were attempting to trap him. Thus, as
Swift says, “they were using the sabbath with murderous intentions,
plotting to kill Jesus. Which was more appropriate to the day, His
healing or their plotting?”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> And Short sees another aspect to
Jesus' words that I would certainly never have read into them on my
own: “He [Jesus] claimed that to refuse to heal the man would
technically be a 'work' just as much as to cure him, and an evil one
at that.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Matthew 12:13-14</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The incident concludes with Jesus
healing the man, which does not in any way dissipate the Pharisees'
hatred of Him.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Of course we are not immune to such
nitpicking arguing even today. And at least some of it stems from the
rabbinical practice of “building a hedge around the law,” to
ensure that no one breaks the law itself. Dunn summarizes the problem
with this practice: “The danger, then, is that an overprotective
attitude toward an important law or legal ruling can actually
constitute an abuse of the law itself. Secondary laws should not be
allowed to obscure or hinder the fundamental obligations of
relationship to God and to others [i.e. to love].”</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-41933441508360798102024-03-20T12:06:00.000-05:002024-03-20T12:06:45.924-05:00ISAIAH 52<p> The most valuable portion of
Isaiah from a Christian perspective are those chapters containing
what are called the “Servant Songs” (three of which are given in
bold in Figure 1). There is some controversy as to the boundaries of
these poetic sections, but here is my own symmetrical analysis of
those found in chapters 49-57.</p>
<p align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Figure 1: Structure of
Isaiah 49-57</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>1. Hope (49:1-50:3)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span> </span>The Lord's Servant
(49:1-6)</b></p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>a. Word of Hope (49:7-12)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>b. Sing for Joy (49:13)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>a'. Word of Hope
(49:14-50:3)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>2. Pay Attention
(50:4-52:12)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <b><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>The Lord's Servant
(50:4-11)</b></p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>a. Listen! (51:1-8)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>b. Awake! (51:9-52:6)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>(1). Awake, awake
(51:9-16)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>(2). Rouse yourself,
rouse yourself (51:17-23)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>(1'). Awake, awake
(52:1-6)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>a'. Listen! (52:7-12)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>1'. Hope (52:13-57:21)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span> </span>The Lord's Servant
(52:13-53:12)</b></p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>a. Hope for the Abandoned
(ch. 54)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>b. Invitation to come to
the LORD (chs. 55-56)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>a'. Hope for the Abandoned
(ch. 57)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In this post, I would like
to concentrate on Isaiah 52 only. Blenkinsopp rightly says of this
chapter and the following one, “The passage has been and continues
to be the object of an enormous volume of commentary and is beset by
problems of interpretation, several still unsolved.” And Watts
says, “The textual and exegetical problems are too numerous to
canvas, let alone discuss; even the sometimes stuttering syntax seems
to be a deliberate attempt to communicate confused astonishment.”
We will touch on just a few of these issues in this brief review.<span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>
</b></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
comments below will make better sense if you read the verses from the
Bible along with them since I haven't always taken the time to quote
or summarize them.</span></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>
</b></span>
</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;"><b>Isaiah
52:1-6</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This first section of Isaiah 52 is
written in prose, unlike the rest of the chapter.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Verses 1-2:</u> God through the
prophet speaks directly to the largely abandoned city of Jerusalem in
anthropomorphic terms as if she were a captive woman ready to be
liberated. This obviously speaks of the time when the people of
Israel were still in exile.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Back in Isaiah 51:9, the Israelites had
urged God to wake up and take action. Here we have “a retort which
is the best answer. Cf. A comparable rejoinder by our Lord in Mk.
9:22,23.” (Kidner) Thus, as Oswalt points out, “The problem is
not with him; he is ready to deliver them at the earliest moment when
they are willing to exercise faith in him. It is they who must awake
and put on strength, not he...While she [i.e. Israel] has no strength
to deliver herself, she does have strength to lay hold of God's
promises and must exercise that strength if deliverance is to be
realized. This is a principle of divine-human relations that is the
same in all circumstances.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“52:1-2 is not so much a call to
holiness as a promise that in a future day Jerusalem will be wholly
free from foreign and pagan overlords.” (D. Payne)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Regarding v. 2, “The MT [Hebrew text]
supported by LXX [the Septuagint] has 'sit down, Jerusalem'. The
RSV...and others have accepted a slight textual change that allows
for the translation 'O captive Jerusalem'. This would agree with the
final clause 'O captive daughter of Zion'. It it is best, however to
keep to the MT.” (Hulst)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Verses 3-6:</u> McKenzie:
“Something has happened to the words of Yahweh in vss. 3-6. The
line between Hebrew poetry and elevated Hebrew prose is sometimes
thin, but here there can be no doubt that these lines are in prose;
and they form an eccentric mass in a poetic composition. Yet the
content is not out of harmony with the context...The thought echoes
in xlv 13. Yahweh has not acted for gain in the judgment of Israel,
and he does not act for gain in its restoration. He acts only for his
name, or for his righteousness, or for his fidelity.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Verse 5:</u> Payne says that
“'here' in v. 5 and 'there' in v. 11 refer to Babylon, which he
does not even deign to name.” This verse is quoted in the
Septuagint version by Paul in Romans 2:24 following a long litany of
Israel's sins causing God's name to be blasphemed among the Gentiles.
Seifrid notes that “whereas the MT here sets aside the question of
Israel's guilt, Paul, together with the LXX, speaks of Jewish
transgressions as the cause of blasphemy...”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Verse 6:</u> Durham notes the way
the phrase 'I am Yahweh' is used rhetorically in the Book of Exodus.
But he says, “The high point of this rhetoric is reached in Isa
52:6, 'Indeed will my people know from experience my name in that
day, indeed, for I am He, the One who speaks out. Here I am!'”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Isaiah 52:7-12</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
In these verses, “The basic metaphor is of the triumphant approach
of a king to a subject kingdom. His coming is announced by lookouts
on mountains along the route and eventually by sentinels on the walls
of Jerusalem.” (Blenkinsopp) Payne echoes this thought: “The
return of the exiles is depicted as a solemn and sacred procession;
it is as if God Himself returns with them.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">Verse
7:</span></u><span style="font-weight: normal;"> This is perhaps the
most discussed verse in the chapter.</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Robertson: “Green
notes the connection of Nah 1:15 with Isa. 52:7, where deliverance
from the Babylonian captivity is more immediately connected with
God's word of redemption for Israel. He calls attention to the
distinctive methodology of the writers of Scripture, 'by which terms
and expressions primarily descriptive of the fall of one hostile
power are applied interchangeably to that of others.'” Green's
conclusion is that Nahum was commandeering Isaiah's words to make his
own similar point.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">Part
of v. 7...is duplicated in Nah. 1:15, and some scholars make a good
deal of the supposed dependence of one passage on the other...it is
equally possible that the phrase was part of a stock of phrases that
was current in Israel as a whole, or among the prophets in
particular, and that specific literary dependence is not an issue.”
(Oswalt)</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">But Schnittjer
states, “The extent of the parallel requires a direct or an
indirect relationship. The verbal parallel does not offer evidence of
direction of dependence.”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Bridger's
extensive comments on Nahum 1:15 can just as well apply to Isaiah 52
as well:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> “The
</span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">mountains</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
may be those around Jerusalem, making the promise of </span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">peace</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;">
very close. Or they may be a metaphor for a very public proclamation
of this good news; it would not be done in a corner, or in secret.
The mention of the feet of the messenger suggests someone who has
traveled some distance, perhaps from the scene of battle and a famous
victory. The heart of the message was </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">peace</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
the word used being </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">shalom</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
which means much more than 'a ceasing from hostilities' or 'the
ending of a conflict'...Nahum's words concerning 'the feet of one who
brings good news, who proclaims peace,' point forward to salvation
and peace beyond the deliverance from the Assyrians or even the
Babylonians, to salvation in Christ and peace with God, and all that
follows in the life of the spirit.” This implication is brought out
in Paul's citing of Isaiah/Nahum in Romans 10:14-15.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
speaking of 'beautiful feet,' </span><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Dictionary of Biblical Imagery</span></u><span style="font-weight: normal;">
explains that “the biblical writers are content with beauty as a
general artistic quality denoting the positive response of a person
to nature, a person or an artifact. Isaiah does not have physical
appearance in mind...”</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">Verse
8:</span></u><span style="font-weight: normal;"> McKenzie states, “By
a paradox the watchmen of Jerusalem respond with a shout; it is a
paradox because an abandoned city would have no watchmen. What they
see is not the messenger but the return of Yahweh himself.”</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">Verse
9:</span></u><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Oswalt: “It is
into this landscape that God comes with the promise that he has
comforted them and redeemed them...These two verbs are at the very
center of the message of this part of the book. They speak of
restoration to fellowship, deliverance from bondage, encouragement in
despair, strength in weakness, forgiveness in guilt, purpose in
uselessness, and more.”</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">Verse
10:</span></u><span style="font-weight: normal;"> In this verse it is
said that God has bared is holy arm, “in other words, he has thrown
back the encumbering folds of his garment in order to be able to use
his sword.” (Whybray)</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Kidner remarks on
the “psalm-like outburst in vv. 9,10 (cf. Ps. 98:3,40<u>).”</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">Verse
11:</span></u><span style="font-weight: normal;"> This verse tells of
the sacred Temple vessels being returned to Jerusalem, as described
in Ezra 1:7-11. Kaiser, quoting Calvin, says that the “promise in
Isaiah 52:11 that Israel would be restored from exile is not to be
limited to either the NT or the OT; it includes the time 'down to
Christ's last coming, when all things shall be fully accomplished.'”</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">Verse
12:</span></u><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Note the vast
difference this time from when Israel left captivity in Egypt in
great haste (see Exodus 12:11). As Ellul says, “It is not a
question of fleeing soldiers, beaten in battle, but of men
withdrawing after accomplishing what God asked them to accomplish.
Contrary to what has usually happened throughout history these are
not men rejected by the city, but men who know that their act of
rejecting the city is in accordance with God's will. These are men
who go out, guarded on every side, with God marching before and
behind, and abandon the city to herself in the midst of God's wrath.”</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Isaiah 52:13-15</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Bruce notes that
“it was sensitiveness to the Christian application of Is.
52:13-53:12 that was responsible for the non-inclusion of this
passage in the regular synagogue readings from the Prophets, although
the passages immediately preceding and following are included.”
This pointed exclusion is still present today. And it was little
doubt that this same reason was behind the Jewish Targum (i.e. early
commentary) of this passage assigning the exaltation passages to the
Messiah but those on sufferings to the nation instead.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Freedman calls
Isaiah 52:13-53:12 “the most important of the servant songs...The
summary offered in 52:13-15 suggests that the pattern of the
servant's experience stretches between the extremes of humiliation
and exaltation, from death to resurrection, from condemnation as a
criminal to acknowledgment as the lord of men. The principal
obligation of this servant here is to suffer; this is his work for
his master; in this manner his mission to the nations is
accomplished, and the purpose of God through the servant is
fulfilled.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">Let
there be no mistake...God's Servant will triumph (Isa. 52:13), for
even though many will be shocked at His crucifixion (Isa. 52:4), this
is nothing compared to the way kings will be stunned when He returns
a second time (Isa. 52:15).” (Kaiser)</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">Verse
14:</span></u><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
Oswalt states that “instead of the Servant demonstrating that he
was the gift of God through his obvious attractiveness, the very
opposite was true. We are repelled by the face of self-giving and
undefensiveness, and appalled by the visage of one who would prefer
to lose than to win for the wrong reasons. Whatever attractiveness he
might have for people will have to be from within...” The churches
in America would be well advised to heed these words.</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Harrison
and Merrill bring up an interesting historical point regarding this
verse: They explain that in the Dead Sea scroll version of Isaiah,
“the word </span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">msht</span></span></i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
[disfigured] was replaced by the slightly different form </span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">mshty</span></span></i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
presumably meaning 'I anointed.' The verse would then read 'As many
as were astonished at you: so I anointed his appearance above any
man, and his form beyond that of other human beings.' This
emendation, which emphasized the anointed nature of the Lord's
servant, makes it apparent that the Qumran sectaries regarding the
Messiah and the suffering servant as identical.”</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">Verse
15:</span></u><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
We run into another translation problem in this final verse of the
chapter. Payne explains that “sprinkle is the usual sense of the
Hebrew verb, it is true, but 'startle' (RSV) may be right and offers
better sense in context.”</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">On
the other hand, Hulst offers an opposite opinion: “The Hebr verbal
form </span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">yazze(h)</span></span></i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
has been dubiously rendered 'he shall startle' (cf. The RSV). Many
suggestions on the translation of the forms have been made. In this
context, the word cannot mean 'to sprinkle'..Vriezen believes the
form to be from </span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">hazza(h)</span></span></i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
'to splash', which is interpreted in this context to mean 'to burst
asunder'...This interpretation deserves consideration.”</span></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
Most modern translations opt for some variation on the word 'startle.</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-58859219413686139062024-03-18T16:04:00.002-05:002024-03-18T16:04:19.683-05:00BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS FROM A CHAT GROUP<p> I keep searching the internet looking
for Bible contradictions that actually hold up under scrutiny. And
there have been some challenging ones from the American Atheists and
American Humanists, but certainly not any which could not be
adequately addressed or at least chalked up as a minor “typo”
having no effect on the historical or theological truth involved. So
now I am dredging the bottom of the barrel and have come across a
chat group which is filled with misinformation, ill-formed
deductions, and plain nonsense peppered with cuss words to boot. Here
are the first three examples I came across:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>1. “Is God jealous? Compare Exodus
20:5 with Proverbs 6:34.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">There is no doubt that Exodus 20:5
clearly states that God is a jealous God. But Proverbs 6:34 has no
relationship to that statement at all. It reads, “For jealousy
arouses a husband's fury, and he shows no restraint when he takes
revenge.” If you can figure out how that constitutes a
contradiction, please let me know at <span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="mailto:dr2mccoy@gmail.com">dr2mccoy@gmail.com</a></u></span></span>
and I will share it.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>2. “The biggest contradiction is
'Thou shall not kill.' On a planet where just to exist you must kill
something.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This one goes back to the time when I
was in high school, and I am pretty ancient by now. It was ignorant
nonsense then, and it is ignorant nonsense today. To call this a
contradiction reveals a total lack of knowledge regarding the nature
of languages. In Hebrew as in English, there are a number of ways to
express the idea of depriving something or someone of life. The
command in Exodus used the specific word meaning willful,
premeditated murder of another human being. But the Jews would no
more use it to describe the destruction of a plant or animal than we
would talk about “murdering” a turnip.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>3. Another contributor to the chat
group piped up with the following: “If it is not God's will that
any should suffer, what about the crippled man created to show his
power and goodness?”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This is a prime example of someone
garbling a Bible passage that they just dimly remembered but didn't
know where to locate. And it results in a powerful argument for
anyone who is just as ignorant as she is. Here are the passages the
author was trying to remember and what they really say:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">II Peter 3:9 comes the closest to the
passage she must have had in mind: “The Lord is not slow about his
promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not
wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.” The wording
says nothing about “suffering,” only about “perishing”
eternally on the Judgment Day.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In fact, the only promises we have from
God are that we are sure to suffer here on earth, even (or
especially) Christians. See passages such as Mark 10:30; John 16:33;
II Corinthians 1:3-7;4:17; I Peter 3:14, and many more.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Finally, there is a misquoting of the
miracle of the lame man being healed, as recorded in John 9. Verse 3
says that the man was crippled “so that God's works might be
revealed in him.”</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Since this chat group is for
ex-Christians, their comments cause me to wonder whether their
rejection of the Bible is not at all for the reasons they state, but
for completely different reasons. That is why apologetics alone will
often do little or nothing to change their mind. I have run into some
people who will cite intellectual arguments which can easily be
countered, but who will still continue to reject God's word because
(1) it cramps the freer lifestyle they are leading or (2) it comes
with too much baggage from bad prior church experiences.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-38075044393420874392024-03-17T10:51:00.003-05:002024-03-17T10:51:28.748-05:00WORD STUDIES IN THE BIBLE: PART 3 (EPHESIANS 1:14)<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">It is time to revisit the use of
analytical concordances. In Part 1 of this series, I explained how
they might be used to identify the location of a given passage. But
there is much more useful information contained in them. Let me begin
with Young's Analytical Concordance since I am most familiar with it.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The first thing you need is a King
James Version of the passage in question. You may possibly get by
with a related translation such as RSV or NKJV, but certainly don't
count on finding your individual words in a concordance if you are
looking at a paraphrase instead.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">WARNING – The
discussion below is probably rather confusing unless you happen to
have one of the two concordances in front of you as you are reading.
So if you are planning to use a free on-line concordance instead,
just skim through what follows and then wait for a further discussion
at the end of “Word Studies: Part 4” instead.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Young's Analytical Concordance</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">As an example, there is the word
“inheritance” in Ephesians 1:14. Both Strong's and Young's begin
in the same manner with an alphabetical listing by English words used
in KJV. So under “I” in Young's we find a listing for
“inheritance.” It is accompanied by the appropriate Greek word or
words translated this way. In this case we see that there are 14
passages using <i>kleronomia</i> as well as a brief definition (“what
is obtained by lot, possession”). And it turns out that there is
one more Greek word (<i>kleros</i>) translated the same way. So it is
listed separately with its own nuanced meaning (“a lot,
possession”). In some cases, these two definitions will be detailed
enough that you can figure out why the author used the one rather
than the other word. In lieu of that, you may have to read the
various passages given for each of those two words to see if you can
discern any subtle difference in meaning. Each passage given will
contain enough phrases from those passages to help identify whether
they might be of any interest.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Another valuable feature is found at
the end of Young's. It gives an alphabetical listing of all the Greek
words followed by the various ways that word has been translated into
English. So if we look up another key word which is in Ephesians
1:14, <i>apolutrosis</i>, we find that it is translated nine times as
“redemption” and once as “deliverance.” If all we had to go
on was the KJV translation in Ephesians 1:14, we would have entirely
missed Hebrews 11:25 in which the same Greek word appeared.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And if we wished to go even deeper into
the NT meaning of the noun <i>apolutrosis</i>, that reverse listing
at the end of Young's also contained the associated verb <i>apoluo</i>
(“redeem”). It is translated into a diverse number of English
words such as dismiss, divorce, forgive, let depart, let go, loose,
put away, release, send away, and set at liberty. Turn those into
nouns and you will get a whole lexicon of meanings for <i>apolutrosis</i>
itself.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Strong's Exhaustive Concordance</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">If one happens to have access to
Strong's instead, the process is slightly different. A search starts
out in exactly the same way, by looking up the English word
alphabetically. In this case, let's look for another key word in
Ephesians 1:14 as it appears in KJV – “earnest.” As in Young's,
a portion of each passage containing that word will appear along with
its Bible reference.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The differences at this point from
Young's are three-fold:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> 1. Greek words with their definitions
are not given at all; instead a “Strong's number” is assigned to
each separate passage. In this case, we see that there are apparently
five different Greek words translated as “earnest,” with
respective numbers of 603, 728, 1972, 4056 and 4710. We see that, as
in Young's, the Greek word appearing in Ephesians 1:14 is the same as
that appearing also in II Corinthians 1:22 and 5:5. But we have to
deduce that from the fact that they have the same numbers. We still
don't know at this point what any of the Greek words are that appear
as “earnest” or what their respective definitions are. All those
things are found together in Young's, but for Strong's we now need to
turn to the back of the book for a NT dictionary arranged by
numerical listings of all the Strong's numbers assigned to Greek
words.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">After a somewhat laborious process spent looking up each of these numbers in turn, we
find:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>603 = <i>apokaradokis</i> meaning
“intense anticipation, earnest expectation.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>728 = <i>arrhabon</i> meaning “a
pledge, i.e., part of the purchase-money or property given in advance
as security for the rest:-earnest.”
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>1972 = <i>epipothesis</i>, “a
longing for:-earnest (vehement) desire.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>4056 = <i>perissoteros</i>, “more
superabundantly:-more abundant, more frequent much more, the rather.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>4710 = <i>spoude</i>, “despatch,
eagerness:-business, care, diligence, forwardness, haste.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">At this point you may begin to feel as
I did that Strong's has taken us on a wild goose chase. We have
wasted time turning back and forth in the book only to waste our time
on Greek words that have an entirely different meaning from the one
in Ephesians 1:14, and one isn't even a noun but an adjective or
adverb instead.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> 2. In addition, it turns out that
unlike Young's, Strong's has no reverse index listing the various
English words used to translate <i>arrhabon</i>. This is a huge
drawback. For example, if we were looking for all the appearances of
another word in Ephesians 1:14, <i>doxa</i>, both Young's and
Strong's would identify the same 144 passages in which it is
translated as “glory.” However, Strong's would miss the the 13
other passages in which the KJV happened to render it as dignity,
honor, praise or worship instead.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> 3. But to compensate for its deficiencies
are the following: somewhat longer definitions of the Greek words, a
numbering system which correlates with some Greek-English interlinear
Bibles, and a long appendix giving a list of all the places in the NT
where 47 common words are located. These are simple words such as is, I, it, the, etc. However, I can't for the life of me figure out the
possible use of this last feature since no one is likely to search
for “the” in the Bible looking for one particular passage,
especially since there are not even any simple phrases given with
each listing to give us a hint, just the book, chapter, and verse.</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-82887597723836773452024-03-16T12:23:00.001-05:002024-03-16T12:23:48.450-05:00TRUTHFUL SAYINGS / UNRELIABLE SOURCES IN THE BIBLE<p> It is easy to point out passages in the
Bible where some of God's most loyal followers are guilty on one
occasion or another of telling lies in order to benefit themselves.
The patriarch Jacob is a prime example. A little rarer are those
times when usually unreliable witnesses come out with a completely
orthodox expression or idea. Below are some of these who come readily
to mind, although these may just be the tip of the iceberg.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>The Serpent in the Garden</u> – It
is appropriate to begin with the Father of Lies. In his conversation
with Adam and Eve, he denies God's words to them saying that they
would die on the day they ate from the tree. He tells them
unconditionally, “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat
of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good
and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5) They do eat from the tree and, sure
enough, Satan's words are confirmed. Not only do they continue to
live for many more years, but God Himself in Genesis 3:22 confirms
that they now know good and evil as He does.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So in one way, Satan was telling the
truth, but it was only a half-truth designed to lure them into sin
since (a) they began to die from that point on and (b) their
knowledge of good and evil would be quite different from God's
experience of it.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Job's Friends</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In this long book we encounter three of
Job's friends who fail to recognize the truth behind Job's disasters
and can only apply conventional wisdom to the situation. That this is
inadequate is stated clearly by God in Job 42:7 when He tells Eliphaz
that he and his two friends “have not spoken of me what is right.”
Despite this condemnation, not everything said by the three of them
was totally off-base even if they did often apply it wrongly to the
case at hand. As demonstration of that fact, here are some places
where their comments find partial or complete confirmation from New
Testament sources:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Eliphaz<span> </span> <u>Job</u> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> <u>Parallel NT
Passage</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>4:8 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>Galatians 6:7-9</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>4:9 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>II Thessalonians 2:8</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>4:19 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> I Corinthians 15:47; II
Corinthians 5:1-2</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>5:9 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> Luke 13:17</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>5:11<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> Luke 1:52</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>5:13 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> I Corinthians 3:19</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>5:17 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> Hebrews 12:5-11</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>5:18 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> Matthew 11:4-5</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>15:15 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>II Peter 2:4</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>15:22 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> Matthew 26:52</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>15:29 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> Luke 1:53</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>22:9 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> Luke 20:47</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>22:15-17 <span> </span> II Peter 2:5</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>22:29 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>Matthew 23:12</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Zophar <span> </span>11:7 <span> </span><span> </span> I Corinthians 2:9-11</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Bildad <span> </span>18:15 <span> </span><span> </span> Luke 17:29</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Balaam</u> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">An even clearer example of this
phenomenon is seen in the pagan prophet Balaam who, for a fee, agrees
to curse the Israelites on behalf of the Moabite king. God
reluctantly allows him to travel to his destination, warning him on
the way of who is really in charge, but that does not deter Balaam at
all. He is determined to earn his fee.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">However, when it comes to actually
cursing the Israelites, God turns his words into blessings instead,
to the chagrin of both Balaam and the king. Thus, Balaam's various
oracles found in Numbers 23-24 are filled with orthodox theology,
some of which is actually quoted favorably by NT writers.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In this case, it is quite obvious why
we can trust these teachings – they are put into the reluctant
prophet's mouth directly by God to serve His purposes.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Jonah</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Here is even a more reluctant prophet,
an Israelite this time. As you read his story, you will find an
interesting mixture of orthodox theology coupled with a complete
refusal to face up to the consequences of such theology on his own
life.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">To explain, Jonah proudly proclaims to
the sailors that he worships “the LORD, the God of heaven who made
the sea and the dry land.” (1:9) But after witnessing powerfully
to God's nature as Creator of all that exists, Jonah paradoxically
acts as if he can go somewhere in the land or sea where God has no
dominion. And God, in chapter 4 exposes Jonah's hypocrisy even more
clearly by contrasting his strange attitude toward a whole city of
people and cattle and that toward a vine.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Then in Jonah 2 we have a beautiful
prayer of thanksgiving for God's salvation that could well belong in
the Psalms. But we are tempted to treat it as just so many empty
words in light of the prophet's continued stubborn and hateful
attitude at the end of the story.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Finally, we come to Jonah's wonderful
confession in 4:2 in which he states: “I knew that you are a
gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast
love, and ready to relent from punishing.” This is actually a
common OT confession of faith (cf. Exodus 34:6; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm
86:5; Joel 2:13). So what is the problem with this statement? The
problem is not that Jonah is ignorant of God's loving character, the
problem is that Jonah knows it but personally disagrees with Him and
so is going to go his own way. This seems to be a situation akin to
Jesus' teaching on the unforgivable sin – clearly seeing God's
truth but refusing to accept it for purely selfish reasons.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Satan in the Wilderness</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Satan is up to his old tricks again
when he attempts to tempt Jesus in the wilderness. All the Synoptic
accounts record this event (Mark 1:12-13; Matthew 4:1-11; Luke
4:1-13). Two of the attempts fail when Jesus counters Satan by
quoting accurately from OT. But in one case, Satan begins his
temptation by quoting Scripture himself. He dares Jesus to jump from
the pinnacle of the temple so that angels will save him, as stated in
Psalm 91:11-12. Satan does quote the words as written in Psalms, but
he totally ignores the context of the passage. Unfortunately, this is
a common ploy used by Scripture twisters for the last two millennia
to mislead believers. Since this approach can be very subtle at
times, it is perhaps the most insidious method by which unscrupulous
people can use a reliable source such as the Bible in order to turn
into a lie. And I could almost write a long book quoting examples
from just the last few years.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>The Scribes</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Mark 2:7 and its parallel in Luke 5:21
record the reply of the scribes (and Pharisees) to Jesus'
pronouncement that the paralytic's sins were forgiven: “Who can
forgive sins but God alone?” The expected answer to that rhetorical
question is “no one.” Although they are perfectly correct in
their implied assertion, they draw the wrong conclusion from it –
namely, that Jesus was a blasphemer. Instead, their own question
should have prompted them to at least consider another logical
conclusion – that Jesus was indeed God come down to earth.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>The Pharisees</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">On the last day of the Feast of Booths,
discussion ensues among those in the crowd regarding Jesus' origin.
Some doubt that Jesus is the expected Messiah since he is to come
from Bethlehem rather from Galilee, as predicted in Micah 5:2. And
the Pharisees confirm that prophetic truth in order to prove that
Jesus is not the Messiah. (John 7:41-42) They knew the truth of the
prophecy, but were unaware of the fact that Jesus in fact was born in
Bethlehem. Thus, inadvertently they helped to confirm that Jesus was
the Messiah.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Caiaphas</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Then we come to what is perhaps the
most famous of truthful sayings coming from the mouth of an enemy of
God. The high priest Caiaphas attempts to justify his decision to
have Jesus crucified by appealing to the possibility that He will
lead a revolt against Rome which would result in disastrous
consequences for the people of Israel. He does so with the words: “It
is better for you to have one man die for the people.” (John
11:49-50) Of course, John points out the unintended truth of
Caiaphas' statement being the fact that Jesus will indeed die on
behalf of the people of Israel as well as others who chose to believe
in Him. (vv. 51-52)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Pilate</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">From historical records, we know that
Pontius Pilate was an accomplished politician and schemer. However,
it would almost appear that he became convinced that Jesus was who
He said He was. I say this because of the words he instructed the
soldiers to write on the inscription of Jesus' cross. It read, “Jesus
of Nazareth the King of the Jews.” (John 19:20-23) That was a
completely true statement from a spiritual perspective, but it is
highly doubtful that Pilate believed it to be true as either a
spiritual or political statement. It appears highly probable that the
only reason Pilate had those words written was to embarrass the
Jewish authorities who had forced him to carry out the execution. So
the truth can be spoken for entirely the wrong reasons.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Jewish Religious Leaders</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In Matthew 27:41-42 we are told that
the chief priests, scribes and elders viewed Christ on the cross and
mocked saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself.” But
they ironically spoke the truth since (1) He did save others both
physically and spiritually while on earth and (2) the only way in
which He could save others for eternity was by pointedly staying on
the cross instead of coming down, as He could have done. He was
internally constrained to follow God's will right to the end and not
to save Himself at that point.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>The Possessed Slave Girl</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">There is an interesting story regarding
Paul and his companions while they were in Philippi. They encounter a
demon-possessed slave girl who follows them around the city saying,
“These men are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a
way of salvation.” That would seem to be good publicity for the
apostles who were attempting to do just that very thing. But Paul
becomes annoyed and casts out the demon instead. (Acts 16:16-18)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The lesson appears to be that the truth
in the mouth of demons can be a disrupting force rather than a valid
confession from a reputable source. If the apostles were to accept
her testimony, then they would be mingling truth with lying, satanic
forces and diluting the gospel message just in order to gain a larger
following. Is there a current lesson for Christians here? I will
leave that for you to answer.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">What do we think about such a
phenomenon? Perhaps the saying “All truth is God's truth,”
attributed to St. Augustine, covers some of these situations. On the
other hand, “Consider the source” should cause us to be cautious
about readily swallowing things said by those who obviously are not
following God.</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-4013147518354769482024-03-15T15:34:00.001-05:002024-03-15T15:34:13.621-05:00"HEAVEN AND EARTH" IN THE BIBLE<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">These two entities appear in
conjunction a number of times in the Bible, so I have attempted to
identify most of these passages and categorized them in case you wish
to do your own Bible word study. One thing I should point out first
is that the term “heaven” and its plural “heavens” have
somewhat ambiguous meanings. At times they appear to be the part of
the physical universe which is above the earth in the stratosphere,
while in other passages it appears to refer to God's dwelling place.
You may have to consider the context in each case to determine which
is the most likely possibility.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>God as Creator</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">By far the most
occurrences of these two words in close proximity are when a person
refers to God in the third person as creator of heaven and earth.
Some passages use a variation on “created/made,” such as
“founded,” “established,” or “formed.” In these cases,
the combined term “heaven and earth” is called a merism, a
technical term in which two extremes are used to designate everything
in between as well. Other terminology referring to the total creation
is more specific by adding phrases such as “and all their
multitude,” “and the sea and all that is in them,” “and the
human spirit,” “and all things visible or invisible,” or
“including rulers and powers,” “and springs of water.”
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">In this category
are the following OT and NT passages: </p><p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>Genesis 1:1, 2:1;
2:4 (2x); 14:19,22; Exodus 20:11; 31:17; II Chronicles 2:12; Psalm
115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 136:5-6; 146:5-6; Proverbs 3:19; Isaiah
45:18; Zechariah 12:1; Acts 14:15; 17:24; Colossians 1:15-16; Revelation
10:6; 14:7.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">In Genesis 24:3 He
is described simply as “the God of heaven and earth.”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Closely related to
the above passages are those in which a personage addresses God in
the first person by identifying him as the creator of heaven and
earth. Those doing the praying include King Hezekiah (II Kings 19:15;
Isaiah 37:16), Ezra (Nehemiah 9:6), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32:17), Jesus
(Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21), and the apostles Peter and John (Acts
4:24).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Lastly
we have the negative formulation of the same idea in Jeremiah 10:11
where there is reference to “gods who </span><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">did
not</span></u><span style="font-weight: normal;"> make the heavens and
earth” and thus would “perish from the earth and under the
heavens.” Further reference to these inferior beings appears along
with the phrase “heaven and earth” in I Kings 8:23 and I
Corinthians 8:5. Thus, we are strictly enjoined not to worship or
make an image of anything created on heaven or earth. (Exodus 20:4;
Deuteronomy 5:8)</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>God and His Creation</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">If the above were
the only times God was mentioned in relation to His creation, we
might be tempted to agree with the view of the Deists (which included
many of America's Founding Fathers), namely, that God created the
universe and then stepped back and let it go on its own without any
further interaction with it. But in addition, we have the following
clarifying Scriptures which make it clear that He is active
throughout all of Creation's history:
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>Deuteronomy 3:24
rhetorically asks God, “What god in heaven and earth can perform
mighty acts like you?”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>Moses in
Deuteronomy 4:39 reminds the Israelites that they heard God speak
from heaven and saw His fire on earth.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>And because He
founded heaven and earth, it belongs to Him (Psalm 89:11).</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>God is not remote
from His creation, but actually fills it, according to Jeremiah
23:24.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>In addition,
heaven is pictured as God's throne with the earth His footstool
(Isaiah 66:1, quoted in Acts 7:49).</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>Jeremiah 33:25
avers that God not only created heaven and earth, but also
established their ordinances.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>We are the
servants of the God of heaven and earth. (Ezra 5:11)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>In agreement with
Deuteronomy 3:24, Daniel 6:27 states that God works his signs in
heaven and earth.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>Because God
created heaven and earth, all of them belong to Him. (Psalm 102:19)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>God's perfect will
is going to be done on earth as it already is in heaven. (Matthew
6:10)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>But Jesus tells us
in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 that whatever the church binds or looses
on earth will be ratified by God in heaven.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>In Matthew 28:18,
Jesus declares that all authority on heaven and earth has been given
to him. Obviously, that infers that God the Father has that authority
with which to invest him.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>Paul in Ephesians
3:15 makes the interesting statement that every family in heaven and
earth takes its name from God.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>Because all
creation belongs to God, we are not to swear by heaven or earth.
(James 5:12)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Future Fate of the Creation</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">We are to place no
reliance on the permanence of the present heaven and earth, as Jesus
teaches in Matthew 6:19-20. The reason for that statement has its
foundation in the teachings of the OT prophets and continues into the
New Testament. The future historical progression will take place in
several stages:
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>First comes the
trembling and shaking of the heaven and earth prophesied in Isaiah
13:13; Joel 3:16; and Haggai 2:6 (quoted in Hebrews 12:26),
accompanied by “portents in heaven and earth” (quoted in Acts
2:19). There will be rejoicing in heaven but woe on earth due to the
devil's wrath on it (Revelation 12:12).</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>Next will come
the time when the heaven and earth wear out and vanish (Isaiah 51:6),
flee from God's presence (Revelation 20:11), and pass away (Matthew
5:18; Luke 16:17) since they are reserved for fire (II Peter 3:7).</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>Finally, we have
in Revelation 21:1 a vision of the time when the old heaven and earth
have passed away, only to be replaced by the new heaven and earth. At
this point all things in heaven and earth will be gather unto God
(Ephesians 1:10), every knee in heaven and earth shall bow down at
the name of Jesus (Philippians 2:10), and God will reconcile all
things to him in heaven and earth (Colossians 1:20). The
establishment of this new heaven and new heaven were predicted in
Isaiah 65:17; 66:22 and confirmed in II Peter 3:13.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Anthromorphism</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Then there is
another set of figurative biblical references in which “heaven and
earth” is treated as if it were a living being which can act as a
witness (Deuteronomy 4:26;30:19; 31:28), praise God (Psalm 69:34),
exult him in song (Isaiah 49:13), rejoice with shouting (Psalm 96:11;
Jeremiah 51:48), and hear God's words (Isaiah 1:2).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Between Heaven and Earth</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">This phrase is a
special Hebrew idiom, which according to T.F. Williams and other
scholars means “in the air.” It is used to describe the location
of Absalom hanging by his hair from a tree (II Samuel 18:9), the
armed angel waiting to destroy Jerusalem due to David taking a census
of the people (I Chronicles 21:16), Ezekiel as he was lifted by his
hair to see Jerusalem in a vision (Ezekiel 8:3), and the basket
containing the woman called Wickedness as it flew through the sky
(Zechariah 5:9).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Relative Location</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">The obvious fact
that the physical heaven is above the earth appears in a number of
different contexts in the Bible. And to repeat, there remains some
ambiguity as to whether the physical or spiritual heaven is being
referred to in these references.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>Deuteronomy
11:21; Psalm 103:11; and Proverbs 25:3 make use of the physical
reality to bring out their points by analogies.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>Movement downward
from heaven to earth is expressed in Lamentations 2:1 and Revelation
9:1.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>God enjoys an
elevated status in heaven above us, according to Psalm 102:19;
Ecclesiastes 5:2; and Luke 2:14. However, He is in both heaven and
earth at the same time (Joshua 2:11).</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>And then, to add
even more confusion to the picture, God is pictured as above both
heaven and earth in passages such as Psalm 113:6 and 148:13.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Jesus' Preeminence</b><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span>
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Jesus' superiority
over all creatures in heaven and earth is shown in Revelation 5:3,13.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>The Temple</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Then there is one
totally false interpretation propagated by full preterists in order
to salvage their assertion that Christ has already come again and
there will be no future destruction of the physical universe, last
judgment, or new heaven and earth. They justify this heretical view
by stating that “heaven and earth” was a common Jewish term
meaning the Jerusalem Temple. Of course there is no biblical
justification for that interpretation, and the one or two
extrabiblical sources they cite as evidence can be discounted because
they do not actually state that fact and/or come from a much later
time period. For more on my own opinion of preterism, see the posts
“II Peter 3: Dialogue with a Preterist” and “Critique of <u>The
Last Days?</u> by Ron McRay: Preterism.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Hosea 2:21-22</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">This obscure
passage did not seem to fit into any neat category since I could not
really understand what it is trying to say. Here is how the NRSV
renders it: “On that day I will answer, says the LORD, I will
answer the heavens and they shall answer the earth; and the earth
shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil, and they shall answer
Jezreel.” Here is how several commentators react to these words,
which do seem to reflect some sort of progression of actions from the
great God in heaven down to a lowly individual.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>“Human
faithfulness (or lack thereof) to the LORD has implications for the
natural world.” (Mobley)
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> <span> </span>And
a more complete explanation comes from Dearman, who says that these
verses are linked by repetition of the verb answer/respond (</span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">'ana</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">)
as fruitful relations between Creator and land are described as right
responses to each other...Agricultural production requires rain. Thus
YHWH answers the heavens, prompting them in turn to respond to the
earth...The land responds to what YHWH initiates through the heavens
as the agricultural cycle of production gets underway...The
last-named response is that of agricultural produce to Jezreel. Like
most things dealing with Jezreel, the connection is less clear than
we would like.” But one thing is quite clear: the whole cycle
portrays the active interaction of God with His creation, unlike the
belief of the Deists.</span></p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-8021491366577287362024-03-14T13:00:00.003-05:002024-03-14T13:00:26.403-05:00WORD STUDIES IN THE BIBLE: PART 2 (EPHESIANS 1:14)<p> In the first post in this series, I
discussed (1) how you could find the location in the Bible of a
passage which you can at least partially quote and (2) the value of
comparing diverse Bible translations or paraphrases in order to get a
better idea of what the words in the passage might mean. In the
present posting, I would like to show other fairly easy ways to get a
better handle on what the original Greek text means.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Greek-English Dictionaries</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This would seem to be the most
foolproof method to start with, but the situation is not that simple.
For example, one standard dictionary is Liddell Scott's Greek-English
Lexicon. It contains all the Greek words in alphabetical order along
with their definitions. However, (1) the words are arranged according
to the order of the Greek alphabet, not the English alphabet; and (2)
most of the definitions explain what the word meant in classical
Greek writings, not in the biblical <i>koine</i> Greek.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The first drawback can be overcome
fairly easily by preparing a cheat sheet listing all the characters
in the Greek language in proper order along with their counterparts
in English. Thus, it would start with the character for alpha ,<b>α</b>,
which is generally transliterated as the letter A. This would be
followed by beta, <b>β</b><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
standing for B, etc.</span> Below is the whole Greek alphabet in
order along with English equivalents. You may wish to simply print
off a hard copy for future reference.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The second drawback with a simple
dictionary is not so easily overcome since you can't rely on a
classical meaning of a word to coincide exactly with what that word
meant to the writers of the New Testament. Let's go to our sample
passage in question to demonstrate.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a name="tw-bil-st"></a>One of the key
words in Ephesians 1:14 is “glory.” This renders the Greek word
<i>doxa</i> (δόξα ). And if you consult Scott's Lexicon for its
meaning, you get four possibilities: (1) opinion, (2) sentiment, (3)
mere opinion, and (4) vision. Only after these main usages are listed
will you come to “glory, splendor,” the real meaning intended in
Ephesians 1:14.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">A huge improvement over a standard
dictionary can be found in one geared particularly for Bible
students. The most popular of these is readily available. It is
called Vine's <u>Expository Dictionary of</u> <u>New Testament Words</u>.
To begin with, there are two different ways in which you can locate
the listing you are looking for. Since it gives all its definitions
alphabetically according to the English translation, you don't even
need to know the Greek word to access it (at least initially).
Turning to G, we find a little over one page devoted to the meaning
or meanings of the noun “glory” as it appears in the NT. But you
will also see that there are actually two Greek words that are
translated that way: <i>doxa</i> and <i>kleos</i>.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">We will assume for the minute that you
know which of these two Greek words, namely, <i>doxa</i>, appears in
Ephesians 1:14 (The next post will deal with the situation in which
you don't happen to know). With that in mind, you can read what Vine
has to say regarding some of the major places in the NT containing
<i>doxa</i> and the particular nuance the word has in each case. And
in the middle of his discussion, you will even find a short
discussion of its particular meaning in Ephesians – “in Eph.
1:6,12,14, 'the praise of the glory of His grace' and 'the praise of
His glory' signify the due acknowledgment of the exhibition of His
attributes and ways; in Eph. 1:17, 'the Father of glory' describes
Him as the source from all Divine splendor and perfection proceed in
their manifestation and to whom they belong.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Thus, Vine's would appear to be the
only source you would need to consult for everything you might want
to know, not only regarding the word <i>doxa</i> in general, but also
its particular meaning within the context in question (the Book of
Ephesians), including the exact verse you are studying.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Let's try out Vine on another word,
“inheritance.” Here again we don't need to know the Greek word
involved since Vine only gives one that is translated in that manner
in the NT, <i>kleronomia</i>. In addition, Ephesians 1:14 is
specifically cited in his discussion. Vine notes that there are four
ways in which the word is applied: (1) property passed down from
father to son on the former's death, (2) a portion of such estate,
(3) “the prospective condition and possessions of the believer in
the new order of things to be ushered in at the return of Christ,”
and (4) “what the believer will be to God in that age.”
Definition #3 covers Ephesians 1:14 while #4 applies in Ephesians
1:18, according to Vine.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The meaning of “redemption” is also
described in Vine's. According to him, there are two Greek words with
that meaning, (1) <i>lutrosis</i> and (2) <i>apolutrosis</i>. The
second of these can be seen as a compound word derived from the first
in order to strengthen its meaning. Vine says that it literally
means, “a releasing, for (i.e., on payment of) a ransom.” The
four nuances he gives for the latter word are (1) deliverance from
physical torture, (2) “deliverance of the people of God at the
Coming of Christ,” (3) forgiveness and justification, redemption as
the result of expiation, deliverance from the guilt of sins,” and
(4) “the deliverance of the believer from the presence and power of
sin and of his body from bondage to corruption, and the Coming...of
the Lord Jesus Christ.” Vine cites Ephesians 1:7 under #3 and
Ephesians 1:14 under #4.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In this case we are fortunate to have
located three key words in Ephesians 1:4 within Vine's Dictionary.
But one may not be nearly as lucky with more obscure Greek words
which are not included. And another thing to keep in mind is that all
of the definitions in this book are the opinion of but one man, even
though he may be an enlightened one. One thing that certainly is true
is that the use of Vine will get you a lot closer to the extended
meaning of a Greek word than you can get by simply comparing various
translations with one another. And it is a great resource for finding
at least a few other places in the NT where the same word may appear</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Finally, for you Bible nerds, there are
two extremely valuable word resources available from Zondervan
Publishers. These are <u>New International Dictionary of Old
Testament Theology & Exegesis</u> (in 5 volumes) and <u>New
International Dictionary of New Testament Theology</u> (in 3
volumes). Both have extensive indexes at the end to help you find the
entry you want by Bible passage, English translation, and/or original
word. The only problem is that you will find more information that
you will probably ever need.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Let's consult NIDONTT for some of the
same key words we looked at in Vine's Dictionary. Thus, in the
subject index under “Redemption,” we are referred to roughly 130
separate entries where that concept is discussed. But rather than
giving up at that point, the index helpfully puts in bold the
location of the most comprehensive entry for that word. And it is 44
pages long. Also, whereas Vine only listed two Greek words with that
meaning, NIDONTT gives us seven possibilities. But I will assume that
we had already narrowed it down to the word <i>apolutrosis</i> for
Ephesians 1:14.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The first piece of information we get
right under the heading is a brief definition of each of the seven
words so that we can look at why Paul might have chosen <i>apolutrosis</i>
rather than one of the other synonyms. Following this section are
separate discussions on the meaning of each word in (a) classical
Greek, (b) the Old Testament, as determined by which Hebrew words
were translated by a particular Greek equivalent when the Septuagint
was prepared slightly before the time of the NT writings, and (c) the
appearance of each word in the NT writings.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">After wading through page after page of
detailed discussion, at last we come to the portion of the discussion
relating specifically to <i>apolutrosis</i>. A bit surprisingly, the
discussion of this noun and the associated verb is not much longer
than that in Vine's. But it does give us some additional information
not found there. First, it gives the statistics regarding how many
times it is used in the NT (10x) as well as a breakdown of those
occurrences into the Gospels, Acts, Pauline letters, etc.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Another tidbit of information we can
find here is that compound words, such as this one, were generally
preferred in Hellenistic times over the simple root word. From that
fact, we should keep in mind that much in the Dictionary's extensive
discussion on <i>lutrosis</i> might easily apply as well to
<i>apolutrosis </i><span style="font-style: normal;">since the NT
authors may have chosen the latter variation for stylistic reasons
only</span>.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The author of the entry, Colin Brown in
this case, gives a slant in his discussion not brought up in Vine's.
I will not quote it, but basically Brown demonstrates through citing
various NT passages that redemption has a present and future aspect,
both based on the deliverance brought about by Christ's action on the
cross.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">At this point I realize that I have
gotten the cart before the horse by not discussing first how one
knows which Greek words stand behind the English words we are
reading. One approach, if you have access to a good concordance, is
to use it as described in the next post in this series. Another is to
utilize a Greek-English Interlinear New Testament. Just look up the
Bible passage of interest and it will place a literal English
translation right below the corresponding Greek word in the verse.
The only drawback is that the Greek is given using Greek letters
instead of the English alphabet. But with the help of the handy
alphabetical chart above, you can readily change it into a English
transliteration.</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-32647489136498967452024-03-12T11:31:00.000-05:002024-03-12T11:31:30.354-05:00MARK 11:25-26<p> <img alt="" border="0" height="531" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPV_wkrqEJu3HzUGko8bWi4YQ1KFoyfEIs3BcgjZtS8zlwCHlTc3FOz5OKPFcFxDVErIpDiSYsWv_iINb2aOWb36viWly4Ig8A0TBE5Y33AbrcwBzBr6ahm-FQcVeHw4aguvuf4IkOHZk/w406-h531/184_Downcast.jpg" title="Mark 11" width="406" />
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Downcast (collage, 2009)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The above collage combines images from
the episodes in Mark 11:12-24. While it contains seemingly diverse
items in it, there is actually a sense of logic connecting the text
itself. These verses begin with Jesus cursing a fig tree on the way
to Jerusalem followed by his overturning the money-changer's booths
in the temple. The next morning, they return by the same road and see
that the fig tree has died. So far, these verses constitute what has
been known as a “Markan sandwich.” This particular sandwich
juxtaposes these two separate incidents in such a way that we see
that what happened to the tree is just a foretaste of what will
happen to the temple in the not too distant future.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">From that point the text moves on to
give us an account of Jesus' reply to Peter's amazement upon seeing
the tree. Jesus uses the occasion to tell the disciples that they can
similarly do great things, such as directing a mountain to be thrown
into the sea if they only pray to God without doubting.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">That brings us logically to verse 25
where Jesus gives another teaching on prayer, namely, that in prayers
concerning one's forgiveness, a person must first forgive anyone with
whom he has a problem. Verse 26 concludes the thought by stating the
reverse corollary: if you don't forgive them, then God will not
forgive you.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I would like to concentrate mainly on
those last two verses, which bring up several difficulties. In the
first place, similar wording appears between Mark 11:25-26 and
Matthew 6:14-15. But whereas Matthew's verses appear just following
the Lord's Prayer in the Sermon on the Mount, Mark has placed these
words in a completely different setting. In addition, whereas Matthew
6:15 has excellent attestation in the early manuscripts, the same
cannot be said for Mark 11:26.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Mark 11:26</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Let us deal with the textual problem
regarding v. 26 first since it is a little simpler to explain. Almost
all modern translations of Mark are in agreement in omitting it
entirely. Textual expert Bruce Metzger explains the reason: “Although
it might be thought that the sentence was accidentally omitted
because of homoeoteleuton, its absence from early witnesses [i.e.
manuscripts] that represent all text-types makes it highly probable
that the words were inserted by copyists in imitation of Mt 6:15.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">At this point I should explain that
homoeoteleuton describes such occasions when a scribe would be
writing out a new copy of a popular book and his eyes would skip from
one word to the same word on a later line, leaving out a line or two
in the transcription. From that point on, other scribes would
naturally perpetuate the same accidental error.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In this particular case, such a mistake
might easily have occurred since there are a number of similar words
and phrases between verses 25 and 26.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">There is little controversy as to which
textual stance to take. For example, Horsley says in regard to the
dubious v. 26, “If original to Mark, it establishes mutual
forgiveness (as in the Lord's Prayer, Lk 11:2-4) as the focus of
prayer, now that the Temple, the official site for prayer and for
obtaining divine forgiveness (see Lev 6.7), stands under God's
condemnation.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In agreement with Metzger are the
comments of Marcus, who points out the possibility that “The verse
might have dropped out by haplography, since its concluding words are
the same as the final words of 11:25.” (Just to make it a little
more complicated, it turns out that haplography is just one specific
type of the larger category of homeoteleuton.)
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And if you compare practically any
English translation more recent than the King Jame Version, you will
see that they omit verse 26, usually appending a note containing the
contents of the dubious verse. In any case, the presence of v. 26 is
not needed in order to make sense of Mark's version since it is
implied in v. 25, and the thought is also present in both Matthew
6:15 and 18:35.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Mark 11:25</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The more controversial issue concerns
the source of this verse, whether it is original to Mark in his
context or whether Mark has borrowed it from Matthew's account of the
Sermon on the Mount. Lane summarizes four reasons against 11:25 being
original with Mark:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> 1. The vocabulary and phraseology are
foreign to Mark and “decidedly Matthean in character. (cf. Mt.
5:23; 6:9,14f).”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> 2. Matthew's seeming reliance on Mark
in this section ceases with 11:25, “which may suggest that his copy
of Mark actually concluded this section with verse 24.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> 3. There is an abrupt transition in
thought between verses 24 and 25.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> 4. Verse 26 is an obvious transfer
from Matthew 6:15, which “shows how easily a passage from one
Gospel could become attached to the context through catchword
association.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">But despite these arguments, Lane
counters: “Yet none of these arguments is decisive in itself, and
verse 25 actually differs in formulation from Mt. 6:14 to a greater
degree than is usual in cases of Synoptic transfer. Verse 25 must be
considered as a logion [i.e. saying] in its own right. Its
formulation has been influenced by the liturgical language of the
Lord's Prayer.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Spencer elaborates on Lane's comment
regarding the differences in wording between Mark 11:25 and Matthew
6:14: “Mark 11:25 reverses the order, placing priority on forgiving
others...Forgiveness by God motivates forgiveness of others; and in
turn, forgiveness of others authenticates alliance with God. Three
different terms denote sinful objects of forgiveness in these texts:
<i>opheilema</i> (Mt 6:12), <i>hamartia</i> (Lk 11:4), <i>paraptoma</i>
(Mt 6:14-15; Mk 11:25)...forgiveness should not be reduced to a
mechanical accounting operation, wiping the record clean. It retains
a personal dimension, a reconciling not only of the books but also,
more importantly, of the bond between us and everyone indebted
[<i>opheilo</i>] to us (Lk 11:4 [cf. Mt 6:13]).”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Other comments regarding the
relationship between Matthew and Mark's versions are given below so
that you can get some idea of the complexity of the issue:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “The sayings of verses 22-25 were
originally independent but were no doubt brought together in the
tradition before Mark for catechetical reasons around the catchwords
<b>faith</b> (22) and <b>believes</b> or 'has faith' (23), <b>prayer</b>
(24), and <b>praying</b> (25). The last clause of verse 25 does not
necessarily reflect a knowledge of the Lord's Prayer, but it does
reveal the influence of Mt. 6:14, just as verse 26, omitted in most
MSS and rightly excluded by RSV, appears to be a slightly revised
form of Mt. 6:15.” (H. Anderson)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “The corollary to this saying on
prayer [i.e. v. 24] is the saying on forgiveness in v. 25. The clause
'forgive whatever you have against anyone' is certainly an echo of
the similar petition in the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:12, Luke 11:3-4)
and is wholly in line not only with Matt 5:23-24 but also with the
teaching on forgiveness in Paul and the rest of the New Testament.
The Greek of 'your Father...may forgive the wrongs you have done' in
this verse is verbally identical with Matt 6:14. This is significant,
for only here does Mark use <i>your Father</i> (Greek <i>pater
humon</i>), and only here too does he use <i>paraptoma</i> for
wrongs. There would seem to be a clear case of Markan dependence on
his source in Matthew.” (Mann)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">At this point it is probably wisest to
admit that the relationship between the various Gospel accounts is a
complicated one. And we must also keep in mind that it is probable
that Jesus taught the same sayings numerous times during his teaching
ministry, so it is often a futile exercise to attempt to pin down the
direction of borrowing, if any, between the Synoptics. The best
course is to look at how verse 25 functions within the context of
Mark's account, and this is what many commentators have done in order
to come up with the following valuable insights:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “If the connection between verses
20f. and verse 22 is historical, it implies that the source of Jesus'
authority is his unbroken relationship with the Father. These sayings
on faith and prayer, however, occur in quite scattered contexts in
the Synoptic Gospels and may have been uttered on different
occasions. In Mark they constitute a summons to faith and to action
consistent with that faith.” (Lane)
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Lane's words apply to the whole of
Mark 11:20-25 as well, as shown in his following comments: “The
effect of verses 23-24 and 25 is to suggest that not only faith but
also the willingness of the Christian to forgive conditions the
efficacy of prayer. The conjunction of these two thoughts in Mark
affirms that the right to pray the prayer envisioned in verses 23-24
belongs only to brothers who are mutually reconciled and united in a
community of faith.” Matthew 18:35 at the end of the Parable of the
Unforgiving Servant says basically the same thing.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “In 11:12-25 Jesus has implicitly
challenged priestly authority by symbolically enacting the
destruction of the Temple, and he has concluded by proclaiming that
forgiveness is available without the Temple on the basis of his own
word ('Amen I say to you'). It is no wonder then that in the next
passage the offended representatives of that system challenged him to
specify the authority by which he presumes to act.” (Marcus)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “Divine fatherhood certainly was a
matter of relational intimacy, but it also concerned divine
lordship.” (Crump) Among the many NT passages he cites are Matthew
6:12-13 and Mark 11:25 with its parallels in Luke 23:34,46; 24:49.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Crump states that “Mark 11:17,24-25
further expands upon the disciples' role in the kingdom. Jesus
accuses the temple leaders of subverting God's intentions that the
sanctuary be a house of prayer for all (Mk 11:17). In contrast, Jesus
appoints his followers as the new house of prayer, replacing the
apostate leadership (Mk 11:18) soon to be destroyed by God (Mk
11:12-17,20-25). The mountain being removed through the disciples'
prayers (Mk 11:23) is Mount Zion, now representative of any obstacle
that would stand in the way of God's coming kingdom. The community of
Jesus' praying followers becomes the new location of the Father's
holy presence on earth, as well as the new hub for his kingdom
expansion.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “In Mark's Gospel faith is
understood as unconditional reliance on God's absolute and creative
power (see Mk 11:23-25; 10:27; also Mk 9:23), especially in his power
to intervene actively in his creation to save from peril
(particularly in answer to prayer: Mk 9:29, 11:23-25).” (van der
Watt and du Toit)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “The new temple, not made with hands
(Mk 14:58), takes shape in the community of believers, Jews and
Gentiles, who gather for prayer in this house of the Lord (Mk
11:17,24-25).” (Adna)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> The group of disciples is “a group
of equals modeled on Jesus as servant of all (Mk 10:42-45), and it is
a group that forgives (Mk 11:25).” (Reeder)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-52561143156009418852024-03-10T11:21:00.006-05:002024-03-10T11:21:51.737-05:00HEALING THE SYRO-PH0ENICIAN WOMAN'S DAUGHTER (MATTHEW 15:21-28; MARK 7:24-30)<p> <img alt="" border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYy1wLrZSrHWh1MZv6_FHRY9ac_yOYVAi8H44A2c2Y6PrvgeqiHnXg9LOqUAwJ7JDCbcXwn5kRIFD6bRWZxvrZbi1ubMOdTqpd9Gc42N249kb03s_5X6hMSBz2arADQRhHqI9ypCzr5Bo/s1600/182_Crumbs.jpg" title="Matthew 15" width="530" />
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Crumbs (collage, 2009)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This miracle of Jesus is recorded in
two of the gospels. There is much we could say concerning it, but I
would like to just point out the relation of this narrative to others
in the Bible in order to make the point that no passage of Scripture
exists in a vacuum. Each one is interrelated in one way or another to
the total teachings of the Bible. That is why it is so important to
at least be generally aware of the whole counsel of Scripture.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">One could feel in light of Beale and
Carson's observation that Matthew 15:21-18:14 is “the longest
stretch of text in Matthew without any formal quotations of the OT,”
that no OT allusions are to be found in this narrative. But that
would be an incorrect assumption.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The story begins with Jesus withdrawing
to parts of Tyre and Sidon – Gentile territory. It has been
suggested that He needed to get away for a while from the crowds that
followed him everywhere. Mark's account only has Tyre in the earliest
manuscripts and therefore “and Sidon” should be deleted according
to Metzger. However, Grassmick disagrees and feels that those words
have “excellent early Greek manuscript support.” You will see
these conflicting opinions reflected in the various English
translations of Mark 7:24.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In either case, the location may be
especially pertinent, as Marcus explains: “Elijah performed a
miracle for a Gentile woman in the Tyre/Sidon region (1 Kgs 17:8-16,
cf. Luke 4:25-26), and this miracle is especially relevant because
Jesus and John the Baptist echo the activities of Elijah and Elisha
in Mark.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">France notes the same thing but is not
as convinced that the parallels are that close: “Some similarities
can be traced between the present pericope and Elijah's visit to
Zarephath, a village in the territory of Sidon, in 1 Kgs 17:8-24,
which also results in the healing of the child of a Gentile woman
(and includes some mention of bread). But the links are tenuous, and
there is no sign of deliberate verbal allusions beyond the name Sidon
itself.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Mark calls the woman a Greek (i.e. a
Gentile) while Matthew more specifically labels her as a “Canaanite.”
“Keener points out that two of the women mentioned in the genealogy
[of Jesus], Tamar and Rahab, were actually Canaanites, so that a
careful reader might find a special resonance in this woman's being
described as 'Canaanite.'” (France)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">It is appropriate that she is
designated that way since, as Barbieri explains, “Centuries earlier
that area's inhabitants were called Canaanites (Num. 13:29).” “In
calling the woman a 'Canaanite,' “Matthew is deliberately conjuring
up distasteful memories of the pagan Tyrians and Sidonians from OT
times.” (Beale and Carson) Thus it builds up interest in how Jesus
will deal with such a woman's request.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Spencer also comments on the the
designation of the woman as a Canaanite: “Compared with Mark,
Matthew's narrative uses the anachronistic designation of 'Canaanite
woman' (Mt. 15:22), harking back to ancient Israel's Baal-worshiping
foes in the promised land. Remarkably, however, this 'Canaanite'
honors Jesus as 'Lord' (three times) and 'Son of David,' kneels
before him, and beseeches him in a 'shouting,' challenging yet
prayerful mode, as in a lament psalm.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">France notes, “The same appeal [to
Jesus as 'Son of David'] has been used by the blind men in [Matt.]
9:27.” This title also appears in Matthew 1:1 and 12:23.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">At first, Jesus refuses her request
that He remove the demon from her daughter since His concern is only
with the house of Israel. He follows this up with a simile by stating
(in Mark's version), “Let the children first be filled; for it is
not appropriate to take the children's bread and cast it to the
dogs.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">As to the “children” of Jesus'
reply, Marcus refers us to texts in which the Jews are identified as
the children of God. These passages include Deuteronomy 14:1 and
Isaiah 1:2. Lane adds Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 32:6; Jeremiah 31:9;
Hosea 11:1, and Romans 9:5.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“References to dogs in biblical
literature are overwhelmingly negative, and when the term is used
metaphorically for human beings it is abusive and derogatory (e.g. 1
Sam, 17:43; 2 Sam 16:9; Ps 22:16,20; Prov 26:11; Phil 3:2)...”
(France) Similarly, Marcus reminds us, “In Rev 22:15 the 'dog' is
an outsider to the community of God's grace, an idolater whose life
is based on a lie...” (Marcus)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">At this point in the story, many
readers are naturally a bit shocked that Jesus would not only deny
her request on behalf of her daughter, but in addition compare the
woman to a lowly cur. There are two facts that need mentioning in
answer to that response. The first point, brought out by many
commentators, is that Jesus here does not use the common terminology
for dog but instead a different Greek word that could perhaps be
better translated as “pet” or “puppy.” Also, subsequent
events will show that Jesus is going to eventually accede to her
request but wants to test the woman's faith first.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“But even if Mark understands Jesus'
words in 7:27 as a test, he also takes them seriously as an outline
of salvation history up to his own day. For in Mark's view, which is
shared by other early Christian writers, God's children, the Jews,
had in the economy of salvation to be 'fed' with the bread of the
gospel first before the Gentiles could be nourished by it (cf. Rom
1:16; Acts 13:46...). The dog...though admittedly in a position
inferior to that of the children, is still part of the 'household of
faith' (cf. Gal 6:10).” (Marcus)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">As to why Jesus didn't immediately
grant the woman's request, this is not the only time in Scripture
where such a delay occurred. Thus, Hendricksen points to OT texts
where God had similarly waited before answering someone. These
include Genesis 21:1-5 and Psalm 22:2 as well as delays in Mark 5:35;
Matthew 9:27-28; and John 6:5-6; 11:6. “The same reasoning should,
in all probability, be applied in connection with the Syrophoenician
or Canaanite woman. Jesus delayed to heed her request in order to
test her faith. Now was it not a very similar manifestation of
determined perseverance in the face of opposition ('I will not let
thee go except thou bless me,' Gen. 32:26) that changed a 'Jacob'
into an 'Israel' (Gen. 32:28)? This woman, then was in that sense a
true Israelite!”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So we see that rather than giving up at
this point, the woman came right back at Jesus with the argument:
“Even the dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their master's
table.” Marcus says, “In the OT and later Judaism, as in our
pericope [i.e. an extract from a text, especially a passage from the Bible], bright women occasionally overcame male figures in
argument. The wise woman of Tekoa in 2 Samuel 14, for example,
maneuvers King David into reversing his banishment of Absolom...”
We could likewise point to Abigail, David's future wife, who cleverly
talked him out of killing her husband at the time, Nabal (cf. I
Samuel 25).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In relation to her clever saying, H.
Anderson says that “Jesus may have shared the old prophetic view
that on God's day when his purpose was finally consummated, the
Gentiles too would be brought into the fold (Isa. 19-25; 66:19f; Mic.
4:1f; Zech. 8:20ff). No doubt the Evangelist himself saw in the
saying and its sequel an exceptional illustration of the truth that
the gospel was intended for <i>all</i>.”
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">At this point in the narrative, Jesus
simply tells the woman that her daughter is healed. France sees this
as only one of several correspondences with another healing miracle
in the gospel accounts, namely, the healing of the centurion's
servant recorded in Matthew 8:5-13. “In both the request for help
comes not from the 'patient' but from a concerned superior
officer/parent; both suppliants are Gentiles; in each case there is
an initial show of reluctance by Jesus as a Jew appealed to by a
Gentile; in each case the 'faith' of the suppliant is more highly
commended than that of any Jew; and in each case (and only in these
two cases in Matthew) the initial reluctance was quickly succeeded by
admiration for the person's faith. Here the dialogue is more labored
and painful from the woman's point of view, as Jesus apparently
'plays hard to get.” As a result, her eventual triumph is the more
emphatic.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">A second parallel example adduced by
France is the exorcism in Decapolis (Matthew 8:28-34) which “has
also provided a precedent for the present case by showing Jesus as
not reluctant to deal with demon-possession in a Gentile context.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In my own mind, the healing of the
demon-possessed girl also has definite affinities with the story in
Acts 16:16-18. If you recall, that narrative involved Paul and his
companions in Philippi being pestered by a demon-possessed girl. He
becomes so annoyed with her constantly shouting out, “These men are
servants of the Most High God,” that he charges the demon in the
name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” Note (a) the Gentile
setting in each story, (b) the fact that the healing of a possessed
girl is featured in both, (c) there appears to be an inordinate delay
before the exorcism takes place, (d) the miracle is accomplished by
words only, and (e) a correct theological truth is proclaimed <u>loudly</u>
in both (identification of Jesus as “Son of God” and Paul and
companions as “Servants of the Most High God.”) But to me, the
clinching detail is that Paul appears to carry out the healing (which
will turn out to have immediate negative consequences for him) only
after being exasperated with her hounding him. Compare this with what
Matthew records in 15:23 – “And his disciples came and begged
him, saying, 'Send her away, for she is crying after us.'”
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Frustration may not appear to be an
adequate motive in each case to effect an exorcism, but (a) we can
probably safely assume that compassion on the two girl's similar
plight was one of the reasons they were finally healed and (b) as
several commentators have noted, the statement of Paul's followers
can alternatively be translated as “Send it (i.e. the demon) out.”</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-80218629287448690272024-03-08T12:34:00.001-06:002024-03-08T12:34:29.682-06:00WORD STUDIES IN THE BIBLE: PART 1 (EPHESIANS 1:14)<p>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I must first of all apologize for
subjecting you to a somewhat detailed journey through the linguistics
of the Bible which may be of little interest to you. Those who really want
to get into Bible study in some depth may find it useful, but I am
the first to admit that very few Christians have the time, money, or
inclination to devote to such studies. For those people, I would
encourage you to read through these pages anyway just to give you a
small appreciation of what is involved in thoroughly immersing
yourself in a personal investigation into the Word rather than
relying on your pastor or Sunday school teacher to do it for you.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">There are several useful pieces of
information to be gleaned from looking into the individual words in
the Bible as well as a number of valuable sources available to help
you do it. Let's start with the basics.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Locating a Passage of Scripture</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Sometimes all you
want to do is locate where a particular passage is found. You may
dimly remember the words or general thought but have no idea where to
actually find it. As an example, I seem to recall that the Bible
talks about the Holy Spirit being the down payment for us. From the
context alone, I could probably guess that it came from the New
Testament rather than the Old Testament. That narrows it down a bit.
Also, it doesn't sound like something that would be in the Book of
Revelation. Other than that, however, I would not know where exactly
to look.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Here is what my
old-school approach would be. I would consult an analytical
concordance, the most popular of which are Strong's or Young's. You
would have to purchase one, download it on your computer or smart
phone, or use a free Bible source on the internet such as
blueletterbible.org or biblegateway.com. All these concordances are
organized alphabetically by the English translation. But the
immediate problem you will face is that most of the analytical
concordances are keyed to words in the King James Version only.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">There have been
times when I knew most of the quotation I was searching for,
including three or four key words, but I still couldn't find what I
wanted in a concordance. And even if I did manage to do it, it might
take me up to an hour before I hit on the right passage. For example,
“down payment” is not found in Strong's or Young's. On the other
hand, a search for “Holy Spirit” in Young's gives rise to other
problems. It turns out that the listings are under the KJV wording
“Holy Ghost” instead. And there are so many times that the phrase
appears (approximately 80) that my concordance doesn't even bother to
quote part of each passage so that I can scan through them to see if
one fits.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Now if I abandon
my old-school approach entirely, I can instead simply do a Google
advanced search in which I quote as much of the passage in question
as I can remember. When I simply entered “holy spirit is down
payment,” the very first hit sent me directly to Ephesians 1:14.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">I then looked back
to see where my problem using a concordance arose from. In the first
place, Young's Concordance is keyed to the archaic KJV word “earnest”
in place of “down payment.” Secondly, I might not have been able
to find the passage even then since “Holy Spirit” appears in
Ephesians 1:13 while “earnest” doesn't show up until the
following verse. Thus, the short phrase given in Young's as an aid
under Ephesians 1:14 only reads, “which is the earnest of our
inheritance.” That says nothing whatsoever concerning the Holy
Spirit, so I would probably not even bothered looking it up in the
Bible. However, another listing under “earnest” was II
Corinthians 5:5, and the accompanying phrase read “given unto us
the earnest of the spirit.” That would have led me off in the wrong
direction since that wasn't really the specific verse for which I was
searching.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Comparing Translations</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Let's assume that
you have either located the verse(s) in question or that perhaps you
knew it already. The easiest place to go from there to get a handle
on the various word meanings in the verse is to compare English
translations to see what the different linguistic experts have come
up with. Again, this can be done using on-line sources or Bible apps
that are readily available. One problem with the former is that the
free sources may tend to limit their translations to older ones that
may be outdated and/or to more obscure renderings. And a problem with
some apps is that it becomes awkward at times trying to view more
than one or two translations at the same time for easy comparison.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Getting back to
old-school solutions, there are fairly inexpensive books (at least
for the New Testament) offering three or four side-by-side
translations for you to conveniently utilize without having to
purchase multiple translations and opening them up alongside one
another for study. Whether you go either way, my strong
recommendation is to obtain at least one each of the following: (1)
the King James Version, (2) a more modern translation in the KJV
tradition (such as NASB, RSV, ASV, NRSV, or ESV), (3) a fresh modern
translation which doesn't necessarily feel that it needs to adhere
closely to the KJV (examples would be NIV, TEV, NEB, Jerusalem Bible,
and Anchor Bible) and (4) a paraphrase such as The Message, J.B.
Phillips, or The Living Bible.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Apparently,
some publishers have the same general approach in mind since I have a
very useful volume published by Christianity Today, Inc. containing
side-by-side columns with the KJV, RSV, Phillips, and NEB renderings
and appropriately titled </span><u><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
New Testament in Four Versions</span></u><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
From that compilation, we get the following translations of
Ephesians 1:14:</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>“which is the
earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased
possession, unto the praise of his glory.” (KJV)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>“which is the
guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to
the praise of his glory.” (RSV)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>“and that
Spirit is the pledge that we shall enter upon our heritage when God
has redeemed what is his own, to his praise and glory.” (NEB)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>“as a guarantee
of purchase, until the day when God completes the redemption of what
he has paid for as His own, and that will again be to the praise of
his glory.” (Phillips)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">And for more
renderings, we could add:</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>“The Spirit is
the guarantee that we shall receive what God has promised His people,
and this assures us that God will give complete freedom to those who
are his. Let us praise his glory!” (TEV)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>“This down
payment from God is the first installment on what's coming, a
reminder that we'll get everything God has planned for us, a praising
and glorious life.” (The Message)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>“the Spirit's
seal upon us means that God has already purchased us and that he
guarantees to bring us to himself. This is just one more reason for
us to praise our glorious God.” (Living Bible)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>“who is a
deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those
who are God's possession – to the praise of his glory.” (NIV)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>“the pledge of
our inheritance which brings freedom for those whom God has taken for
his own, to make his glory praised.” (JB)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>“He is the
guarantee of what we shall inherit [to vouch] for the liberation of
God's own people, to the praise of his glory.” (AB)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">And finally, if
you are curious, here is a word-for-word literal rendering of that
verse from a Greek Interlinear NT based on the wording in the KJV:</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>“who is an
earnest of the inheritance of us, till [the] redemption of the
possession, to [the] praise of the glory of him.”
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">From all of the
above renderings, we can put together a summary of the translations
of some key words in the passage:</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>earnest =
guarantee = guarantee of purchase = down payment = pledge = deposit =
first installment</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>inheritance =
enter upon our heritage = receive = what we will inherit = what's
coming</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>redemption = liberation = freedom
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>purchased
possession = possession = what is his own = those who are God's
possession = God's own people = His people = those whom God has taken
for his own </p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Of course, that is
not the end of the translation differences, which include adding
clarifying words which are not in the original Greek, rearranging or
shortening the phrases, and altering some of the pronouns and
prepositions. One seemingly small example actually has great
theological import, namely, changing the pronoun for Holy Spirit from
“who” in the Greek to “which” or rewording it so that no
pronoun is needed at all. This can have the effect, intended or not,
of weakening the idea that the Holy Spirit is a personage in favor of
the notion that He is just an impersonal force emanating from God.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">A final thing to
note in comparing these translations is the way the final phrase is
handled differently in some versions. Thus, rather than “to the
praise of His glory” or its equivalents, the paraphrases treat it
as either a call to praise or a description of the sort of life God
has in mind for us.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">One final thing to
keep in mind in comparing translations: In general, those renderings
prepared by single authors (such as The Message, J.B. Phillips,
Anchor Bible, and The Living Bible) should probably not be weighed as
seriously as those put together by a committee of experts instead.</p>
<p> </p>Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-62379750252670326572024-03-06T12:11:00.003-06:002024-03-06T12:11:23.026-06:00JONAH AND PSALM 139<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Several commentators have noted the
relationship between these two passages of Scripture, more in terms
of the opposite attitudes they reflect rather than correspondences.
And in today's rancorous religious and political climate, it is well
to note the distinction they teach in the way we should feel
regarding those with whom we disagree.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I am reminded of an incident I recently
learned about in which a preacher had just finished preaching a
sermon on the necessity of forgiving and loving our enemies. One of
his parishioners approached him afterward and warned him never again
to say such things from the pulpit.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Psalm 139:1-6</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Turning first to the psalm in question,
the author begins by stating that God has searched his heart and
discerned his thoughts. This obviously speaks to God's omniscience.
“A major theme of Psalm 139 is 'knowing.' The word <i>yada</i>
occurs seven times in the psalm (vv. 1,2,4,6,14,23 [2x]), four times
in vv. 1-6...for the beleaguered singer of Psalm 139, that thought is
comforting.” (deClaisse-Walford)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">On the other hand, that word only
appears in the Book of Jonah twice (1:12; 4:2), both times on the
lips of Jonah declaring what he knew, not what God did.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Cary says that “it is a very good
thing when Jonah is revealed in the inner depths of the boat [cf.
Jonah 1:5]. From Jonah's perspective, it is not just some sailors who
have found him, but the same LORD from whom he is fleeing. As the
psalmist reminds us: 'You search out my path and my lying down, and
are acquainted with all my ways' (Ps. 139:3). This depth of divine
knowledge is for the comfort of the obedient and for the discomfiture
of the disobedient, but in both cases for our good.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The fact that God hems us in (v. 5) is
comforting to the Psalmist but not at all to Jonah, who finds God
pushing him one way or another as He wills.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Psalm 139:7-12</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">At this point, the Psalmist changes
subjects to extol God's omnipresence in no uncertain terms. Here we
see the most direct comparison with the events in the Book of Jonah.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Anderson finds a possible allusion to
the story of Jonah in the translation of 'thy Spirit' in v. 7 as
'wind, wrath' instead. “The verse as a whole is a rhetorical
question expecting a negative answer. It does not imply that the
Psalmist wanted to escape from God (as Jonah tried to do; cf. Jon.
1,:3,10); on the contrary, he seems glad that there is no place in
this world where he might find himself beyond God's care (see verse
10). In a way this is also an implicit protestation of innocence;
believing what he does, he would have been absolutely foolish to
rebel against God, or to try to hide his guilt, had he committed some
offense.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Commenting on Jonah 1:1-3, Allen says,
“That Jonah was prepared to entrust himself to an ocean-going boat
rather than face up to God's call must have struck the hearers as
proof positive of his mad determination. Surely no good can come of
this foolhardy venture...In his hasty plans he has reckoned without
the Hound of Heaven. It is as the psalmist said [in Psalm 139:7,9].”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Sasson notes that Psalm 139:7-10
“actually refers to four (not two) compass points and,
paradoxically, conveys an immobility due to a situation acknowledged
as hopeless. Whether fleeing heavenward, or to Sheol (Hades), whether
escaping toward the East, or toward the West – the poet
acknowledges – there is no escape [from the presence of God].”
Contrast Jonah who proposes to “flee from the presence of the
LORD,” as mentioned no less than three times in the text (1:3
[2x],10) and stated in slightly different terms in Jonah 4:2.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">For two verbal correspondences between
the two documents, we can first point to the occurrence of Sheol in
Psalm 139:8b (“If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there”) and
Jonah 2:2b (“Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my
voice”). Both passages appear to express a belief in the presence
of God with the speaker wherever he might be. However, in the case of
Jonah there is an obvious caveat when one additionally considers the
first part of verse 2:4 – “Then I said, 'I am driven away from
your sight.” That seems to indicate that Jonah felt that his
location on the bed of th<span style="font-weight: normal;">e sea
(i.e. in Sheol) was outside of God's domain.</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">One way to resolve
the question is to look next at Jonah 2:4 in which he states, “I am
driven away from your sight; how shall I look again upon your holy
temple. It there are two parallel thoughts being expressed, then
Jonah indeed may be picturing God as a national deity who primarily
dwelt in the Jerusalem temple.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">This point is
echoed by Cary, who states, “We might well wonder what Jonah could
be thinking. How can anyone flee from God, who is everywhere. The
psalmist's prayer is certainly not lost on Jonah: 'You know when I
sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar.' (Ps.
139:2). But what Jonah and his readers know – they practically feel
it in their bones – is that there is more to the presence of the
LORD than omnipresence and omniscience. There is a specific place
where the God of Israel meets his people, hears their petitions, and
judges their cause (1 Kgs. 8:27-40), a place, we could say, of the
LORD's presence in person.” Namely the temple in Jerusalem. “His
flight is not an attempt to escape divine omnipresence so much as an
effort not to heed this word.”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">In discussing
Jonah 2:6, Cary notes that 'precisely here the LORD reverses the
whole direction and movement of Jonah's story by bringing him upward.
There is no place where he does not know his own.” Cary at this
point quotes “the great biblical confession of divine
omnipresence,” namely Psalm 139:7-10.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">By the way, the
opposite words “up” and “down” are prominent in both passages
under consideration, appearing five times in Psalm 139 and ten times
in the Book of Jonah.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">There is another
point brought out by Sasson, who feels that Psalm 139:8-10 talks
figuratively about God's two hands hemming him in. The analogy of two
hands also appears in a Jonah 4:11 in which God describes the people
of Nineveh as not able to distinguish their left hand from the right,
an expression explained by Allen as meaning that they are “also as
virtual children compared with the Jews. They know no better, for
they have not had the spiritual advantages of Israel and so it is
necessary to make allowances for them.”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">In verse 9, the
author says, “If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the
farthest limits of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me...”
Even though there is much uncertainty regarding the exact location of
Tarshish, Jonah's stated destination in 1:3, one strong contender is
a town on the coast of Spain. If so, then this would literally be
“the farthest limits of the sea.”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Verses 11-12 of
this psalm confess that darkness cannot conceal a person from the
presence of God. But that appears to be exactly what Jonah is trying
to do by hiding in the dark hold of the ship (Jonah 1:5). And, of
course, it will get even darker when he is in the belly of the fish
underwater.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Psalm 139:13-18</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In these verses we have a hymn to the
omnipotence of God as evidenced by the greatest of His creations,
mankind. By contrast, God goes to great lengths in 4:6-11 to show
Jonah that the only part of creation he appears to be concerned about
is the small portion that impacts him directly.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“We could call the gourd [of Jonah
4:10] a 'nightling.' It emerged from the darkness and returned to it,
for it was 'made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the
earth' (Ps. 139:15).” (Cary) Thus we see the unity of the most
supreme of God's creations with “Jonah's” lowly gourd.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Verse 18 reads, “I awake – I am
still with you.” We see an allusion to this verse in Jonah 1:5-6
where the sailors wake the prophet up from his sound sleep to tell
him of the disaster than Jonah knows has been caused by God Himself.<br />
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Psalm 139:19-22</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">These are really the only verses in
this psalm in which we might be tempted to see a direct parallel
between the attitudes of the Psalmist and Jonah. But in reality,
there is quite a contrast between the two people.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“The target of the psalmist's enemies
appears to be God (vv. 20-21), suggesting that the psalmist is
speaking in defense of God and perhaps that the previous verses of
the psalm were composed as an 'apology' on behalf of God.”
(deClaisse-Walford)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jonah, on the other hand, when
confronted by God in the final chapter of the book is totally unable
to explain to Him what is wrong with showing mercy on those human
beings who have repented and are certainly worth more in God's eyes
than the plant over Jonah's head.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Psalm 139:23-24</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Finally, as the other half of the
inclusio encapsulating the psalm, verses 23-24 repeat some of the
same key words in verses 1-3, but this time in the imperative mood –
The Psalmist actually invites God to search his heart again in order
to point out any evil that may be in it. Few of us would be so bold
to welcome such an examination. Again, as in vv. 1-6, the emphasis is
on God's omniscience. This is emphasized by use of the word “know”
twice at the end of the psalm. We can contrast this to the two times
Jonah uses the same word – both referring not to God's knowledge,
but to his own (see Jonah 1:12 and 4:2).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Certainly Jonah is in no mood for God
to reveal what He thinks of Jonah's thoughts and actions, even though
all the events of that narrative are expressly designed to bring
Jonah to his senses. It all comes to a head in the final chapter in
which God gently prods Jonah into self examination by asking probing
questions, two of which Jonah actually refuses to answer.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In my earlier blog titled “The
Prodigal Son: Part 2,” I demonstrated that there is practically an
identical literary structure in Jonah 4 and Jesus' parable. I
concluded with these words: “<span style="color: #010101;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Notice
that God's behavior in the story of Jonah and the father's attitude
in this parable are identical. He shows equal compassion toward those
outside and those within the fold and gives each of them time to </span>repent. The parable is not an
attack on the Pharisees, and the ending “functions as an invitation
for them to change their attitude..'
(Snodgrass) Jesus is not saying that the older brother (Pharisees)
has no relationship with God, merely
that he should not have a disdainful attitude toward repentant sinners.” We can say the exact
same regarding God's method of gently dealing with Jonah.</span></span></p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-61573068680561072892024-03-04T12:40:00.000-06:002024-03-04T12:40:19.561-06:00JOHN 5:1-13<p>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><img border="0" height="372" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlyMekD4GorFmjKFebQRNktup8GWXtb-sEvpe3uv_-SNhsX-SWtFtFd0E52_du0FtCXh9CMxjkx8IiGzp9Ag80cV3YsoI8qnaPbUXZvwzFCSEOL-HLwTeaRzrFSoxkiSWzBqltRQ_B4Co/s640/180_Troubling+the+Water.jpg" width="640" /></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Troubling the Water (collage, 2009) <br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">John 5:1-13 relates one of only three
healing miracles found in John's Gospel, none of which appears in the
Synoptics. “Wieland discusses six suggested sites and agrees that
the identification of the twin pools of St. Anne with Bethesda is
'virtually established.'” (Morris) This is partially due to the
mention in the copper scroll of Qumran of 'pools' at Bethesda. This
fits well with the double pool excavated there which contained five
porticoes as stated in John 5:2.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Morris goes on to say, “Many
commentators point out that the identification is apparently ancient,
for a Crusader church built over the pool has a mural depicting an
angel arising out of the pool.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Raymond Brown remarks that “the
factual details found in the introduction...are very accurate. They
betray a knowledge of Jerusalem that militates against a late or
non-Palestinian origin of the story.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">F.F. Bruce goes into more detail: “The
pool of Bethesda, described in John v. 2, has been located in the
north-east quarter of the old city of Jerusalem, the quarter which
was called Bezetha, or 'New Town', in the first century AD. In 1888
excavations near St. Anne's Church, in that quarter, revealed the
remains of an ancient church building. Beneath this lay a crypt, with
its north wall divided into five compartments in imitation of arches;
on this wall there could also be distinguished traces of an old
fresco representing the angel troubling the water. Clearly those who
built this structure believed that it marked the site of the pool of
Bethesda. And subsequent excavations below the crypt showed that they
were right; a flight of steps was uncovered leading down to a pool
with five shallow porticoes [i.e. covered walkways] on its north
side, directly underneath the five imitation arches on the north wall
of the crypt. “There are few sites in Jerusalem mentioned in the
Gospels, which can be identified so confidently.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This archeological find is one of many
reasons that caused even a previously skeptical Bible scholar such as
J.A.T. Robinson to state: “In fact it is becoming clear that Mark
is much more theological and John much more historical than was
previously supposed.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Verse 3 goes on to state that many ill
people lay there. But verses 3b-4 (found in the KJV but not in many
modern translations) read: “...waiting for the stirring of the
water; for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the
pool and stirred up the water; whoever stepped in first after the
stirring of the water was made well from whatever disease that person
had.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">There is a certain reference to the
stirring of the waters in v. 7; however the rest of the material in
3b-4 is not found anywhere else in the story. The reasons for most
translators omitting these 1-1/2 verses are enumerated by Metzger:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>1. They are not present in the oldest
and most reliable manuscripts.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>2. More than 20 Greek manuscripts have
these words, but they are marked with asterisks to note that they are
spurious.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>3. This passage contains seven words
found nowhere else in John's Gospel, three of which are found nowhere
else in the New Testament.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>4. Those manuscripts which do contain
these words vary considerably from one another in exact wording.</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jesus approaches one
particular paralytic or lame man lying near the pool and asks him if
he really wants to be healed. Rather than answer this question
directly, the discouraged man starts by addressing Jesus as <i>kyrie</i>
(“lord”). We should note with Witherington and Yamazaki-Ransom
that this “should not be counted as having christological weight.”
In other words, the man was merely responding to Jesus with a polite
title, not one with any theological meaning behind it.</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The paralytic (we don't
actually know what his malady was) then explains that he isn't able
to get into the pool before someone else beats him to it since he has
“no man” to help him in. Culpepper sees an “implicit
commentary” in the lame's man use of that term in that at the time
he in fact has someone right before him who is more than just a man.
Culpepper connects this with the fact that a few verses later in the
text (v. 18) the Jews seek to kill Jesus for claiming to be equal to
God.</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So what we are left with for
sure regarding this “stirring of the waters” is that the belief
at the time was that when the waters were stirred (or “troubled”)
for some reason, the first person into the water would be healed of
what ailed them. In classical Greek, <i>tarasso</i> (“troubled)
means “to shake something out of inertia and throw it into
confusion, i.e. to disturb, to upset...to agitate...” (Muller)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Going to the OT equivalent
of this Greek word, Cook notes that Pharaoh in Ezekiel 32:2 is
compared to a mythical monster “who aspires to rock the cosmos (<i>in
the seas</i>, cf. Isa 27.1 and the watery chaos of Ps 46:3; 93.3). Vv
2,13-14 show, however, that in reality he can only stir up a little
local trouble, muddying the water with his feet.”
</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In the case of John 5, we
don't know who was supposed to be disturbing the water since we can't
rely on the information in the spurious verse 4. However, it may
certainly reflect an ancient superstition of the time and would not
be unusual in light of Brown's observation: “The Mohammedans of
Palestine in modern times have traditions about the jinni of a
particular spring.”</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And as to the first one
getting in the water being healed, Guthrie notes: “Although there
is no other evidence to support the view that the waters when
disturbed possessed curative properties, it is certainly not
impossible that many people believed that they did.”</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Two archeological findings
at the site help explain the dire situation the paralytic faced.
Muller notes that the pool was sixteen meters deep with no shallow
end. Thus, a cripple would have had to be carried and held all the
time. Additionally, the fact that there were five long porticoes to
hold all those waiting to be cured made the paralytic's plight even
more hopeless, as Guthrie notes.</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“The water in the Bethesda
pool was probably disturbed from time to time by an intermittent
spring...R.D. Potter points out that there is no spring in this part
of Jerusalem, but fragments of pipes have been found in the vicinity.
The moving of the water could have been caused by renewal from the
pipes.” (Muller)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Similar explanations are
given by most commentators. For example:</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “From time to time
internal pressure caused the water to be agitated.” (Kistemaker)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “In this hilly area the
water may have come from underground drainage; some of it, perhaps,
from intermittent springs...” (Brown)</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">But aside from the physical
picture that the above paints, the much more important aspect is the
theological underpinnings expressed in it. Here are some valuable
points gleaned from the literature:</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Klink feels that “in John
5:1-15 it is possible to interpret an intentional contrast between
the magical waters of healing beside which the lame man hopes for
healing and the healing that Jesus offers.” Brown comments, “If
the paralytic's malady were not so tragic, one could almost be amused
by the man's unimaginative approach to the curative waters.”</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Without getting too far into
current political issues, I find it fascinating and disgusting that
more and more evangelical churches have seemingly given up on turning
to God for a solution to the supposed concerted attacks on the
church and our Christian values and have turned instead to rabblerousers who stir us up in anger through their largely untrue
diatribe. The unfortunate result is that (1) people are leaving
churches with pastors who refrain from overt politically motivated
rhetoric in favor of ones who often preach more politics than Bible
from the pulpits and (2) churches are attracting fewer and fewer new
people because of evangelicals' growing reputation for rancor,
fear-mongering and hatred of those who do not agree 100% with their
detailed agenda. Enough politics and back to theology for all of us,
myself included!</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Morris brings out another
interesting point in considering the fact that this miracle required
absolutely no apparent faith in Jesus on the part of the lame man. In
fact, he couldn't even identify who He was after the event. “We
must feel that, while faith was commonly the prerequisite of healing,
it was not absolutely necessary.” The healing was primarily caused
by Jesus' compassion for the man's pitiful plight. </p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Blum remarks that “the
Bible nowhere teaches this kind of superstition, a situation which
would be a most cruel contest for an ill people.” It is indeed
amazing that none of the ill people lining the pool asked themselves
what sort of loving God would pit one deserving person against
another in the race to be healed. That is why it is so necessary for
us to constantly gauge our actions and beliefs against what the Bible
teaches rather than looking at what current wisdom is prevailing at
the time in which we are living and within the specific group(s) to
which we belong.</p>
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-9327775311455201592024-03-02T10:39:00.000-06:002024-03-02T10:39:07.738-06:00PAYING THE TEMPLE TAX (MATTHEW 17:24-27)<p> <img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-KulEwkmhfboAdPVdTs1WNqcI4HaRNPjk3SD4kU9ghb-OQMjfCmJmhLnEnfqzFhLmyh3ITsaBBMfCf9R7TfV7JjA8e1mrjW502qm8USZ3FA2skKEnZrZ2y7bGUcTn2KVHoGD1CeXKjcc/s640/176_Clarias+Macracanthus.jpg" width="536" />
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><i> Clarias Macraconthus</i> (collage,
2009)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">It is appropriate that this discussion
and miracle involving the temple tax should have been recorded only
by Matthew, the former tax collector.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Regarding the miraculous aspect of the
story, both Kistemaker and Twelftree categorize it as a nature
miracle. But I personally feel that “a miracle of knowledge” is a
more accurate description. And even Kistemaker says, “He <u>knew</u>
with divine knowledge that the fish had a coin in its mouth.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Matthew 17:24 –</b> <b>When they
came to Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to
Peter and said, “Does your teacher pay the tax?”</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">Since
Jesus and his followers were constantly itinerating from one
preach-point to another, it was difficult for tax agents to make
contact with them. But now that they were back in Capernaum once
more, it was time for the matter to be dealt with.” (Archer)</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">A
yearly temple tax of a half shekel (2 denarii), required of every
male Israelite over twenty, directly supported the temple operations
(Ex 30:11-16; Neh 10:32). This tax appears to have been paid
faithfully, even by Diaspora Jews, and it served as a marker of
Jewish identity. Rome helped to ensure the Jews' right to send money
to Jerusalem despite the local tensions caused by this large outflow
of cash.” (J.R. Wagner)</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">The
half-shekel temple tax was derived from the one-third shekel temple
tax of Nehemiah 10:32-33 and was raised to a half-shekel possibly
under the influence of the half-shekel atonement price of Exodus
30:11-16 (cf. 2 Chron 24:6).” (Schmidt)</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Reid notes,
“Though this was the prevailing practice, it was not beyond
dispute. 4Q159 [one of the Dead Sea scrolls] maintains that it should
be paid only once in a lifetime, probably appealing to its origin as
a one-time payment in Exodus 30:13-14, and this opinion may have been
shared by Jesus (Mt 17:24-27).” This could possibly help explain
Jesus' comment in v. 26.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Cohick notes that
“the temple accepted only Tyrian silver coins, which were 92
percent silver, a very expensive coin. This requirement probably was
a hardship for poor Jews” as well as necessitating money changers
in the temple grounds (cf. Matthew 21:12-13 and parallels). Another
problem for some Jews was that these Tyrian coins actually pictured a
pagan god on one side.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Matthew 17:25a – He said, “Yes.”</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Regarding Peter's
words, France states, “We do not know whether Peter's confident
'Yes' sprang from knowledge of Jesus' views on the issue or simply
from his assumption that Jesus would do as other patriotic Jews did.
And Hendricksen suggests that Peter “may have remembered what Jesus
had said regarding the law of God (5:17,18). Also, he may have been
present on other occasions when the Lord paid the tax.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Matthew 17:25b – And when he came
home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying...</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">If
he intended to raise the issue with Jesus, he was forestalled by
Jesus (through supernatural knowledge, or through having heard the
exchange outside?) raising it first with him.” (France)</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Matthew 17:25c –</b><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span><b>“What do you think Simon? From whom do kings of the earth
take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?”</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">The
analogy of the Roman government taxing aliens heavily would be well
understood.” (Nixon)</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Matthew 17:26 – And when he said,
“From others,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free.”</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Wilkins notes, “In
several instances the questions and responses that Peter voices to
Jesus on behalf of the disciples were issues that still spoke to the
church of Matthew's day (e.g. Mt 15:15; 17-24-25; 18:21).”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Schmidt says that
“the statement of Jesus that 'the sons [of the king] are free'
stresses voluntarism...it is less likely but also possible that by
'sons of the king,' Jesus is referring only to himself (and therefore
only to the exemption from the temple tax).”
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">On the other hand,
“Jesus may be employing the language of fictive kinship to indicate
that those in the new family formed around...are not obligated to pay
the tax...” (Downs) In this, Bietenhard agrees: “The incident
implies that the disciples are 'sons of God', and that Jews are in
fact 'others.'”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">In saying this,
“Jesus did not speak openly against imperial taxation (Mk 12:17),
but he did suggest to his disciples that the 'sons are free' of
temple taxation.” (Oakman)</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">This brings up the
question of the exact meaning of “free” as expressed in the New
Testament writings.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> “The
term </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">eleutheria</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
(freedom') and its cognates in the Gospels is a broad and complex
notion that speaks to the dimensions of freedom exhibited by and
accessible through Jesus Christ...the adjective </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">eleutheros</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is used only three times (Mt 17:26; Jn 8:33,36)...” (Klink III)</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Blunk
states that “</span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">eleutheria</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is never used in the secular sense of political freedom. From this it
may be inferred that the recovery of Israel's political freedom no
longer played any part in the thinking of the NT writers. Jesus was
no political messiah. The NT also dissociates itself from the idea of
freedom as power to do with oneself and one's life whatever one
wants. e</span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">leutheria</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is to be seen in the light of 'the glorious liberty of the children
of God' (Rom. 8:21).”</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Matthew 17:27a – “However, not
to give offense to them,”</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">This phrase of
Jesus is a very important one to understanding the whole passage, but
unfortunately there is more than one way to take it.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">For example,
France notes that “this is an interesting contrast to other matters
of controversy on which Jesus was only too willing to stand up
against practices and assumptions which he saw as wrong in principle,
and so to incur the hostility of those of a more conventional
outlook...But where it is his own personal privilege that is at
stake, he has no problem accommodating himself to what is expected of
him...” France sees a possible parallel to Jesus being baptized by
John in order “to identify with repentant Israel.”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Schmidt says that
Jesus “represents a conciliatory position motivated by love for the
Jews.”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">But here is quite
a different slant on the situation: “Derrett claims that Peter
could have claimed exemption on the grounds that Jesus and the
disciples were fully employed in God's service. The matter would then
have been referred to Jerusalem for a ruling...Although Jesus could
claim to be not liable to the tax, he was obliged by the Torah to
save the collectors from the sin of compelling him to supply the
half-shekel...Jesus was concerned for the moral welfare of the
collectors, even though he knew that the tax was not due...The
earthly king would provide that his servants were not liable to
customs duty; but the heavenly king in this case, caring for the
souls of the collectors, would provide for the payment of the
half-shekel.” (Colin Brown)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Matthew 17:27b – “go to the sea
and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you
open its mouth you will find a shekel.”</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Jacques Ellul can
always be relied on to provide a unique explanation of Scripture. So
he states: “The power which imposes the levy is ridiculous, and he
thus performs an absurd miracle to show how unimportant the power is.
The miracle displays the complete indifference of Jesus to the king,
the temple authorities, etc...We find once again the typical attitude
of Jesus. He devalues political and religious power. He makes it
plain that it is not worth submitting and obeying except in a
ridiculous way.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">A
miracle seems to be implied, but it is the only case n the Gospels
where a miracle is not made explicit. Various attempts have been made
to explain [or explain away] the incident in other ways, but without
much success.” (Nixon)</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">The
fish in question would be the cat-fish </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">clarias
lazarera</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">, known to the
Greeks as </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">korakinos</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
It is an omnivorous predator, liking shallow waters scavenging around
landing-places. It would be attracted by a bright disc which could
easily have stuck in the back of its throat. As a scaleless fish it
was prohibited as food by the [levitical] law.” (Brown) You will
note that the title of the collage I began with has a slightly
different species of fish listed since I relied on another scholarly
source to obtain it.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Matthew 17:27c – “take that and
give it to them for me and for yourself.”</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Kistenmaker
remarks, “This miracle was one in which Jesus himself was a partial
beneficiary, together with Peter. All the other miracles Jesus
performed for the benefit of others.” It is also unique in that the
result of Jesus' instructions are not even given, although we can
assume that the event ensued as Jesus had predicted.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
temple tax is literally </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">didrachma</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
and the “coin” in v. 27b is a </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">stater</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
worth two </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">didrachmas</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
Thus, there is exactly enough for two people's taxes. But I had
wondered why there wasn't enough money to pay all of the apostles'
taxes. Ellison provides one possible answer: “Since there is no
ground for disassociating Peter from the other disciples in the
matter of temple-tax, it is hard to resist the conclusion that he was
the only member of the Twelve over twenty.” He cites John 20:20-28
as possible confirmation that at least James and John appear to be
youths at the time since their mother is still speaking up on their
behalf.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Implications to Dating Matthew's
Gospel</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">One final aspect
of this story is worth noting – the historical context. Kreitzer
explains, “It is sometimes suggested that the Matthean account of
the so-called temple tax...reflects the situation of A.D. 70-96, in
which the tax was being levied by the Romans for the reconstruction
of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus following the Jewish revolt.
Such a scenario has radical implications for the dating of the Gospel
of Matthew as a whole, shifting the area of conflict...to that of the
Matthean community following the destruction of the temple in A.D.
70.”
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">To summarize the
above opinion: Perhaps Matthew, writing sometime after the
destruction of the temple, fabricated this story, not found in the
other three Gospel accounts, in order to give guidance to his
audience as to how they should deal with the Roman tax being levied
on them at the time.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">But for a
diametrically opposed viewpoint, Nixon states, “The story would
have more point if the Gospel were written <u>before</u> AD 70, but
it does not demand an early date for the Gospel.”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">This appears to be
one of those many similar situations where a scholar's opinion is
more determined by his basic theological stance than by any more
objective criteria.</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-37174569793934403382024-02-29T11:13:00.002-06:002024-02-29T11:13:30.147-06:00WHO WAS THE HIGH PRIEST WHEN DAVID ATE THE CONSECRATED BREAD?<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The Old Testament narrative in question
concerns the time that David and his men were fleeing from Saul's
wrath and resorted to getting provisions from the priest of Nob. Saul
subsequently murders the priest along with 85 other priests for
helping him escape.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Emerson Green (“Counter Apologetics”)
asks the above question in order to expose a contradiction within the
Bible. Thus, Jesus says that Abiathar was high priest at the time
(Mark 2:25-26) while the account in I Samuel 21-22 says that
Ahimelech was the high priest.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jenson, in discussing the whole concept
of Jewish priesthood makes several points pertinent to this
discussion: (1) “The biblical writings vary greatly in the detail
with which they describe the Israelite priesthood.” (2) “The
history of the high priesthood is especially obscure.” And that is
especially true in the era before the return from Exile” and (3)
“There is no fixed term for the high priest, who may be called the
great priest (<i>hakkohen haggadol</i>), the head priest (<i>kohen
haro</i>...), the anointed priest (<i>hakkohen</i> <i>hammasiah</i>)
or simply <u>the</u> priest (Exod 31:10).”
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In the OT passage of interest,
Ahimelech is only called “the priest,” and there are numerous
other priests at Nob with him. Thus, we cannot even state with
certainty that he is “the high priest” at the time. And since we
do not have a complete list of high priests at this early date, we
have no additional sources to tell us who might have served in that
function at the time.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">As with most so-called contradictions
within the Bible, there are a number of adequate options to chose
from in resolving the issue, even if one can never be certain which
is correct. In this case, some of the main possibilities are given
below:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>1. Jesus made a factual error – For
a Christian, this would be the option of last resort even though no
doctrinal point hangs or falls on the exact identification of that
particular priest during David's day.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>2. Mark, quoting from memory, made a
factual error in relating the story – This is a slightly more
acceptable option since it relieves Jesus from the charge of being
mistaken in his facts.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Marcus appears to ascribe to this
theory when he notes: “Some manuscripts of our passage, as well as
the Matthean and Lukan parallels deal with the problem by simply
omitting <i>epi Abiathar archiereos</i>.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Metzger agrees with this assessment and
points to other examples where Matthew and Luke apparently did the
same thing; however in rebuttal, Hendricksen asks, “Are these
Marcan phrases really so difficult that they were omitted by Matthew
and Luke for this reason?”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>3. A scribal error in copying the
earliest pertinent OT and/or NT manuscripts is responsible for the
confusion. Keep in mind that most evangelical doctrinal statements
state only that the Bible is accurate in the original manuscripts, of
which unfortunately we have none.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>4. Mark was relying on “a midrashic
[i.e. rabbinical] exposition of I Sam. 21:1-6.” (H. Anderson) The
problem is that we have no information regarding such a midrash.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>5. Mark purposely chose to write
“Ahimelech.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Marcus says, “Whether or not Mark was
aware of this technical error, the substitution for Ahimelech
certainly suits his purposes in this passage.” He goes on to
explain several ways in which this statement is true. But it is
somewhat hard to believe that Mark would have purposely changed
Jesus' words in order to make a subtle theological point.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>6. Mann, believing that Mark's Gospel
was the latest of the Synoptics to be written, suggests that “Mark
himself disregarded the absence of names [in the parallel accounts]
and supplied one well known for his association with David.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>7. And there is another possibility
cited favorably by Mann, who says: “I am now indebted to Dr.
Charles A. Kennedy for the suggestion that the name Abiathar, so far
from being a mistake which Matthew and Luke corrected by omission, is
the result of a scribal correction of what the scribe assumed to be a
simple case of dittography [i.e. accidental copying of a word or
phrase twice instead of once]. In other words, the original text of
Mark would have been <i>Ab(ba)-Abiathar</i> (“the father of
Abiathar”), in much the same way that in Arabic custom at the
present time a father may be known by the name of a more famous son.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>8. One option is suggested by a
comment made by Metzger, who notes “Other witnesses [i.e.
manuscripts], reluctant to go so far as to delete the phrase,
inserted <i>tou</i> before <i>archiereos</i>...in order to permit the
interpretation that the event happened in the time of (but not
necessarily during the high-priesthood of) Abiathar (who was
afterward) the high priest.” But perhaps these manuscripts have
alternatively preserved Mark's original text instead.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>9. When properly understood, the text
in Mark does does not really express the fact that Abiathar was the
high priest at the time of this event. This general approach to a
solution by retranslating the verse takes several different forms:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>a. “Wenham, for example.., noting
the way in which <i>epi</i> + the genitive is used in 12:26, suggests
that the meaning is 'in the section of scripture having to do with
Abiathar.' As Lane points out, however, the phrase in question “is
far away from 'have you not read,' Abiathar is not the central
character in this portion of 1 Samuel, and rabbinic documents tend to
designate a section by a term that occurs earlier rather than later
in it (Abiathar does not appear until 1 Samuel 22).” (Marcus)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Grassmick subscribes to Wenham's
understanding and adds, “Abiathar became high priest shortly after
Ahimelech and proved more prominent than he, thus justifying the use
of his name here.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Short is also a supporter of Wenham's
approach to translating Mark 2:26b. He says that 'in the passage
about Abiathar the high priest' “seems preferable to the rendering
in the text here [i.e. NIV], 'in the days of Abiathar the high
priest' (feasible as that also is as a translation), in that it does
not require that “Abiathar was high priest when the event occurred,
which was, actually, during the high priesthood of Abiathar's father
Ahimelech.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span>b. Marcus also states, “Similarly
questionable is Derrett's suggestion that <i>epi Abiathar</i>
<i>archiereos</i> means 'in the presence of Abiathar the high priest'
and anticipates Abiathar's future office.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>10. Finally, I would like to suggest
another hypothetical solution which does not require stating that
Mark, Jesus, the author of I Samuel, or any of the scribes copying
the OT or NT documents made an error. And I believe that it is the
one suggested by Hendricksen, although unfortunately he does not go
on to explain himself further. He simply says that “Ahimelech
functioned as a priest in the days of Abiathar the high priest.”
Here is what he may be driving at, but if I am mistaken in trying to
read his mind then I will take the blame myself for the following
argument.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">It is well known that a common OT
practice was to name a child after his grandfather. In that manner,
the whole patronymic line would alternate back and forth between two
names until one of the men in the line happened to break the pattern.
Thus, Millard notes that the name Ahimelech applies to two different
priests in the OT: (1) “the father of Abiathar. The priest at Nob
who gave David the shewbread and Goliath's sword, for which he was
killed by Saul (1 Sa. xxi, xxii)” and (2) “Son of Abiathar, a
priest under David, perhaps grandson of (1) (2 Sa. Viii.17).”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">But what if this alternating pattern of
names also applied earlier as well. We would then end up with the
following genealogical series of priests (Roman numerals added to
distinguishing them from one another):</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> <span> </span></span>Abiathar I – this person, only
mentioned by Jesus in Mark 2:25-26, would have been the actual high
priest at the time of the incident of David and the shewbread (I
Samuel 21).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> <span> </span></span>Ahimelich I – the priest of Nob who
gave David the bread (I Samuel 21)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> <span> </span></span>Abiathar II – the priest who
escaped the massacre (I Samuel 22)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> <span> </span></span>Ahimelech II – a later priest under
David (II Samuel 8:17)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Thus, we are only left with the
unanswerable question as to where Jesus got his information as to the
first Abiathar in the series. But I am certainly not going to
question the possibility of the One who stated “Before Abraham was,
I am” having first-hand information of that fact.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b> </b><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span> </span>10.</span><b>
</b><span style="font-weight: normal;">Lastly, if “the priest,”
referring to Ahimelich I, is equivalent to calling him “high
priest,” then what about Abiathar I, who Jesus names “high
priest”? The answer may come from another NT passage: John
18:12-24. In that encounter of Jesus with the Jewish authorities, He
is first taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiphas, Caiphas being
high priest that year (vv. 12-14). However, in vv. 19-23, it is Annas
who is called high priest instead. How can there be two high priests
at the same time? The answer given by almost all commentators is that
Annas used to be the high priest before Caiphas took over; however
Annas still had enough authority among the people that he continued
to hold that honorary title. Thus, we have a clear precedent for
considering that both Abiathar I and Ahimelich I were both allowed to
be called the “high priest”</span><b> </b><span style="font-weight: normal;">at
the same time.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Conclusion</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">After Bruce
mentions some of the above options, he concludes: '”Whatever the
case, Mark did not realize that there was a problem...While many
ancient historians would not have been bothered by such an innocuous
slip, it did seem to bother Matthew and Luke [assuming that they
wrote after Mark did], so we cannot be sure that it would not have
bothered Mark. Thus we can arbitrarily select one of the speculative
solutions mentioned, perhaps choosing the one which pleases us the
best, or we can say, 'We honestly don't know what the answer is to
this problem, nor are we likely to ever know.' In that case, this
verse makes plain that our knowledge is always partial so that our
trust remains in God rather than in what we know.”</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-26015403240062191662024-02-27T11:40:00.008-06:002024-02-27T11:40:43.335-06:00BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION: DOES GOD'S ANGER LAST FOREVER?
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In his blog post, Emerson Green lists
ten “incontrovertible contradictions” in the Bible. The one he
chose above was a particularly poor example to prove the fallibility
of the Bible. And that is true for several reasons. The two specific
passages he chose to pit against one another were Micah 7:18 and
Jeremiah 17:4. Let us start with the verse in Micah since there is
little controversy about what it says.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Micah 7:18</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “Who is a God like you, pardoning
iniquity and passing over the transgression of the remnant of your
possession? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights
in showing clemency.” This is actually a quotation of Exodus
34:6-7, also cited in Numbers 4:10; Psalm 103:7-14; and Jeremiah
32:18.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The historical context behind Micah's
statement is described by Chisholm: “Judah's present was marred by
their sinful obsession with idols (17:1-2). This idolatrous worship
was designed to ensure the nation's prosperity, but the Lord would
hand their wealth over to the invaders (vv. 3-4).”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Many other OT passages could be quoted
which state the very same principle, and commentators are united in
their interpretation. Below are just a few examples:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>“Yahweh's faithfulness sometimes is
applied in two main ways within the context of Yahweh's punishment of
the people. On the one hand, Yahweh's faithfulness provides the basis
for his abundant mercy and his reluctance to mete out punishment
(Joel 2:13; Mic 7:18); on the other hand, when Yahweh does pass
judgment, it is out of his faithfulness and genuine love for his
people...Thus, judgment against the people of Israel and Judah is
viewed as the result of a loving God who cares enough to discipline
his people.” (Cook)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>“This description of the complexity
of God's character as both forgiving and judging is echoed elsewhere
(e.g., Num 14:18; Ps 103:7-14; Jer 13:18...” (Sanderson)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>“The verb <i>nasa</i> often means
'to lift up, carry.' When used in relation to sin, it usually refers
to bearing sin like a burden or bearing the consequences of
sin...However, occasionally it refers to taking sin away in an act of
forgiveness (Is 2:9; 33:24; Hos 1:6; 14:2; Mic 7:18).” (McKeown)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>McConville states that Micah 7:18-20
is “the theological high point in the book.” He compares it to
Hosea 11:8-11. “This is a hope that can reckon with the reality of
judgment, but believe, on the grounds of God's character and historic
commitment to Israel, that judgment may not be the end.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>“Ultimately, what overcomes divine
wrath is divine compassion. Even though Yahweh was angry at Israel,
his anger was replaced by a desire to comfort them instead (Is 12:1).
Yahweh declares that his anger was temporary, but his love and
compassion will be everlasting (Is 54:8). Because Yahweh's compassion
grows warm and tender, he will no longer execute his fiery anger, nor
come in wrath (Hos 11:8-9). Finally, God does not retain his anger
forever because he delights in steadfast love and compassion (Mic
7:18-19).” (Lamb)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>“The recurrence of the language of
Exodus 34:6-7 reinforces that while God's judgment is in force, it
still remains an extension of the 'steadfast love of the LORD,' so
that his mercy and compassion might be demonstrated...The destruction
of the northern and southern kingdoms was justified because of sin,
but God in his mercy will restore his people and land, even creation
itself, because of his justice and righteousness (Mic 4:1-7).”
(H.A. Thomas)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>“Having announced judgment because
Israel has failed to reflect God's character (Mic 6:8), Micah in the
last few verses of the book, returns to the question raised by
Hosea's awful announcement of Yahweh's rejection of his people.
Because of Yahweh's exodus self-revelations, judgment cannot be the
last word. The God who delights in clemency will again show mercy,
compassion and covenant faithfulness to His remnant people (Mic
7:18-20; cf. Ex 34:6-7).” (Watts)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Jeremiah 17:4</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Next we turn to this apparent sole
outlier that goes against all that is stated above when it declares:
“You shall loosen your hand from your heritage which I gave to you
and I will make you serve your enemies in a land which you do not
know, for in my anger a fire is kindled which shall burn for ever.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Here is how several scholar weigh in on
the meaning of this verse:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>L.C. Allen: “Jeremiah's premonitions
crystallized into Nebuchadnezzar's devastating campaigns and
deportations, as his prophesying turned inexorably into fulfillment.
Such vehement warfare was a measure of divine anger, in a radical
reprisal provoked by Judah's aberrations (Jer 4:5-8; 7:18-20; 21:3-7;
32:28-30,37; 52:3).”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>Marlow talks of “the concept of the
land as the Lord's most beautiful inheritance or heritage (<i>nahala</i>)
(Jer 3:18-19), which the children of Israel have defiled (Jer 2:7;
16:18), and which they will forfeit on account of their actions (Jer
17:4).”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>Gane says that “expiation was
impossible, and they would suffer the divine judgment of exile (Jer
17:3-4).” </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Contradiction?</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So much is not in doubt, but does
Jeremiah 17:4 really contradict the combined witness of Micah 7:18
and related verses? There are two ways to approach this conundrum.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Translation Issues</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“On the whole, every translation of
17:2-3 remains uncertain.” And that uncertainty carries over to v.
4 as well. (Hulst)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The first and perhaps the easiest to
comprehend is to consider what Jeremiah is really stating here. A
simple look at the grammar of Jeremiah 17:4 reveals that it is not
God's anger (better translated as “wrath”) which burns for ever,
but the consequences of that anger. And those are the natural
consequences of the people's idolatrous actions. A somewhat related
idea is expressed in Hosea 8:7 when the prophet talks about Israel's
worship of idols: “For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the
whirlwind.” The metaphor involves wind in place of fire, but the
concept is the same.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">When I was a chemist back in New York
State, we had a small Bible study which met at lunchtime. One of the
participants was a young technician who had led a wild life before he
met the Lord. He had to admit to us that he was having a very
difficult time comprehending even the simplest concepts that we were
discussing since, in his words, “My brain is fried from taking too
many drugs.” There is no doubt in my mind that God had long ago
forgiven him and no longer visited His wrath on this young man. But
there is also no doubt that the consequences of his earlier acts
would be with him as long as he lived.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Applying that concept to the historical
context of Jeremiah 17:4, we know that due to Israel's grievous sins
God removed the blessing of the land from them. Of course, a remnant
of the people subsequently returned to a portion of that land, only
to be subsequently subjugated by several foreign powers over the
centuries as well as being sent into exile again under Roman
occupation. And an even smaller remnant of Jews occupies an even
smaller part of the Holy Land today. Though God has repeatedly shown
mercy to His historic people over the years, the Jews are still
living out the consequences of that initial act of disobedience. They
sowed the wind and are still reaping the whirlwind however God may
view their current spiritual status.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Confirming the above view that this
verse in no way says that God's anger lasts forever is what Jeremiah
himself says elsewhere in his long book. Allen states, “Jeremiah
stands in the tradition of Hosea that embraced post-judgment hope,
and so the merited 'forever' of Jeremiah 17:4 is transcended.
'Everlasting love' (Jer 31:3) will trump the divine hatred in
Jeremiah 12:8 (cf. Hos 9:15; 11:8-9).”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And Thompson says, “The picture is
consistent with much of Jeremiah's preaching. Judah's rebellion was
deep-rooted and ineradicable unless a deep change such as described
later in the book (31:31-34) took place. Only when God wrote his law
on his people's heart could obedience replace rebellion.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Textual Issues</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The following discussion may be a
little complicated and confusing; I know it was for me. It involves
the concept of textual criticism. Many conservative denominational
doctrinal statements express their attitude toward the Bible by
saying something like: “The original manuscripts of the Bible are
free from any doctrinal and factual error.” The problem comes in
with the inescapable fact that in no case do we possess the original
manuscript. We may have very ancient copies of copies of copies of
the original manuscripts, but in no case has anyone ever found even a
scrap of papyrus in Moses' or Paul's handwriting. However, we do have
numerous early copies that can be compared to one another as well as
early translations in other languages. From those, scholars attempt
to reach a consensus as to what the original must have looked like.
And they are generally able to do so except in difficult cases, one
of which happens to be Jeremiah 17:1-4. Here is a brief summary of
the problems we face with this text:<br /> “The text [of verses 3-4]
is obscure; RSV translates with help from the similar passage
15:13,14.” (Cawly and Millard)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “Hebrew here has, 'You (plural) have
kindled a fire,' which would fit save that the person of address is
singular elsewhere in vss. 3-4.” (Bright) He calls the oracle of
verses 1-4 “textually much damaged.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> In comparing the Hebrew text of
Jeremiah 17:1-4 with the corresponding Hebrew of the Dead Sea scrolls
(Qumran) and the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Thompson says, “The whole
of vv. 1-4 is lacking in LXX for a reason that is not now clear...it
seems likely that these verses were lacking in the Qumran text also.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Bullock lists six longer passages of
Jeremiah which are missing in LXX, including 17:1-5a. He states,
“These omissions may be due to scribal errors...Yet some may
indicate that the translator was working with a different [and
perhaps earlier] version of the Hebrew text than has come to us...”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Jeremiah 17:1-4 and 15:13-14</u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> As if this were not enough problems to
deal with, there is also the almost identical wording in these two
passages mentioned above by Cawly and Millard. One can view that
relationship in various ways:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>A. Both are original to the
manuscript.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>B. Jeremiah 17 is a misplaced copy of
Jeremiah 15. If so, it would explain why LXX omits it altogether, as
does John Bright, who calls the verses a damaged variant of 17:1-4 in
his Anchor Bible translation. However, Thompson defends the current
placement of 15:13-14: “Although these verses are a partial
duplicate of 17:3-4, they are hardly to be regarded as simply an
intrusion into the text but may be seen as a significant part of the
total picture.” In a similar manner, Wiseman says, “These two
verses are no insertion but essential here to show that the continued
stubbornness of the people will be no match for the Babylonians...” </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>C. Jeremiah 15 is a misplaced copy of
Jeremiah 17. This would explain why RSV uses ch. 17 to help translate
ch. 15 and why NEB omits 15:13-14 in its translation. But if this is
true, it raises another possibility since the vast majority of Hebrew
manuscripts of 15:14 actually say nothing at all about the duration
of the consequences but end with “upon you” not “forever.”
Thus, we have the following accurate translations of the end of
15:14, all in basic agreement with the King James Version:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>“My anger burns like fire, and it
will consume you.” (Living “Bible)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>“My anger is blazing and fierce
burning in hot judgment against you.” (The Message)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>“My anger will kindle a fire that
will burn against you.” (NIV)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>“My anger will kindle a fire which
shall burn you up.” (JB)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So if Jeremiah 17:1-4 originated with
15:13-14, it is clear that there should is no mention in the latter
passage of an “everlasting” punishment at all.</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-46447380972205610342024-02-25T10:37:00.002-06:002024-02-25T10:37:32.134-06:00WAS JAIRUS' DAUGHTER DEAD OR DYING? (MATTHEW 9:18 vs MARK 5:22-23)<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I came across a blog site called
"Counter Apologetics" by Emerson Green the other day. He has come up
with what he feels are the ten most unanswerable contradictions found
in the Bible. Most of them have already been dealt with rather easily
in my earlier posts. However, I will now try to counter his
counter-apologetics on three new ones he brings up. Today I would
like to briefly examine the question as to whether Jairus' daughter
was already dead when Jairus first approached Jesus for help.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">There are three parallel accounts of
this miracle of resurrection, cf. Matthew 9, Mark 5, and Luke 8. The
apparent problem comes in when we look at Matthew's narrative in
comparison with the other two. As Jairus first approaches Jesus, he
says that his daughter “is even now dead” (Matthew 9:18), “is
at the point of death” (Mark 5:23), or “is dying” (Luke 8:41).
Note how Matthew appears to contradict the other two versions which
actually only have a messenger come to Jairus with the news of his
daughter's actual death slightly later as Jesus is going to her.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">It turns out that rather than being an
unanswerable, black-and-white contradiction, there are in fact
several ways to resolve this issue adequately.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> 1. In all three accounts, there is
actually another miracle sandwiched in between the start and end of
the resurrection. And if you compare the lengths of each version with
one another, it turns out that Matthew covers the miracles in only
nine verses compared to seventeen in Luke and twenty-three in Mark.
Thus, several commentators note that Matthew's appears to be a
greatly condensed version of the whole story. As Hill says,
“According to Mark, the girl was 'at the point of death', and a
message came later that she had died. Matthew abbreviates the
narrative.” And Blomberg states, “Matthew abbreviates Mark, this
time to such an extent that he seems to contradict the parallel
accounts.”
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Thus, as Barbieri says, “This
apparent discrepancy is explained by the fact that while Jesus was
speaking to Jairus, someone came from his house to tell him the girl
had died. Matthew did not mention that detail, and therefore included
the report of the girl's death in Jairus' request.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> 2. “If Matthew and Luke represent
severely condensed versions, carefully honed to essentials over the
years, Mark must evidently have found – in his own sources – that
he could add life and detail and so fleshed out what he found.”
(Mann)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Note that Approach #1 assumes that
Mark's was the earliest account while #2 assumes that it was composed
later than Matthew's and Luke's Gospels.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> 3. The next possibility lies in the
different wording in the three accounts in relation to the girl's
death. Nixon says, “It would appear that Jairus meant [in Matthew's
version] that his daughter was already <u>good as dead</u>, and that
actual occurrence of death was shortly confirmed.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And Blomberg goes into a little more
detail regarding the Greek wording, explaining that “there is not
nearly so much difference between Matthew's <i>arti eteleutesen</i>
in v. 18 (which could fairly be translated 'just came to the point of
death'[; cf. Heb 11:22) and <i>eschatos echei</i> in Mark 5:2-3
(which could be rendered 'is dying').
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> 4. Finally, there are two more aspects
to take into account, both described by Blomberg, who first states
that “to call this a contradiction is anachronistically to impose
on an ancient text modern standards of precision in story telling.”
This is a common ploy used by Bible critics, who tend to require the
early narrators to have a thorough grasp of modern notions and
terminology for all natural phenomena.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> 5. Blomberg goes on to say, “What is
more, in a world without modern medical monitors to establish the
precise moment of expiry...what is important is not the precise
moment of death but Jairus's astonishing faith.” I know that either
my wife and I or a nurse were constantly at my aunt's bedside as she
lay dying. For hour after hour she showed absolutely no sign of life
except the slight amount of brain activity indicated by her monitors.
Her breathing was too shallow to detect and her pulse was so weak, it
was barely detectable. Without a precise brain-activity monitor, we
would have had no idea when over a several-hour period was her exact
time of death.</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-39430768019282682812024-02-23T10:24:00.000-06:002024-02-23T10:24:16.072-06:00LUKE 7:11-17<p>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCiglt5V55MNNyo7xhMHAqBIjMz5P69P9DFnNYSX-mSoXNiFMDxM15WTpGDhiZyrerrQZT1KgYwuvWUWPpXnsDy2GauIrdbVrtr3mK2U-zD1TNeFStsoULcj84AcO1PDh0LnlUzutF3nE/s640/175_Raised+in+Nain.jpg" width="474" /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Raised in Nain (collage, 2009)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Luke 7:11</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“Soon afterward, he went to a city
called Nain, and his disciples and a great crowd went with him.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Riesner and others believe that “the
present-day Arabic village Nein, eight kilometers southeast of
Nazareth” is the location of this site.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Luke 7:12</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">He draws near the gate of the city and
meets a large funeral procession coming out. They are carrying a bier
with the body of a young man on it, the only son of a widow.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Geldenhuys reports, “Tombs in the
rock have been found before the eastern gate of the village along the
road leading to Capernaum.” But actually, no remains of gates have
yet been found, causing Riesner to state: “Nain was hardly a city
(<i>polis</i>); the city gate mentioned in Luke 7:11-12 could have
been no more than the outlet of a street.” But he admits,
“Excavations have not yet been possible.”
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">As Marshall explains, “The only
difficulty about the identification [i.e. of Nein as Nain] is the
lack of a gate to the town, but the fact that none has so far been
discovered may be due simply to the inadequate archaeological
investigation of the site.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“Luke draws particular interest in
those whom Jesus heals <i>as people</i>. He eschews labeling people
in terms of their disease, avoiding the one-word descriptors so
prevalent in the other Synoptics (see Lk 5:18,24; 7:12; 18:5). He
includes details for understanding the impact of the malady not only
on the sufferers but also on the larger family structure: the dead
boy from Nain is a widow's only son (Lk 7:12), and the
demon-possessed boy is his father's only child...” (Wahlen)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Luke 7:13</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">At this point in the narrative, the
Lord sees the widow and has compassion on her.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“Regarding the absolute use of the
noun <i>kyrios</i>, Matthew and Mark do not use the term in a
transcendent sense within their narrative frameworks of the saying of
Jesus...Luke, on the other hand does employ such usage. For instance,
in Luke 7:13 we read 'And the Lord [<i>ho kyrios</i>] had compassion
on her...Luke, as a Gentile writing exclusively to a Gentile
audience, shows no reticence in using <i>ho</i> <i>kyrios</i> of
Jesus, thereby implying the transcendent religious sense of the
term.” (Witherington and Yamazaki-Ransom).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Nicholson says regarding this verse,
“No one has asked Jesus for mercy or demonstrated great faith;
rather he approaches the woman's son of his own accord and raises the
son from the dead. This demonstrates that it is Jesus' nature to have
mercy; he does not wait for a request before he feels compelled to
respond to a need.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Luke 7:14-15</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Jesus touches the bier, stopping the
procession. He then simply says, “Young man, I say to you, arise.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“Jesus is not reluctant to touch a
corpse, and his touch restores life (Mt 9:23-26; Lk 7:11-17)...The
Gospels thus present Jesus encountering a stream of ritually impure
and potentially polluting people, but in the encounter their
contagion does not defile Jesus; rather, his holiness purges their
pollution, renders them clean, and integrates them again into the
mainstream of Jewish society...” (deSilva)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“Jesus acts without drama, ritual, or
even prayer. The same word of Jesus that from a distance healed a
centurion's slave (v. 7) here has the power to raise the dead.”
(Craddock)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Luke 7:16-17</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“Luke says, the people 'feared,'
'glorified God,' and said that 'God has visited his people' (Lk
7:16). This terminology suggests theophany ('fear' [Lk 1:12; 5:26];
'visited' [Lk 1:68,19:44; cf. Ex 4:31]); that is, God has appeared in
Jesus' mighty act.” (Dennis)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Craddock suggests, “The phrase 'has
arisen among us' may possibly be a faint allusion to Jesus'
resurrection, but more likely it is drawn from Deut. 18:18; 'I will
raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their
brethren.' The second expression, 'God has visited his people,' is
also a favorite of Luke (1:68; 19:44; Acts 15:14). God's visitation
may be in wrath (Ex. 20:5) or in mercy (Ps. 106:4), but for Luke it
is always an act of grace.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Geldenhuys concludes from these verses:
“What He did here for the widowed mother and son He will one day do
for all the faithful in a perfect and final form. He will bring full
comfort, He will raise all His people in incorruptibility, and will
reunite us, in the heavenly realm, with our loved ones who have died
in Him.”
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Context within Luke's Gospel</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">Luke's
narrative of Jesus' ministry begins with various hints at an
enthusiastic response of the people to Jesus' preaching (Lk 4:36-37;
5:26; 6:17-18; 7:11) and ends with an account of their collaboration
with the religious leaders in the plot against Jesus (Lk 23:13:23).”
(Novakovic)</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“<span style="font-weight: normal;">Apart
from its own witness to the nature of Messiah's mission, it is the
prologue necessary for understanding the following episode...In the
context of the popular misunderstanding of Jesus' mission the rising
doubts of John the Baptist (7:18-36) can be better appreciated.”
(Ellis)</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Or as Marshall
puts it, “This narrative, like the previous one, provides the
'text' on which the 'commentary' regarding the person and work of
Jesus in 7:18-35 is based.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Old Testament Context</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Litwak discusses
passages in Luke's Gospel in which Jesus is compared to Elijah or
Elisha. These include Luke 1:16-17,76; 4:27; 7:1-10,27; 9:7-8,19-20.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">More specifically,
many scholars comment on the relationship between this passage and
the raising from the dead accomplished through Elijah in I Kings 17.
K.L. Anderson gives one of the fullest expositions of the parallels
between these two miraculous narratives, and so I will quote his
words in some length:</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> “The account
was composed with clear echoes of Elijah's raising up the son of the
widow of Zarephath. Jesus came to town and met the widow at the gate
(Lk 7:12; cf. 1 Kings 17:10) and raised the dead son to life (Lk
7:14-15; cf. 1 Kings 17:22). Precisely the same words from [the Greek
version of] 1 Kings 17:23 appear in Luke 7:15: 'and he gave him to
his mother.' The crowd's twofold interpretation of the miracle fits
Luke's christological portrait of Jesus: 'A great prophet has risen
among us' and 'God has visited his people' (Lk 7:16).
</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"> With regard to
the first interpretation, in his inaugural appearance at Nazareth
Jesus invoked the prophetic ministries of Elijah and Elisha as a
pattern (Lk 4:14-30), and specifically referenced Elijah's dealings
with the Zarephath widow (Lk 4:26). Preceding Jesus' resurrection
miracle in Luke 7:11-17 is an incident that also resembles the
ministry of the two OT prophets. Jesus reached beyond Israel by
healing the slave of a Gentile (Lk 7:1-10)...”</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">From Anderson's
words above, one might get the mistaken idea that Luke created this
story from scratch in order to provide a clearer parallel between
Jesus and Elijah. But as Craddock says, “Luke does not bring I
Kings 17 to the reader's attention; it remains beneath the surface,
and if the reader does not know the Old Testament, the Elijah story
will not come to mind at all...But if Luke's readers did know the
Greek Old Testament, passages such as 7:11-17 could give a sense of
continuity, of being at home, and knowing a truth at a powerful level
of recognition.”</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-37842653683950845222024-02-21T12:08:00.000-06:002024-02-21T12:08:51.612-06:00FLATLAND BY EDWIN A. ABBOTT (THE NATURE OF THE TRINITY)<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This slender volume (less than 100
pages), published in 1884, was written by an English clergyman who
had a fascination for mathematics. The subtitle of the book is “A
Romance of Many Dimensions,” in which the word “Dimensions” has
several meanings, the most literal of which is a study of the
geometrical possibilities of one-, two-, and greater-dimensional
realities.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The most interest in this book over the
years has come from science-fiction and mathematically minded fans.
The introduction to the Dover reprint by Banesh Hoffman, for example,
calls it “a stirring adventure in pure mathematics...This is no
trifling tale of science fiction. Its aim is to instruct, and it is
written with subtle artistry.” And the publisher's note on the
back of the front piece calls it “an unequaled presentation of
geometrical concepts and...a barbed satire of the hierarchical world
of the Victorians.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">It may well be all of those things
stated above, but my personal opinion, and that of others, is that
Abbott's artistry is actually much more subtle than the above quotes
would indicate since it includes, and no doubt intended to include, a
hefty dose of theology which has gone over the heads of many who
comment on it. What this obscure clergyman has accomplished in his
book is to give us one of the most powerful analogies for beginning
to understand the mystery of the Trinity.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Paul Copan, in <u>Dictionary of
Christianity and Science</u>, provides a very short history of
attempts to comprehend the Trinity through the use of earthly
analogies. Some cited in the past have been (a) the three states of
water (unfortunately leading to the heresy called modalism) or (b)
the three parts of an egg (another heresy called partialism).
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">One possible way to getting around
modalism for the water analogy is to note that under certain
conditions of temperature and pressure called the triple-point, water
exists in all three states simultaneously. And I have sometimes tried
to explain the belief in Jesus being both human and divine by
invoking the example of light waves, which physicists say have the
simultaneous properties of both matter and energy.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Copan additionally describes Begbie's
analogy of God as a chord of music composed of three separate tones
combined in “an integrated sound within the same space with
distinctive, mutually enhancing notes.” Or we could consider
Moreland and Craig's image of the mythological three-headed dog
Cerberus in which there are “three distinct centers of awareness,
each with the same canine nature.” As Copan concludes: "Whichever
type of analogy is used , we have threeness and oneness without
contradiction and with plausibility...There is both union as well as
distinction within God. So it can be said that God is both community
and unity, distinction though not separation."</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Any of those images may be helpful to
you in understanding the Trinity, but to me, the Flatland analogy
comes perhaps the closest to explaining, at least in a dim way, the
possibility of God as three-in-one. To do that explaining I will have
to unfortunately jettison almost completely the ingenious plot of
Abbott's book and stick only to a geometrical rendering.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Imagine a flat sheet of paper inhabited
by two-dimensional beings such as triangles, squares, and a host of
polygons. They can sense and interact with one another by bumping
into them and moving along their respective sides to see how many
angles they have. And in this imaginary world, the more sides one
has, the higher in the social order one is. Another way of putting it
is that the closer one approaches a circle, the more perfect one
becomes.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Suddenly, into this well-ordered world
comes a brand-new type of being. He has no angles at all and thus is
a perfect circle. Reactions to this circle vary considerable, but at
one point there is a concerted effort to get rid of him since he
upsets the existing establishment. But that attempt fails when the
circle suddenly shrinks smaller and smaller until it is just a dot,
and then disappears entirely. There is much more to the plot than
this brief outline, but it is all that is need for my immediate
purposes.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">To explain this phenomenon, we must put
ourselves in the place of the Flatland creatures for a moment. They
exist only in two dimensions and can only “see” in one dimension,
length. However, by changing their perspective through moving around
they are able to discern the two-dimensional nature of others around
them. Analogously, we are three-dimensional creatures who can view in
three dimensions only by moving around and/or taking advantage of our
two eyes, which give us two slightly different views from the same
location.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In Flatland, the key to the sudden
appearance and disappearance of the circle into their narrow world is
the fact that in three-dimensional reality the circle is in fact a
sphere which can intersect the plane of Flatland at will, being first
<u>sensed</u> as a mere point, then a circle which can grow at will
in circumference or shrink back to a point and disappear altogether
simply by moving up and down, but it is still a sphere the whole
time. The only thing that changes is how much of the sphere is
revealed to the Flatland creatures at any given time.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">From this geometrical picture, we can
now see that the whole story of Flatland is really that of God as a
many-dimensional being coming to earth as a three-dimensional one,
Jesus, and then ultimately ascending outside of our limited
three-dimensional perception. And one can extend the analogy even
further by noting that Jesus told his disciples that he needed to
depart in order that the Spirit might come. That event could well be
described as similar to when the sphere chooses to descend to
Flatland and reside inside any of the polygons who live there. God in
that way lives within a believer.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Note that in none of these various
different permutations of the sphere does the sphere change its
reality in the least; it remains a single sphere. The only variation
is in how the Flatlanders are able to experience it.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And as a thought exercise to leave you
with, consider that the fourth dimension (in which God exists) is
time. With that in mind, such matters as God's omnipresence in space
and time, His omniscience in being able to see future events, the
difference between precognition and predestination, etc. all come
into clearer perspective.</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-74790466155551105072024-02-19T10:27:00.004-06:002024-02-19T10:27:43.388-06:00THE BOY WITH THE FISH AND BREAD (JOHN 6:8-9)<p> <img border="0" height="500" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZTJrXPAHSPSDzQQehCJpgUNUGAG7KYwrK6iFVtsOTPDnm_hdJ5Mj-Jv8eEt611IYyHN9knWtP87i6xTadBkqTU1RqqhSN_PIetlDy0wmCI86AyjtjtxkcKrM-mDnI9vl_gYv602SMdqE/s640/173_Every+Little+Bit+Helps.jpg" width="640" />
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span> </span>“Every Little Bit Helps” (collage,
2009)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The importance of the miracle of the
feeding of the multitudes is seen in the fact that it appears in all
four gospels (Matthew 14; Mark 6:38; Luke 9; John 6). But only John's
account mentions where the original fish and bread came from. In John
6:8-9, we are told that Jesus charges Philip with finding food for
all the people. Philip expresses the impossibility of purchasing that
much food, but his brother Andrew goes through the crowd and comes
back with a boy who had brought his meager lunch with him. With this
small resource, Jesus multiplies it until it suffices for everyone,
with some food left over.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Before proceeding further, it is best
to dismiss the well-meaning but unlikely explanation given by some
skeptical commentators, namely, that all the people in the crowd hid
their own food supplies when Andrew canvassed them. It took the
generous impulse of the one boy to shame the others into revealing
and sharing their resources with others. I am afraid that particular
explanation appears to me even more unlikely than the possibility
that Jesus was actually capable of carrying out such a miracle.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And in a way, the multiplication of the
loaves and fish fits into the same pattern as Jesus' first recorded
miracle, turning water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana. In
both cases, Jesus performed the same sort of miracle that God built
into nature in order that we might have food and drink, the only
difference being in the time scale involved. This is not a new
suggestion as Colin Brown explains: “Augustine also considers the
suggestion, favored by more recent writers [C.S. Lewis among them],
that miracles might be instances of the accelerated processes in
nature...the feeding of the five thousand (Matt. 14:17,20) is no more
of a miracle than what God does daily, when out of a few seeds he
raises up immense harvests.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Andrew</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">But since Jesus
generally works with physical resources already at hand instead of
creating something out of nothing, He still needs some appropriate
raw material, and this is where Andrew comes in. Instead of throwing
up his hands in despair as Philip did, Andrew comes back with what
little he could find. Borchert stresses Andrew's similar feeling of
failure and hopelessness, but I feel he overdoes this aspect of
Andrew's character since he at least takes the initiative that Philip
refused to do and he also has enough hope in Jesus' ability to
mention what he did find among the crowd.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">We are not told a
lot about Andrew in the NT, but what little we do know certainly
causes us to look upon him in a favorable light. “Andrew responds
to each situation by introducing others to Jesus: his brother (1:4),
the boy (6:8), and the Greeks (12:22). Like his more famous brother,
though in a different way he too is an appropriate model of the
disciple that bears much fruit (15:8).” (Culpepper)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>The Bread and Fish</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Morris explains:
“Barley bread was bread of a cheap kind, so that the boy was
probably poor. The two fishes were something of a tidbit which would
make the coarse barley bread more palatable.” At this point, I am
reminded of the tiny offering the widow put in the temple collection
which Jesus valued far above the lavish offerings given by the more
wealthy. It is not the monetary amount that counts but the attitude
with which it is given and importance the offering has to the giver
in relation to their total resources.</p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">You may note that
there is a seeming emphasis on numbers in the story of the feeding.
One obvious reason is to demonstrate quantitatively the enormous
amount of multiplication that had taken place. But we can't ignore
the possible symbolic meaning behind the various numbers mentioned
either. Thus, Borchert discusses the probable significance of “seven”
(five loaves plus two fish) standing for completeness or perfection
and “twelve” (baskets gathered afterward), symbolic of the chosen
people of God in both the OT (the tribes) and the NT (the apostles).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>The Boy</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">This
anonymous personage is designated as a </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">paidarion</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
Braumann notes that this word in Classical Greek “generally means,
like </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">paidion</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
a little child (cf. Plato, Symp. 207d). But it can mean young man
(cf. Tob. 6:2f), a young servant or slave.” Actually, as Raymond
Brown and others point out, it “is a double diminutive of </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">pais</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
of which </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">paidion</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is the normal diminutive (iv 49). In [the Greek translation of] I
Kings </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">paidarion</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is used to designate Gehazi the servant of Elisha (iv 12,14,25,v
20).”</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">And Morris says,
“The strict meaning cannot be insisted upon, for the word is used
in LXX [the Septuagint] at Gen. 37:30 to describe Joseph at the age
of seventeen, and several times in Tobit 6 of a young man of
marriageable age...and Moffatt translates in this passage [i.e. John
6], 'servant.'”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Old Testament Parallels</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Some
scholars have drawn an unlikely parallel to the episode in Ruth where
she is given a large amount of grain by Boaz. However, much more
likely is the suggestion of Raymond Brown who notes “the 'lad' and
the 'barley loaves' recall the Elisha story in II Kings iv 42. We
remember that the NT establishes a parallelism between Jesus and the
closely connected figures of Elijah and Elisha...A man comes to
Elisha with twenty barley loaves (one of the four uses of 'barley as
an adjective in LXX. Elisha says, 'Give to the men that they may
eat.” There is a servant present (designated as </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">leitourgos</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
here, but as </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">paidarion</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
five verses before, and the latter is his normal designation). The
servant asks, 'How am I to set this before a hundred men' – a
question similar to vs. 9 in John. Elisha repeats the order to give
the food to the men and they eat and have some left.”</span></p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-87713402403839668152024-02-17T10:24:00.000-06:002024-02-17T10:24:19.534-06:00TECHNOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN FAITH<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Much, perhaps too much, debate in the
past centered on the uneasy relationship between science and faith.
But today I am seeing more attention paid to the effect new
technologies have had on Christian doctrine and practice. For
example, due to a “happy accident” recently I came across two
articles I had clipped out of back-to-back issues of CT magazine. And
I realized that there was a definite pattern uniting the two essays.
One was by Daniel G. Hummel titled “When Concordances Broke
Context” and the other was “Truth, Love & Social Media” by
John Koessler. The first of these articles dealt with the impact of
new technology on Christian doctrine while the second explained the
dangers to our Christian life and witness posed by another
technology.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Marshall McLuhan is best known for his
statement “The Medium is the Message.” We tend to think of modern
forms of media when we hear this statement, but it also applies to
even simple tools including Bible concordances and chain references
such as found in the margins of some Bibles. Hummel discusses the
history behind such innovations and how their popularity in the 18<sup>th</sup>
and 19<sup>th</sup> century began to shape Christian doctrinal views,
especially in America through the publication of The Scofield
Reference Bible when coupled with the Bible Reading Method in vogue
at the time.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Without going through all the details,
Hummel demonstrates how the unique (and some would say borderline
heretical) doctrinal ideas of John Darby became disseminated far
beyond the confines of his small Exclusive Brethren denomination
until they became for a long while the predominant way of thinking in
conservative Christian churches in America. And it is still quite
popular today in a large number of independent conservative
congregations.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">There were several glaring problems
with Darby's method of Bible reading which were only multiplied when
new “technologies” such as exhaustive concordances became readily
available for the average reader to utilize. The “literal” method
he propounded consisted in following key words throughout the Old and
New Testament while assuming, quite erroneously, that the words meant
basically the same in all of them, whatever their immediate context
happened to be as well as probably referring to the same or similar
idea or event. But in addition, Darby insisted on “rightly
dividing” certain verses not only in regard to the appropriate
dispensation to which they referred (thus, Dispensationalism became
the general term by which his theological system become known) but
also as to whether there was an “earthly” or “heavenly”
meaning to the verse.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">To say that such a “scientific”
methodology would lead to a strictly literal understanding of the
biblical text is far more than a mere exaggeration. But because the
method could be quite easily practiced by anyone who had access to a
concordance or chain-reference Bible, it caught on like wildfire with
the American public who now felt that they could arrive at the truth
of Scripture just as easily as trained Bible scholars. It certainly
appealed to our native feelings of equality and democracy.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“That way of thinking about the Bible
– as a hyperlinked text” might seem appealing, but “What
insights that journey would produce...would be entirely dependent on
the path one chose to take...it should be less compelling to
Christians committed to the unity and coherence of Scripture.”
(Hummel)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Now none of the above is to demean the
value of an exhaustive concordance for personal Bible study. But it
must be coupled with a healthy amount of skepticism regarding how far
one can go with it as one's only tool and without adequate training
in all that goes into truly informed exegesis of a passage of
Scripture.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">As Hummel points out, the result of
such group or individual Bible studies “could be shaped by the
biblical context and narrative, but it was just as often conditioned
by readers' personal circumstances and their particular cultural
assumptions.” That fact has probably always been true, but the
difference came in when one was told, as I have heard from the
pulpit, that such a method of Bible study was the “perfect” one.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Moving on to the more modern
technologies associated with the rise of social media at the present
time, Koessler warns us of the various ways this phenomenon can
adversely affect out interactions with fellow believers and our
Christian witness to others.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">He first points to the similarity
between posting something on-line and Paul's practice of writing long
letters to various congregations throughout the Roman world. But on
the other hand, there are definite differences in the two practices.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In the first place, Paul had visited,
and even founded, most of these fledgling groups of believers and
knew many of them quite well. By contrast, it is now possible to
interact with people around the world with whom one has never
personally seen and never will meet. That factor of anonymity alone
makes it much more tempting for us to lash out on-line at those with
whom we disagree, sometimes in quite unchristian ways. And even if
that doesn't happen, it is without a doubt harder to discuss in a
reasonable manner a controversial item without doing it face-to-face
or having first established a personal relationship with others. Here
are some random quotes from Koessler's article:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “Many of our online debates are
foolish and stupid. There aim is not to persuade or facilitate
understanding so much as to provoke.” It is easy to do so in the
comfort of our own house and not having to look at any possible
distress we might be causing to the other party.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “When we are hospitable in
conversation, even on-line, we take responsibility for the safety and
well-being of the welcomed guest.” We would certainly do so if that
person was a guest in our house.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “Paul indicates we need to watch our
tone. Certainly, there is a place for passion and even anger. But the
way we speak the truth is important...2 Timothy 2:24.” And
unfortunately, tone is sometimes hard to gauge in a conversation
without having recourse to a person's body language to supplement
their actual words.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">There is a final difference between the
situation of the church in Paul's time and in our own time. Then,
there was really nowhere for a Christian to go to in town if he or
she had a major disagreement with others in the congregation. Thus,
it was a necessity to work out differences in understanding within
the church body. Today, if one has even a minor point of disagreement
with a fellow church member, all he has to do is go a few miles down
the street to find another congregation with which to worship.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">We had such a person in our own church
a few years ago who left in a huff when the church leadership did
something he didn't personally agree with, even though we tried to
reason with him. We found out this was the third or fourth
congregation in town he had left in the last several years.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Such a phenomenon is multiplied with
the advent of the Internet. Whether one is worshiping remotely via
YouTube or engaging in an on-line debate, it now only takes the flick
of a wrist to change churches or block someone. It is in this manner
that we can easily confine ourselves to our comfortable information
silos and never be challenged by those who have differing opinions.
And similarly, it is in that same manner that we will cease to grow
spiritually.</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-1118171594036458442024-02-13T12:30:00.000-06:002024-02-13T12:30:16.747-06:00I CORINTHIANS 15:35-58 -- THE RESURRECTION<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In this epistle, Paul deals with a
number of specific questions with which the church there was
wrestling. Padilla explains, “The Corinthians had developed
problematic thinking about this gospel, which they had previously
received as a word of salvation. In chapters 1-4, Paul corrected
their view of the crucifixion of Jesus. And in chapter 15, he
corrected their view of his resurrection. First, some were making the
claim that resurrection was not possible (15:12-19). Paul
contradicted this claim by reminding them that Christ himself had
been raised from the dead! This was what the Scripture had promised
and what the apostles (Paul included) and many others had witnessed.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Thus, the first 34 verses of the
chapter deal with the reality of the resurrection. But there was a
second, related issue to deal with – the exact nature of a
believer's resurrected body. It is this issue which forms the
background for the second half of I Corinthians 15. We might have
expected Paul to have based this discussion on the nature of Jesus'
resurrected body, but there is perhaps a good reason why he didn't.
It is the same reason why it is naïve to think that we can simply
model our earthly life on Jesus' earthly life and constantly ask
ourselves, “What would Jesus do?” We can't, and shouldn't ask
that question since we do not have the same divine nature He did even
while on earth. Without His divine power and omniscience, we are
bound to fail in our attempt to copy Jesus. However, the above is
certainly not to deny that there is a sort of identification between
the believer and Jesus.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“A leading motif [in the Epistles] is
the linking of the believer' experience with Christ's resurrection,
which is viewed as the model and source of the believer's future
resurrection from the dead...In a sense baptism becomes the prime
epistolary image for the believer's link with Christ, with imagery of
dying with Christ and rising with him linked with the physical act of
baptism.” (<u>Dictionary of Biblical</u> <u>Imagery</u>)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I can sympathize with Paul at this
point since this whole theological subject is somewhat of a mystery
to all of us believers. That no doubt includes Paul himself even if
he was granted unique access to certain wonders in heaven. In
attempting to explain the nature of the resurrected body, Paul falls
back on a series of comparisons with earthly phenomena to which his
audience can relate.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“Paul is in no mood for foolish
questions, yet...he turns them to the world in which they live, to
things that they can see and understand.” (Marsh)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I Corinthians 15:35-38 – First he
compares the resurrected body to the growth of a seed into a plant.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“To help the Corinthians overcome
their unbelief, Paul gave them an analogy: When seed goes into the
ground, it looks like one thing. Then, after going through
putrefaction, it comes out looking different. It is a different body.
In a similar way, Paul said, the human body goes through corruption
and putrefaction but then – by the power of God – is raised in a
new material, glorious body of a nature we do not understand.”
(Padilla)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">That concept should be even easier for
us to understand today since we know that the DNA of the seed carries
through to that of the plant. We thus see both a continuity and a
differentiation between our old existence and our resurrected one.
The Christian view of the afterlife is totally different from
teachings in Eastern religions where after death a person is either
melded together with all others into a mega-soul or is reborn as an
entirely different earthly creation with nothing at all in common
with its previous existence.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">As Marsh says, “while in appearance
different, it is in essence the same, for wheat yields wheat – to
each kind of seed he gives its own body – suggesting continuity of
essential character or identity.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Regarding the phrase “God gives” in
v. 38, Hillyer says, “The new life is not automatic but dependent
upon the predetermined will and the creative act of God.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I Corinthians 15:39 – This is
followed by a look at the animal kingdom with its myriad of different
living creatures.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Fee points out in respect to the four
kinds of animal life mentioned in this verse: “These are the four
specifically mentioned, in reverse order, as being created on the
fifth and sixth days of creation.” This practice of quoting earlier
passages in reverse order is actually quite common throughout the
biblical writings.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I Corinthians 15:40-41 – Next comes a
consideration of the skies where he differentiates between the
heavenly bodies and earthly ones.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Lowery points to “Dan 12:3 where
resurrected saints were compared to stars; also Matt. 13:43.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">There is a sort of symmetry to verses
39-41 as can be seen in Figure I, adapted from Gordon Fee's analysis:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Figure 1: Structure of I Corinthians 15:39-41</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>A. Not all earthly bodies are the
same (39a)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> <span> </span></span>B. People have one kind (39b)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span> <span> </span> Animals another (39c)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span> <span> </span> Birds another (39d)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span> <span> </span> Fish another (39e)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> </span>C. There are heavenly bodies (40a)
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>D. There are earthly bodies (40b)
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>C'. Heavenly bodies have one kind of
glory (40c)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>D'. Earthly bodies have another
kind of glory (40d) </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>B'. The sun has one kind of glory
(41a)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> The moon has another kind of
glory (41b)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> The stars have another kind of
glory (41c)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span> </span>A'. Not all stars are the same (41d)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Paul's argument so far might be
summarized as Marsh puts it: “If therefore in the present universe
these personal characteristics are evident within the various
categories of creation, God is well able at Christ's coming to invest
each individual believer with a new resurrection body which will be
in perfect harmony with his own essential being.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And Fee adds that “the long debate
over whether the stress lies on continuity or discontinuity is a bit
misguided. Paul's concern obviously lies with both.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I Corinthians 15:42-44 – In these
verses Paul revisits the seed analogy.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“Paul...summarizes this discussion
with two adjectives which are difficult to translate concisely and
have often been misunderstood (v. 42). The contrast is not between
physical/material and disembodied/ immaterial, but between different
bodies, the present one <i>psychikon</i>, i.e. animated by soul, the
future one <i>pneumatikon</i>, i.e. animated by spirit.” (P.S.
Johnston)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“In 15:44a Paul introduces the
principle that 'an opposite presupposes its counterpart: If there is
a natural body, then there is also a spiritual one.” (Ciampa and
Rosner)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I Corinthians 15:45-49 – The argument
here centers on a contrast between the first Adam (the man of dust)
and the last Adam (the man of heaven). Their respective origins are
going to also be their final destinations.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Horsley “suggests that he is
borrowing and reversing a Corinthian interpretation of Gen. 1.26-27
as the origin of the prototype (or perhaps 'image') of the
'spiritual' person and Gen. 2.7 as the origin of the 'physical /
soul-like' person.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“Paul picks up on the Adam-Christ
analogy from vv. 21-22. Just as believers have shared the earthly
body of the first man, so also will they bear the heavenly body of
the second man. This of course is the key to everything.” (Fee)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I Corinthians 15:50-58 – The end of
the chapter concludes with a description of the time of the Second
Coming when the perishable bodies of those alive at the time will be
instantly transformed into imperishable ones.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Lowery says concerning v. 58, “Paul's
doctrinal declarations led to practical directives and his chapter's
conclusion was no exception. The Corinthians were urged to stand firm
in the apostle's teaching (v. 2) unmoved by the denials of false
teachers (cf. Eph. 4:14). This certainty, especially concerning the
Resurrection, provided an impetus to faithful service (cf. 1 Cor.
3:8; Gal. 6:9), since labor in the resurrected Lord is not futile
(<i>kenos</i>, 'empty'; cf. 1 Cor. 15:10,14,17,30-32).”</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449499141903111910.post-25597289225598610472024-02-11T17:53:00.000-06:002024-02-11T17:53:22.842-06:00THE RAISING OF LAZARUS (JOHN 11:38-44)<p> <img alt="" border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX8UG6iczZVDaom6UtdPkN4d_LmwC-GTpqo-hALYsgFiVYk9XOOoe5zUNX6q3zdNIpZbB4fgA3EPRx69Oe69BBKRia4oi9fuoL6PIj_TDjCwqiuhXMQmm7ky7UJxMlEERIlcIg4WHBU8Y/s1600/165_Never+Too+Late.jpg" title="John 11" width="486" />
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “Never Too Late” (collage, 2009)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I have already written two posts on
this subject: “Martha: Part 2 (John 11)” and “Jesus Wept.”
But I would like to concentrate on the last part of this resurrection
story, utilizing only articles in the very helpful IVP compendium
<u>Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels</u> (J.B Green, J.K. Brown,
and N. Perrin, ed.).</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>John 11:38</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Bauckman points to John 11:3,33,38 and
12:27 as places where we can clearly see Jesus' human emotions coming
to the forefront.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>John 11:39</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“In John 11, the editorial comment in
John 11:2 provides us with a clear Christian use of <i>ho kyrios</i>
['the Lord']. Also, Martha's address to Jesus in John 11:27, uttered
together with a christological confession, is probably more than a
respectful way of addressing her teacher, but the other uses of <i>kyrie</i>
in the chapter (Jn 11:3,12,21,32,34,39) could be rendered as 'sir.'
But even here ambiguity remains...”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">(Witherington III)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“Prior to burial in a rock-cut tomb,
the body was washed and then wrapped in a cloth shroud (e.g. Jn
11:44), though the decay of such clothes makes it a rare
archeological discovery. Mourners applied ointments and aromatic
spices to the corpse, not as a preservative (the body was expected to
decay within a year for possible reburial), but in order to reduce
the unpleasant small in the tomb [see the comment by Martha in this
verse].” (Chapman)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>John 11:40</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">K.L. Anderson: “As the last of the
seven authenticating miracles or 'signs,' it points to the climax of
divine revelation in Christ and reveals God's glory (Jn 11:4,40; cf.
Jn 1:14). It demonstrates that Christ is the one who gives eternal
life (Jn 11:25; cf. Jn 5:25).”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Dennis: “'Glory' is used more often
in John's Gospel (noun 19x, verb 23x) than in any of the Synoptic
Gospels, indicating that the concept is of particular importance for
Johannine Christology. John carries over the basic uses of 'glory' in
the Old Testament and the Synoptics, such as glory as social praise,
honor, approval and reputation (Jn 5:44; 7:18; 8:50; 12:43), and
glory as the radiant presence of God (Jn 11:4,40; 17:5)...In John's
Gospel....Christ's glory is exclusively a present reality in that
John insists that the divine glory is present in Jesus' incarnation,
ministry and death.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Twelftree: “In using 'sign' for the
miracle, John is saying that, like the parables of the Synoptic
Gospels, the miracles point beyond the immediate to the identity or
glory of Jesus and his filial relationship, even identity, with the
Father...the reader is alerted to the glory of Jesus being seen not
only in the story of Jesus' death, but also in the signs [such as
John 11:40]. As in the Synoptics, the miracles are realizations of
God's present reign...Even in the most spectacular miracle – the
raising of a dead man – Jesus is still a human who weeps (Jn
11:35), for he is 'the Word become flesh' (Jn 1:14).”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“The statements [in John] related to
the sending of Jesus focus on his obedience to and dependence on the
Father. Jesus as the one sent is to bring glory and honor to the one
who has sent him (Jn 7:18; 8:50,54; 11:4,40).” And that involves
doing His works and speaking His words. (Schnabel)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Parenthetically, it should be noted
that the ubiquitous number “seven” in John's writings appears
here in that the 42 references to “glory” is the product of 6 and
7. Also, this verse with the parallel expression in verse 4 serves as
an inclusio to bracket the whole resurrection story:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “This illness does not lead to
death; rather it is for God's glory, so that the Son of God may be
glorified through it.” (John 11:4)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> “Did I not tell you that if you
believed, you would see the glory of God?” (John 11:40)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>John 11:41</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">M.M. Thompson notes, “Although not
appearing as a character in the narrative [i.e. John's Gospel], the
Father nevertheless remains active.” Among the many examples he
cites is v. 41 in which He hears the Son.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>John 11:41,43</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Wahlen tabulates
the various healings in this gospel, including the three occasions in
which Jesus raises the dead: Jairus's daughter, the widow's son at
Nain, and Lazarus. The first two examples involve Jesus commanding
the dead to rise as well as Him touching them. Only in the case of
Lazarus is the raising accomplished without touch, but it was
accompanied by a prior prayer to God, unlike the other two times.<b>
</b>Jesus' miracles can't be reduced to a simple formula.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>John 11:41-44</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">Crump: “The
resurrection of Lazarus (Jn 11:1-44) serves to demonstrate that
Jesus' petitions are always answered positively (Jn 11:21-22; 41-44)
because he only asks according to God's will, which means that he
always prays 'in the name of the Father.'”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>John 11:42,44</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“As in the Synoptics, Jerusalem
divides in response to Jesus. Some believe (Jn 2:23; 7:40-41; 8:31;
9:36-38; 11:45; 12:11), even among the authorities (Jn 11:42;
19:38-39), although their faith can be of the wrong kind (Jn 2:24;
8:31-59), insufficient (Jn 7:40-41) or fickle (Jn 11:45; 12:11).”
(Walton)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“Signs often lead to faith in this
Gospel [as in John 11:15,42]. But while faith in response to signs is
better than no faith..., it must mature, if given time or testing, to
full faith...Genuine, saving faith must both recognize Jesus' divine
identity (Jn 20:28-31) and persevere to the end (Jn 8:30-32).”
(Keener)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>John 11:44</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“The miracle also foreshadows Jesus'
own death and resurrection. The description of Lazarus' tomb and
grave clothes (Jn 11:38-39,44) parallels the details concerning
Jesus' burial and empty tomb (Jn 19:40; 20:7). However, Lazarus came
out of the tomb still bound in wrappings; the resurrected Jesus left
his wrappings in the tomb, neatly folded.” (Anderson)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</p>
Dave McCoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04594661503508707833noreply@blogger.com0