SONG OF SONGS 4:1-7

Wasf

This book, also known as the Song of Solomon, is filled with imagery. Among the types of figurative language in it is the wasf, so named from the Arabic word meaning “description” used to designate a type of wedding song. It “has come to refer to a kind of poem or poetic fragment that describes through a series of images the parts of the male and female body.” (Falk) The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery adds to this definition the fact that the images are taken from objects in nature.

The four wasfs in this book are found in 4:1-7; 5:10-16; 6:4-7; and 7:1-5. Of these four, only 5:10-16 describes the man and the others are concerned with the characteristics of the woman. Also, whereas the description in 7:1-5 moves from feet to head, the others move in the opposite direction. I originally planned to write about all of these wasfs, but there was too much material to cover, and so I will just concentrate on Song 4:1-7. But first, a few words about interpretation.

Methods of Interpretation 

The most obvious approach is to take the details in the wasfs at their face value and consider them to be literal descriptions of the person involved. Falk quotes other writers who label the results of this method of interpretation as bizarre, absurd, grotesque, comical, or puzzling. I also think of the attempts to utilize a strictly literal and visual approach in interpreting Revelation. Falk concludes, “The difficulty resides not in the nature of the wasfs but rather in the critical interpretation.”

A popular but outdated method of interpretation is to take everything in the book, and especially the wasfs, as an allegory. Longman feels this is driven mainly by an attempt to evade the clearly sexual nature of some of the imagery. Marvin Pope has written an exhaustive, 743-page commentary on the Song of Songs. The main reason that it is so long is that he discusses many of the numerous allegorical interpretations given by Jewish rabbis over the years. But the Christian commentators are no better. As Orr says somewhat sarcastically, “The allegorical method can find the whole counsel of God in every dimple of each anatomical system.” But he is not far off in his assessment. Just consider the interpretation of 4:1-7 by Matthew Henry, an extremely popular commentator of a previous century:

    “This descriptive section may be viewed allegorically as Christ's description of his espoused church. The eyes may be her ministers, the hair her comely behavior, the teeth her ministers again, the lips her praise of God, the cheeks her humility and modesty, the neck her faith, and her breasts the two testaments.”

    Similarly, Baldwin notes: “The whole passage has been used as an illustration of the fact that Christ sees His church in her final form without spot, wrinkle or blemish. cf. Eph. 5:27.”

So how should the imagery be understood if not literal or allegorical? Almost all modern commentators advise some sort of figurative or symbolic approach. In many cases, the metaphor or simile involved appears to point to some sort of visual comparison. But Schwab feels that a “better approach is to recognize that the associations often are not about what the beloved looks like but rather treat senses and qualities other than sight.” He adds: “Often in the wasf equivalences are not obvious and thus necessitate careful meditation.” And Gledhill cautions, “We should not always be looking for precision in every aspect of the metaphor.”

Some commentators such as Falk gravitate toward the position that at least some of the five senses are involved in the imagery, even if the visual sense is the primary one utilized. And Snaith notes that in 1:3 the imagery is of smell, in 2:3 of taste. On the other hand, the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (DBI) takes the stance that: “More than anything else, images of nature portray the quality of the beloved, and here we see evidence of the Hebrew fondness for structure and how things are formed.” “The style aims at an association of feelings and values rather than visual correspondence, and the imagery is symbolic rather than pictorial, figurative rather than literal.”

The culmination of the above reasoning leads to Soulen's more extreme approach which says that the description has nothing whatsoever to do with the woman herself, it merely is an attempt to conjure up the emotions that the lover experiences upon seeing her. This method of interpretation has been criticized by several other commentators as being a rather arbitrary method of writing and one that would be  very unhelpful to the reader.

Song of Songs 4:1-7

Regarding this particular wasf, Bullock states, “The beauty of the maiden in overwhelming, as is the speaker's poetic imagery.”

Song 4:1a (Introduction)

The practically identical wording here and in v. 7 functions as a set of bookends, or inclusio, for the actual wasf.

Song 4:1b (eyes)

The image of eyes like doves also appears in 1:15. Snaith expresses the opinion of most scholars when he says, “In 4:1 the girl's eyes peep through the veil like doves – a reference to the shyness of doves, which hide away in clefts among rocks.” He also makes the interesting observation that there may be the influence of Egyptian art here in which “eyes were given a linear clarity which resembled the contours of a bird's body.” The veil denotes “her inwardness, her hiddenness, her reluctance to be drawn out of doors,” as Munro expresses it.

Another aspect of this picture is brought out by Gledhill: “It is possible that fluttering timidity is what is in mind here.” Regarding the veil, he states that “in any relationship there will always be some element of mystery behind the successive unveiling. And that is part of the adventure of knowing each other.” Schwab is of this same general opinion: “Perhaps a dove's flapping wings remind him of her eyelashes. If the dove is a symbol for innocence or purity, then the association invokes her sexual fidelity.”

Song 4:1c (hair)

Most commentators interpret this image in basically the same manner. Balchin is a typical example when he says, “One imagines these black goats covering the hillside in the same way as the Shulammite's black locks fall gently down from the crown of her head and over her back.”

By contrast, DBI tends to stress the “value” of the image rather than any physical resemblance. Thus, in this case, her hair is compared to “its most valuable counterpart in nature,” i.e. sheep's wool.

Song 4:2 (teeth)

Commentators are divided as to whether the one Hebrew word for the sheep means animals which have been shorn or those which have been freshly washed prior to shearing. Longman expresses the opinion of several scholars when he says, “the sheeps' image is mirrored in the pool where they were washed.” Thus, the upper teeth match up perfectly with those below (also the opinion of Schwab).

By contrast, DBI sees the point of comparison to lie with their “wetness and whiteness.” And Balchin says that the teeth “because of their smoothness and whiteness, are likened to shorn sheep.”

I have purposely refrained from quoting any of the many allegorical interpretations of these verses, but just to give you an idea of how far afield that can go, here is one example that Phipps offers: “The Bishop of Hippo had interpreted 'Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes' as an allusion to the teeth of the saints tearing at heretics!”

Song 4:3a (lips)

Balchin says that “her lips are brilliantly red and, surprisingly for an oriental, thin.” Gledhill points out that “the word used in the Hebrew here for mouth (midbar) is the one that describes it as an organ of speech...Her speech is consonant with her beauty.” Smaith picks up on this point and suggests that a double pun is at work here and concludes, “Her mouth is thus cleverly portrayed as a fertile oasis with lovely words flowing out of it – not to mention possible heavy wet kissing.” Longman expresses his doubts that the comparison has anything to do with speech since other descriptions refer to her physical appearance.

Song 4:3b (cheeks)

G.A. Long notes that the key word here has also been variously translated as temple, temple and jaw, brow, forehead, cheek, and open mouth.

Longman feels that “It likely compliments her complexion. The fruit is a sort of reddish orange.” Balchin echoes this opinion when he says that “the cheeks remind Solomon of the rounded form and russet tan of the pomegranate.” But Schwab translates the word as "mouth," and so he states, “This is probably a reference to its taste and juiciness.”

Finally, several commentators such as Phipps go into a little more detail concerning the physical similarities between her cheeks and a sliced pomegranate: “As her cheeks lie behind her veil, the reference may be to the membranes in a pomegranate which separate the red seeds like a kind of webbing; so the features of the girl can be detected behind the 'webbing' of the veil.”

Song 4:4 (neck)

Schwab points out that this imagery is similar to Song 8:10 where her breasts are also compared to a tower. In both cases, “The metaphor is warlike – she is intimidating and dangerous.” “With David's name the tower becomes an impregnable citadel.” (Snaith)  Longman adds: “David's association with the tower lends a further sense of power and dignity to the image: It also fits into the pervasive use of military imagery to describe the woman.” As another example, Song 7:4 pictures the woman's nose or face as a military outpost, “the point being that this damsel is formidable and not to be approached lightly.” (Schwab)

DBI makes the dubious assertion that “the beloved's neck is the best of its kind, raised to transcendent value by being surrounded with glorious national associations.”

The second half of the verse is a little uncertain in the Hebrew original. Balchin says that it may mean either “armory” or “trophies.” In any case, he feels, “The whole verse indicates regality of bearing.” But Snaith feels that it is in this part of the verse that we can really discern the metaphor. He says that “the point of comparison was not the neck but the necklaces hanging round it, not unlike rows of shields on a tower.” Gledhill agrees with this assessment.

Song 4:5 (breasts)

Longman says regarding this verse, “Moving down her body, he next focuses on her breasts, objects of male erotic interest that need no explanation.” They may need no explanation, but other scholars have attempted to elaborate nonetheless. Delitzch says that the comparison is “in respect to their equality and youthful freshness.” Snaith: “Gazelles are well known for their grace and sprightliness, and the author's intention is probably to ascribe these qualities to the girl.” Gledhill: They are graceful, sprightly and playful. Their texture and softness are invitations to caressing and fondling.” DBI sees a correspondence with their softness to the touch and to the girl's modesty. Snaith feels that the mention of “lilies may refer here to the scent of the girl's body, as the lover's lips are compared to lilies in 5:13.”

Song 4:6

There is the opinion among some scholars that the wasf proper actually ends with v. 5. For example, Delitzch calls it “an interruption.” However, this view may be dictated by a sense of delicacy which does not wish to venture any further down the woman's body. Gledhill says, “The mountains are singular in this case, but I am not certain that they can be equated with any particular part of the female anatomy, although some have tried to do so (e.g. the mons veneris).”

Thus, Longman carefully expresses his opinion that the lover “subtly and tastefully describes his desire to be intimate with her.” Snaith similarly states, “It is difficult to avoid suggesting that the climax of his love is their intercourse, here expressed in imagery of hills and spices.”

Song 4:7 (Conclusion)

This final line basically repeats the first sentence in the poem.

 

BOOK OF REVELATION: A TOPICAL STUDY GUIDE

Rather than go through this book chapter-by-chapter and verse-by-verse, I decided to put together a more topical approach to studying this rather difficult book, not necessarily to present my own interpretation but to expose others to the vast number of possible approaches that have been taken by different groups of scholars. If you decide to try this topical way of exploring this fascinating book, beware that you may find that some of the hard-and-fast approaches taken by popular preachers in sermons and books are by no means the last word on the subject.

Each of the lessons outlined below contains too much material to easily cover in one sitting, so be prepared to spend more than one session on each lesson. Most of the topics listed below have been treated in other blog posts of mine, and so I have also provided a key to those resources.

Lesson     Subject

1             Introduction

2             Nature of the Language Employed

3            The Genre

4            The Time Frame

5            Relation to the Old Testament

6            Different Theological Stances

7            Sequence of Events

8            Other Pertinent New Testament Texts and Key Future Events:

              Tribulation, Rapture, Millennium, Fate of Israel

Lesson      Title of Post

1               Revelation: Introduction

                 Book of Revelation: 19,200 Different Views

2              How Long is 1,000 Years? (Revelation 20:2-7)

                Book of Revelation: The Language

3             Book of Revelation: The Genre

4              Book of Revelation: Period of Time Covered

5             The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation

               Book of Revelation: Relation to the Old Testament

6             Book of Revelation: Theological Stances

               II Peter 3: Dialogue with a Preterist

               Critique of “The Last Days” by Dallas Burdette

7             Book of Revelation: Sequence of Events

               Book of Revelation: Introduction to the Literary Structure

8            Matthew 24: One or Two Questions?

              Book of Revelation: Key Future Events

              Matthew 24:40-41 Do You Want To Be Left Behind at the Rapture?

              Will All Israel Be Saved? (Romans 11:25-27)

              Israel and the Church

              Romans 11:26

              How Long is 1,000 Years? (Revelation 20:2-7)

              I Thessalonians 5:1-11: Prophecies of the End Times

As a fitting conclusion to such a study as outlined above, the following thoughts may be helpful:

The Book of Revelation: Summary

Differences of opinion on how to interpret this book should not be a point that dividew Christians from one another since it is a secondary doctrinal issue at best. There is still too much ambiguity present to allow for any definitive interpretation. I highly encourage each of you to wrestle personally with the competing ideas presented in the class. However, for those of you who would like to know my own personal take-aways from my studies, the paragraphs below will serve as a summary.

Do not become so immersed in the minutia of details in the book that you ignore its dual emphasis on the exalted position of the risen Christ in heaven and advice to believers to hold firm with confidence in the face of persecution.

The Book of Revelation is filled with divine visions which, in consistency with all those prophetic visions in the book where an interpretation is actually given, should be viewed for their symbolic or figurative (rather than physical) correspondence with future realities. It was written in symbols that were probably better understood by the original audience than by us today. However, there are a number of excellent commentaries available to guide today's reader by providing the necessary historical background and Old Testament allusions in the text to allow for an informed interpretation.

The visions cover events and conditions current in the Roman world at the time of writing as well as opening a window into events that are still in the future for us today (Revelation 1:19). In addition, the book can be, and has been, used by believers living in any era to provide spiritual guidance and comfort, especially in times of external persecution.

The book is permeated with allusions to Old Testament passages that should be consulted to help with proper interpretation. However, keep in mind that a similarity of language does not necessarily imply that identical events are being described in both testaments. Each situation must be taken on its own merit.

Concerning overall theology of future events, the two oldest schemes, amillennialism and historical premillennialism, appear to give the best overall fits with the scriptural evidence—although neither one is perfect in all respects. Two other theological approaches tend to either under-utilize (postmillennialism) or over-interpret (dispensationalism) the pertinent biblical texts. Also, both tend to lean heavily in their interpretations on “signs of the times.” And the full preterist view has correctly been labeled as a heresy since it denies the Second Coming altogether.

The book can be easily divided into seven sections, or cycles, each one of which recaps history from the first to the second coming of Christ. However, the earlier sections concentrate more on the earlier chronological events, and the later sections concentrate more on the later events. These same (or similar) sections are also arranged in pairs, working from the ends to the middle, to highlight contrasting themes in the book. And as a third type of movement present in the book, events occurring on earth are alternated with those happening in heaven in order to give us the divine perspective that lies behind earthly history.

Ultimately, the exact working out of the future remains in God's hands. therefore none of us should act so securely in our own understanding that we either try to force it on others or act in a superior manner toward those who are not as “enlightened” as we are.

 

DRUNKENNESS IN THE BIBLE

If you look at the many references to alcohol (almost exclusively wine) in the Bible, it is interesting to note that those passages which treat it positively as a gift from God are at least as great in number as those passages that warn of the dangers of drink. Thus, it is very clear that total abstinence from liquor is not commanded in Judaism or Christianity as it is in Islam. Fitzsimmonds notes, “These two aspects of wine, its use and its abuse, its benefits and its curse; its acceptance in God's sight and its abhorrence, are interwoven into the fabric of the Old Testament...”

The examples of abstinence in the Bible are confined to three types. The first is in the case of a temporary vow during which a person refrained from alcoholic beverages for a designated time period. One example would be that of Daniel (see 1:8). The fact that this was only a temporary vow is seen in Dan. 10:2-3 where he is again making a similar vow. Then there are those who are chosen as nazirites from their birth and vow to never drink alcoholic beverages or cut their hair. Samson was one such example although he only kept part of his vow. John the Baptist provides a more positive example (Luke 1:15).

Lastly, there are the Rechabites (see Jeremiah 35). They were a nomadic tribe who had vowed not to drink alcohol. As some commentators note, since they were nomadic they had no ready access to wine, which was only produced in settled towns and cities. So, in fact, they were “making a virtue of necessity.” In a similar manner, it has been suggested that some Christian denominations arising in the poorer areas of 1800's America could not afford to have a piano or organ, unlike the wealthier Episcopalians, etc. Therefore they denounced the use of musical instruments in church as being unbiblical.

Before discussing the negative teachings and examples concerning alcohol, a note concerning nomenclature is in order. The biblical words for wine found in the OT and NT are as follows:

“wine”                                  Heb. yayin     Gk. oinos

This would have been drunk as is, or more often diluted with water.

“strong drink”                      Heb. sekar     Gk. sikera

Also called “choice wine,” this was presumably stronger than regular wine.

“sweet, or new, wine”        Heb. tiros        Gk. gleukos

This was “made from the first drippings of the juice before the winepress was trodden. As such it would be particularly potent.” (Fitzsimmonds)

In terms of actual teachings on the subject, the following passages can be included in those which treat alcohol in a negative manner:

    Deuteronomy 21:20     Disobedient sons who are gluttons and drunkards are to be stoned.

    Proverbs 20:1      One is not wise who is led astray by it.

    Proverbs 21:17     You will not get rich by loving wine.

    Proverbs 23:20-21     Joining in with drinkers will lead to poverty.

    Proverbs 23:29-35     Alcoholics will suffer hallucinations and be subject to injury.

    Proverbs 31:4-5     Drinking by those in responsible positions will lead to irresponsible decisions.

    Ecclesiastes 10:17     The author cautions that rulers should drink for strength, not drunkenness.

    Isaiah 5:11-12     Those who think only about wine will not think about God.

    Isaiah 5:22      Rulers who drink too much may also be guilty of taking bribes.

    Isaiah 28:1,7-8     Drunkards let wine overcome them – they stagger and are in confusion.

    Isaiah 56:12      Those who are addicted to wine think no further ahead than their next drink.

    Hosea 4:11      Drinking takes away understanding.

    Hosea 7:5      This is a difficult verse, but Stuart explains it as follows: “Fueled by alcohol, the brain can better suppress conscience and entertain wickedness, depravity, and conspiring with scoffers.”

    Micah 2:11      Extolling the virtues of wine is equivalent to uttering falsehoods.

    Luke 7:33-34      This verse illustrates the fact that one can be equally criticized by others whether you decide to abstain from alcohol (as John the Baptist) or even to drink responsibly (as Jesus). Remember also that the apostles on the Day of Pentacost were accused of being drunk. And in the OT, we have the example of Hannah. I Samuel 1 begins with her praying for a child at the altar. Ironically, as she is vowing that any child born to her will be a nazirite who will refrain from any alcohol, the priest Eli bawls her out for being drunk. This is a good example of the fact that where alcohol is concerned, you may be damned if you do and damned if you don't, at least in the eyes of others. Paradoxically, we learn in the following chapter that Eli's own sons, who are also serving as priests, are total scoundrels who treat their duties with utter contempt, but he only half-heartedly chastises them.

    Luke 12:45; 21:34     Jesus tells these parables and then warns the people not to get drunk and be caught unawares when judgment comes.

    Romans 13:13      Reveling in drunkenness is the opposite of living honorably.

    Romans 14:21     This verse is often used to teach total abstinence from alcohol since it might cause a Christian brother to fall. However, as Friesen explains in some detail, there is a large difference between trying to behave in such a way that Christian “Pharisees” will not be offended and acting so that you will not lead new or weak believers astray. Paul states in Colossians 2:16 that we are not to let anyone condemn us in matters of drink.

    I Corinthians 5:    Paul warns believers not to associate with those in the church who are greedy, idolaters, drunkards or robbers.

    I Corinthians 6:9-10     None of the above people will inherit the kingdom of heaven.

    Ephesians 5:18     Getting drunk is debauchery and the opposite of being filled with the Spirit.

    I Thessalonians 5     In the context of Christ's second coming, Paul contrasts keeping sober with getting drunk. This echoes Jesus' parables on the subject in Luke's Gospel as well as the below-cited OT examples of military leaders being taken unawares by the enemy while drunk.

    I Timothy 3:8     Christian leaders indulging in drink are in the same category as those who are greedy for money.

    Titus 2:3      Women leaders in the church should also not be led astray by addiction to alcohol.

    I Peter 4:3      Drunkenness is one of the hallmarks of a non-believer.

    Revelation 17:2     Wine is used as a metaphor for fornication, which in itself may be a metaphor for idolatry.

    Revelation 18:3     This is a parallel verse to 17:2 but adds the element of growing rich from others.

Moving next to specific examples of drunkenness in the Bible, I was surprised at how few there actually are:

    Genesis 9:20-22: It is instructive that the inventor of wine is also the first recorded person to get so drunk on it that he passes out. In that state, his son Ham “uncovers his nakedness,” an obscure phrase that may indicate even more serious sexual abuse. If the latter is true, then Noah becomes the first person to suffer from a sort of “date rape,” more usually associated with heterosexual activity.

    Genesis 19:30-38: Whether or not the above example concerns any sort of sexual activity, the sordid story of Lot and his daughters certainly does. Lot is so incapacitated with wine that his daughters are able to take sexual advantage of him.

    Ruth 3: At this point I really should mention by way of contrast the incident between Boaz and Ruth on the threshing floor at night. It is well known that this part of the story is really fraught with sexual tension. Boaz is not drunk, but he has had his fill of wine and is “contented.” Ruth crawls in next to him as he is sleeping and basically offers herself to him. Fortunately, Boaz remains an honorable man despite the temptation to be otherwise, and the story has a happy ending.

    I Samuel 25: The wealthy landowner Nabal in this story is obviously either addicted to alcohol or an example of a binge drinker. So he is probably under the influence when he becomes unnecessarily belligerent to David. The association of alcohol with anger is only too well known to abused wives and to bars which keep a bouncer on hand. Nabal's subsequent death from a probable stroke can also be directly attributable to alcoholism.

    I Samuel 30:16-20: This is a story that is repeated several times in the OT. An army (Amelekites in this case) and/or its leaders lets down its guard against the enemy and gets drunk. Therefore they are easily conquered.

    I Kings 16:8-10: Similarly, King Asa is assassinated by his servant while drinking himself into oblivion.

    I Kings 20:13-21: The same thing happens to Ben-Hadad when he and his aligned kings get drunk and omit to take proper precautions against King Ahab's men.

    Daniel 5: For a fourth example of rulers letting their guard down we have Belshazzar, who overindulges with his men, shows off the drinking vessels taken from the Jews, and toasts to his gods. He quickly sobers up, however, when God's handwriting on the wall is seen and the Persians take over his kingdom.

    I Corinthians 11:21: Turning to the NT, there is only one actual example of drunkenness that I could find, and that is the case of the Corinthian church. Paul chastises the richer members of the congregation for their behavior at the “pot luck dinners” that the church holds. Rather than share their rich food, they hog it for themselves and actually drink so much that they get drunk while others are going without entirely.

 

GENESIS 19

This disturbing passage contains several controversial incidences. There is the whole question of Lot's character as it is revealed in this narrative, the exact marital status of his daughters, and what their subsequent actions say about their character. In addition, we see several parallels in this story to others in the Old Testament.

Genesis 19:1-11 This well-known story begins with Lot sitting at the city gate and greeting the angels-in-disguise. They reluctantly take up his offer to put them up for the night in his house, but then all the men of the town beat on the door and demand that he give up the “men” so that they can “know” them. He refuses and offers his two virgin daughters instead. When things begin to get serious, the angels blind the men so that they begin to wander around aimlessly. The major issues here are (1) what the men in town were after and (2) the way this incident reflects on Lot's morality or lack thereof.

Regarding the first issue, one school of thought takes the verb “know” in v. 5 to simply mean that the townsfolk wanted to talk to the strangers to find out more about them.

Sprinkle mentions that commentators as early as Calvin and as recently as J. Boswell have held to such an interpretation and that the real sin of the crowd was violating the custom of hospitality. As Sprinkle concludes, “Such a reconstruction is hardly sufficient, however.” For example, if that is all it means, then why does Lot call their request “wicked” in v. 7, offer them his daughters instead who have never “known” (same Hebrew word) a man, and why do the townsmen become so outraged by his refusal? In addition, the parallels in a later story recounted in Judges 19 (discussed below) point to a clear sexual component to their demand.

Hamilton says that the interpretation that “know” here (v. 5) means just that and no more is “wild and fanciful.”

Some such interpretations appear to be motivated by an obvious attempt to avoid associating homosexuality with sin in any way, shape or form. But that is really not at all necessary in this case since it is not homosexual orientation or practice that is the point of Lot's criticism of the men, only their very real threat of forcible gang rape.

Perhaps the most elaborate scenario to explain the situation and defend the actions of both the townsmen and Lot is that proposed by Morschauser (as explained by D.A. Carson). He starts out his interpretation probably correctly by stating that Lot's place at the city gates indicates that he is an elder of the town, but then rapidly descends into rank speculation. Lot's sole reason for not wanting the visitors sleeping outside is that he fears they may be spies and so he wants them in his house where he can keep an eye on them. But since Lot has not lived in the town that long, the other leaders of Sodom are suspicious and even think that Lot himself may be a spy. Therefore they demand that they be allowed to interrogate the visitors themselves. Lot refuses and becomes upset that they are questioning his way of dealing with the situation. And so he proposes that his two daughters be kept by the town leaders temporarily as hostages while he is allowed to proceed with his own interrogation. At that point they become really suspicious of his motives and refuse to cooperate.

Carson concludes Morshauser's scenario by saying: “What they are trying to do, against a recognized official, is simply anarchic, and God judges them for it. But Lot himself comes out as a righteous man who acts honorably throughout.” Carson then states that “even if part of Morshauser's reconstruction is correct, and even if in consequence Lot appears more righteous than he otherwise would, he remains a flawed figure.”

    Hamilton: “Lot's offer of his daughters is unsuccessful and unheroic even if he acts out of a desire for hospitality for his guests.”

    Wenham: “...presumably in desperation, he offers to sacrifice his virgin daughters to the lusting mob...Putting their [the visitors'] welfare above his daughters' may have been questionable, but it shows just how committed he was to being a good host.”

    Carr: “Hospitality is valued so strongly in this context that the text positively portrays Lot's offer of his virgin daughters in place of his guests.”

The bulk of commentators today do not feel the need to whitewash the actions of either Lot or the people of Sodom:

    Sprinkle: Lot tried to dissuade the crowd “and in a concession showing that he had been influenced by Sodom's ethical standards, Lot offered the mob his virgin daughters instead.” That was despite what was clearly God's will. See the later law: “Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute that the land not become prostituted and full of depravity.” (Leviticus 19:29)

    Payne: “...his offer of his daughters does him no credit...”

    Ross: “Ironically, Lot offered them his daughter to do whatever seemed 'good' (tob) in their eyes, but even this perverted good was rejected by those bent on evil...Lot is first a hypocrite, then a buffoon...and then passive.”

    Kline: “The warp given to Lot's spiritual and moral perspective by his unhappy choice of Sodom had distorted his judgment, producing vacillation and shockingly confused compromise.”

Genesis 19:12-29

This is an appropriate place to stop and ask about the marital status of Lot's daughters. In v. 8. Lot states that he has two daughters who have never known a man. In other words, they are virgins. But when the angels tell Lot in v. 12 to get hold of his sons-in-law, Lot does so (v. 14). In this latter verse we run into some ambiguity in the Hebrew language. The KJV says that these men had married his daughters while many modern translations say that they “were to marry” the daughters. Grammatically, this solution is possible.

Hamilton lays out three additional options for understanding the text:

    1. One extreme solution is to simply remove all references to “sons-in-law” in vv. 12-14 as being a later addition to the text. There is some manuscript evidence to support this approach. Additionally, as Wenham explains, the Hebrew text says “son-in-law,” not “sons-in-law.” This fact may also be used to support Option #3 below.

    2. Or one could say that they were betrothed to be married and therefore could be logically called sons-in-law. At least in later Judaism, it was common for a couple to undergo a period of time of celibacy between the engagement and actual marriage. The example of Mary and Joseph comes to mind immediately. Hamilton opts for this approach.

    3. A final interesting option is that Lot had more than two daughters and only the two unmarried ones lived in his house. Lot gets the husbands of the other daughters and they are the ones who laugh at him when he tells them to leave the city (v. 14). Therefore they stay with their wives and are destroyed in the fire. This interpretation may also help explain why Lot's wife looked back at the city as they were leaving; she was grieving for her other daughters. Of course, even that is no excuse for her actions; Jesus uses her as a negative example in Luke 17:32 when he says, “Remember Lot's wife.” Supporting this view, also held by Kline, is the comment by Lot in v. 15 that he has “two daughters who are here.” indicating that Lot had additional daughters living in town. (Wenham)

We get additional insight into Lot's character in verses 16-23. Grogan: In Genesis 19, Lot “revealed both his weakness and his inclination to compromise.” Even Carr is not willing to support Lot's subsequent actions: “Although Lot has been positively portrayed up to this point [most commentators would disagree], his repeated lingering compares negatively with Noah's immediate compliance with God's commands.” Regarding Lot's comment in v. 20, Wenham says, “Out of his own mouth, Lot proves himself to be fearful, selfish, and faithless.”

Genesis 19:30-38 The final scene in this chapter finds Lot and his two daughters living in a cave. They express fear that there are no men left on earth for them to have children by, and so they get their father drunk and are impregnated by him. Scholarly judgment on their actions is almost uniformly negative:

    Wenham: Like their mother, they too had imbibed a love of Sodom and its attitudes...The angels have rescued Lot and his virgin daughters from the Sodom mob; now they sacrifice their virginity and their father's honor when there is no actual danger.”

    Kline calls them “two Sodom-tainted daughters.”

    Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “Although Lot takes his daughters out of Sodom, he does so too late to keep the impulse toward sexual perversion from them.”

    Payne: “The girl's actions well illustrate the corrupting of an evil environment such as Sodom.”

    Ross: “Those who have grown comfortable in the wicked city may retain its corruption.”

Some commentators add that what happened was really Lot's fault in the first place for offering up his daughters earlier:

Hamilton: “If he is so willing to turn them over as pawns to a sexually aroused mob, then they, when their chance comes, will not hesitate to get their father drunk and have intercourse with him.” Hamilton also tries to put a somewhat positive spin on the daughters' behavior when he compares their actions with those of Tamar (Gen. 38) and Ruth. “In all three cases a father or father figure becomes the one by whom the family is perpetuated. And in each instance the initiative is taken by a woman who offers herself clandestinely or by guile to the “father.”

And finally there are those who give little credence at all to the historical nature of this story. Thus, Blenkinsopp labels these verses as “the ethnic satire in which its [Moab's} incestuous origins are spoofed.”

Genesis 18

Looking at the previous chapter, we see some parallels here with Lot's story.

In the first place, as Lawlor says, “Genesis 19:1-3 stands as a clear parallel to the 'welcoming scene' of Genesis 18:1-5.” Both Abraham and Lot offer oriental hospitality to the three angels-in-disguise who have arrived.

In 18:9, the angels ask where Abraham's wife is, in parallel to their question of Lot in 19:12 regarding his family members. Then Ross states, “Whereas Sarah's laughter (18:12) was at God's word promising life, Lot's family laughs at a word warning against death (19:14).”

Genesis 18:22-33 recount a series of “negotiations” between the LORD and Abraham regarding the minimum number of righteous people in town needed to prevent destruction of the city. Abraham carries out these in a futile attempt to save those in the city. By contrast, Genesis 19:15-23 describes the several pathetic attempts of Lot to outline a better escape plan than presented by the angels in order to assure that his own neck is saved.

By the way, it is probably this section in which the number of “righteous” is concerned that caused Peter (II Peter 2:6-10) to label Lot as “righteous,” despite his many flaws. (Grogan)

Genesis 6-9

The Flood narrative forms another obvious parallel to the story of Sodom since they form the two major destruction accounts in Genesis. The actual flood story is bracketed by two similar incidents. In chapter 6 the improper sexual relations of angels with women is described (although there are other feasible interpretations of the text) whereas in chapter 9 there is an incident of dubious impropriety between Noah and his son Ham (again there have been many different understandings of this narrative). Turning to Genesis 19, it begins with an indecent proposal of a homosexual nature and ends with a case of incest between father and daughters.

The two opening events in the two patriarch's lives are similar, as Sprinkle points out when he references Jude 7. “Jude compares pejoratively what is probably the angel-to-women unions of Genesis 6:1-4 with the male-to-male lusts at Sodom.” The final recounted events in Noah's and Lot's lives are also the same in that both get drunk and are taken advantage of by their own children.

Between these bracketing events in both cases we have:

    God sees the “wickedness” of mankind in 6:5, and Lot labels the Sodomites' plans as “wicked” in 19:7.

    The same Hebrew word for “destroy” is employed in 6:13 and 19:13.

    Both men “find favor with” God (6:8; 19:19)

    Noah is labeled as “righteous” (6:9), as is Lot (as in II Peter 2:6-10).

    The offer of salvation is extended to the families of both men.

    By stark contrast, all of Noah's family is saved while not all members of Lot's are.

Judges 19

The parallels between this later account and Genesis 19 are too numerous to mention. As an exercise, you might want to compare the two side-by-side sometime and see how many correspondences you can find. Or you can just look at A.P. Ross' table of parallels in his fine book entitled Creation and Blessing.

Hamilton summarizes the situation as thus: “The canonical witness is that the sin of non-Israelites (Gen. 19) was practiced later on by Israelites, particularly Benjamites (Judg. 19). The sins of the nations become the sin of the chosen nation.”

 

NOTES ON EXODUS

Exodus 1:19 lit,"they are animals."

Exodus 2:10 see Isaiah 6:3.

Exodus 3:5 The commands to draw closer and take off your sandalswere in order that he might come 

in contact with holy ground.

Exod. 3:7-8 Look at the sequence of verbs in this passage. It also applies to the means by which God 

saves men through Christ.

Exodus 5:6-13  Egyptian papyrai confirm that it was the normal practice to first beat a suspect and 

then question him. They felt that only in this way could they get an honest answer out of him. (BAR 

Spring 2020)

Exod. 5:14-19 Several Egyptian papyrai mention the fact that brick makers had a daily quota of bricks 

to make.

Exodus 6:10-30 Kaiser: This passage is bracketed by similar statements in 10-12 and 28-30 regarding 

Moses' lack of credentials for his job. The same point is made in a subtle manner in the seemingly 

boring genealogy in the center of passage. Only three of Jacob's sons are listed: Reuben, Simeon, and 

Levi. Levi is there to lead up to Moses and Aaron. Reuben and Simeon each had grievous sins to their 

account. This points out that it is God who chooses men, not the men themselves. (Kaiser)

Exodus 7:14 God used whatever a country worshiped in place of God to punish it, (Jim Rose)

Lauren Winner-- The Jewish principle of hiddur mitzvah: "The idea that one does not just do the 

commandments, one beautifies them." This verse may be translated as "This is my God and I will 

beautify him with praises." What does this mean? The rabbis have an answer: “Adorn yourself before 

him by a truly elegant fulfillment of the religious duties” (beautiful ram's horn, scroll, tabernacle, etc.)

Exodus 14:21 see Ezekiel 43:1.

Exodus 15:22 shur means “wall.”

Exod. 15:25 looks back to the tree in Eden and forward to the cross.

Exodus 17:7 see I Corinthians 10:4.

Exodus 18 The word davar ("word") appears in this chapter ten times in the singular and once in the 

plural. Different forms of the verbal root dibber ("speak") and of the noun form appear ten times in the 

Mt. Sinai incident, leading up to the giving of the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 19 It has been suggested that the confusion as to whether the mountain was called Sinai or 

Horeb (see Deuteronomy 4:10) was purposeful so that future generations would not know where God 

had revealed himself.

Exodus 20 Ernest Jones: One tablet is God's copy and onr belongs to Israel. By both being placed in 

the Temple, this indicates God's continuing presence with his people.

Exod. 20:1-17 Commandments are addressed to individuals, not Israel as a whole.

Exod. 20:2-3 Freedom from slavery starts with freedom from idol worship.

Exod. 20:4-5 one interpretation-- no transference of curse to subsequent generations. Instead, the curse 

is that the person's subsequent generations will be cut off, i.e. they will not have children.

Exod. 20:20 two types of fear

Exod. 20:26 Implication—like The Emperor's New Clothes. Attempt to exalt oneself backfires.

Exodus 22:25 See Deuteronomy 24:12-13.

Exod. 22:27 Septuagint reads "you shall not revile gods." Philo explained that it might become a habit 

that would lead to reviling God himself.

Exodus 25:22 seems contradicted by Leviticus 1:1 but is resolved in Numbers 7:89.

Exodus 26:14 The last word is the most puzzling one in the whole description of the temple. It has 

been variously translated badger, porpoise, goat, leather, dolphin, seal and sea cow.

Exodus 28:32-35 A small gold bell was found around 2010 in a Jerusalem sewer that fits the 

description.

Exodus 31:18 "Finger of God" may be symbolic since the same phrase occurs in Exodus 8:19.

Exodus 32:7 Compare with verse 11 and the use of "thy people."

Exod. 32:10 Moses is tested: his ambition, devotion to people.

Exod. 32:20 The Ugaritic Epic has the destruction of a deity described using exactly the same verbs as 

in this passage -- burn, grind, and scatter.

Exodus 33:22 BAR, July/August 1985: A cave has been found on the top of Har Karkom, a mountain 

which also contains rock engravings including (a) 10 straight lines in a row and (b) a rectangular tablet 

divided in two with ears on top of each half and further divided by 10 lines. Much of the art can be 

dated to the Bronze Age.

Exodus 34:14 God's name is jealous, i.e. zeal that arises when sin rises up and threatens our 

relationship with Himself.

Exodus 35 Eugene Peterson-- “Those first 34 chapters are where all the action is. At chapter 35, the 

action comes to a stop. Moses starts talking about Sabbath keeping—what we don't do...It is here, at 

chapter 35 that the name Bezalel appears for the first time-- Bezalel the artist. I had never noticed this 

transition before: the transition from getting the Hebrews involved in the saving and revealing action of 

God to preparing them for a lifetime of living in response to and participation in that salvation and 

revelation.”

 

PROMISE-KEEPERS IN THE BIBLE

 

The July/August 2021 issue of CT magazine had a feature article on the popular men's movement Promise Keepers begun 25 years ago. It outlined some of the reasons why it was successful for a while but had no staying power. That prompted me to think of biblical examples of those who made vows, promises, or proclamations and then either regretted them or had trouble carrying them out.

The whole concept of watching what you say in terms of promises and vows resonates throughout the Bible, with appropriate warnings found in both the New and Old Testaments. Whole chapters of the OT such as Leviticus 27 and Numbers 30 deal with the subject. Also:

    “When you make a vow to God, don't put off fulfilling it, for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill what you have vowed. It is better not to have made the vow in the first place than to vow and then not fulfill it.” (Ecclesiastes 5:4-5)

    “Let your yes be yes and your no be no; anything in addition to this comes from the Evil One.”    (Matthew 5:37)

    “Above all, beloved, don't swear by heaven or earth or be any other oath, but let your yes be yes and your no be no so that you do not fall under condemnation.” (James 5:12)

Of course, the supreme example we have in terms of someone who is true to his word is God Himself. However, we must keep in mind that God's promises are always conditional, whether it is actually stated or not, and are predicated on others acting in accordance with His will. (See Deuteronomy 28:68 for one example.) That brings up the fact that one could say the prime promise-breakers in the Bible were the people of Israel who repeatedly did not keep their covenant with God.

And I can think of several specific cases in the Bible where people regretted having given their word.

Old Testament

The early Patriarchs were known for their adherence to the promises they had made, especially those made to God. But the situation began to change with the conquest of Canaan.

Joshua 9: This chapter takes place during the time that Israel had just begun their task of conquering the Promised Land and a group of people from Gibeon approached Joshua in worn-out clothes and shoes. They give him a cock-and-bull story saying that they heard about the mighty feats of the Israelites in their far-away country and came to make a non-aggression pact with Israel. Although the story is obviously full of inconsistencies, Joshua and the people readily make the treaty and give their word not to harm them or their people.

Later, the Israelites learn that they have been tricked since Gibeon is a near neighbor. They can't go back on their vow, and so they compromise by turning the Gibeonites into their servants instead. This sort of approach to getting out of the letter of an agreement will be seen in other places. But, naturally, the best course of action would have been to refrain from making any sort of covenant in the first place until checking out the facts of the situation. The danger of making such rash vows will also be seen in the next example.

Judges 11: This contains the famous story of the judge Jephthah who vowed to give to God as a burnt offering the first thing/person who greeted him after battle if God would only give him the victory. In the first place, it is obvious that we should not take Jephthah's example as one to emulate by bargaining with God. Secondly, it is equally obvious that the wording of Jephthah's vow indicates that he was fully prepared to carry out a human sacrifice in order to win the battle.

Of course, it is his daughter who greets him and Jephthah must carry out his promise to God no matter what. At this point of the story, details get a little hazy. For one thing, his daughter bemoans the fact that she will never have a child, not that she will be killed. Secondly, we never actually hear of her death. I like to think, as do some commentators, that Jephthah did just as Joshua did in the above example – he commuted her sentence to serving God full time in the same manner that nuns do today.

Judges 21: As this chapter starts out, the eleven tribes have practically decimated the tribe of Benjamin. They are so angry that they vow never to give any of their daughters in marriage to the remaining males of that tribe. But soon afterward they begin to have second thoughts because they don't want that twelfth tribe to completely die out.

Realizing that they can't break their oath, they again decide on a compromise and arrange instead for the Benjamites to kidnap the women of Shiloh while they are dancing during their yearly festival. So basically the whole sad book of Judges ends with a story of mass rape.

I Samuel 14: Saul and Jonathan and their troops defeat the Philistines, and Jonathan especially acquits himself well in the battle. But, as v. 24 states, “Saul committed a very rash act on that day.” He bound his troops to an oath that they would not taste food until the battle was over or they would be executed. Unfortunately, his son Jonathan did not hear about it until he had tasted some honey. It later becomes obvious that God is displeased with the Israelites for some reason, and so they cast the Urim and Thummin to decide who is the guilty party. When the lot falls to Jonathan, Saul realizes that he will have to kill his own son. This story has definite similarities with that of Jephthah and his daughter.

The troops rally to Jonathan's defense and argue that he had been doing the LORD's work that day and should be spared. Saul backs down to public pressure, as he does later also, rather than honor his oath before God. This will mark the beginning of the end for Saul.

II Samuel 9: In this chapter we are told of the generous actions of King David toward Jonathan's lame son Mephibosheth. David takes him into his house and promises that he will always have a place at the king's table. He also restores all of Saul's land to him under the stewardship of the servant Ziba.

The next time we run into Ziba is in chapter 16 when David is fleeing from Jerusalem as Absalom approaches the city. Ziba gives David some food for the soldiers and tells David that his master Mephibosheth has deserted David in favor of Absalom, who he believers will restore him to his rightful position as king. This story is as full of holes as the Gibeonite's tall tale to Joshua was. For one thing, there would have been no earthly reason for Absalom to turn the reign over to Mephibosheth. It would have been more likely that Absalom would have had him executed as a rival to the throne.

But David had just been informed of the defection of his trusted adviser Ahithophel and was apparently in a receptive mood to believe Ziba's story, and so David rashly goes back on his promise to Mephibosheth and gives all of his land to Ziba instead.

The end of this story comes in II Samuel 19:24-30 when David returns to Jerusalem and is told by Mephibosheth that Ziba had been lying, as David should have suspected right off the bat. At this point, David doesn't know what to do since he had made promises to both parties. And so, as in other examples in this little essay, he divides the land equally between the two of them.

Daniel 3: Skipping ahead in time to the Babylonian captivity, we come to the story of another king, Nebuchadnezzar, in which he has a golden statue made and makes another rash vow. He proclaims that anyone not worshiping the statue will die. Of course, the three Jewish boys that he had promoted to very responsible positions within the kingdom refuse to do so, as the king would have realized if he knew anything at all about Jewish beliefs. They are thrown into the fire but are not consumed.

At this point, although Nebuchadnezzar can't take back his proclamation, he just issues another one stating that anyone blaspheming against their God will be torn limb from limb and their house destroyed.

Daniel 6: This story is very close in plot and theme to the one in Daniel 3 although it takes place during the Persian reign. King Darius makes a similar proclamation stating that upon threat of death, prayers during a 30-day period could only be directed to the king himself. Again, he should have realized that his favorite adviser, Daniel, would not obey such a command. Daniel is turned in by some of his enemies in the court, and Darius is forced against his wishes to throw Daniel into the lion's den. This time, after Daniel's escape, the king makes another proclamation stating that everyone should tremble and fear before Daniel's God.

Book of Esther: This is another example in which the plot hinges on the fact that the Persian king cannot take back a proclamation once it is issued. The villain Haman convinces Darius that there is an enemy group within his kingdom that must be eradicated. Again, illustrating the principle that one should be extremely careful about making vows, promises or proclamations without getting all the facts first, Darius lets Haman have his way. So a date is set on which the people are free to kill any Jews they come across. However, at the time the king is completely ignorant of the fact that (1) one Jew, Mordecai, has saved his life and (2) his own wife Esther is a Jew also.

When Darius learns the facts in the situation, it is too late to take back his proclamation so he just formulates another one giving the Jews free reign to not only defend themselves but go on the offensive against their known enemies at the same time.

Jonah 1:7-16: This story at the beginning of the book recounts the incident of the storm at sea when Jonah has taken a boat to try to evade God's command for him. The sailors begin to quiz Jonah and find out that he is the cause of God's wrath. When they throw Jonah into the sea, the storm stops and they fear God. They then offer sacrifices and make vows. We don't know the exact nature of the vows, but I would imagine that they were similar to the foxhole conversions in which a soldier prays that he will turn his life around if only God will let him live through the battle.

The question is: Were the sailors sincere and would they actually follow through on their promises? I would like to think that the answer to both is Yes. In the first place, they resist having to throw their passenger overboard because they don't want to incur any guilt. And then, when they do decide to go ahead, they pray to God to remove their guilt. Thirdly, they are completely convinced of God's power once the storm ceases. Lastly, the whole book is filled with examples of people and things that obey God: the storm, the giant sea creature, the king of Nineveh, the Ninevites, the vine, and the bug that eats up the vine. In fact, everything and everybody except Jonah himself.

New Testament

We have fewer examples of vows here to relate. Paul apparently at one point makes a temporary Nazirite vow not to touch strong drink or cut his hair (see Acts 18:18), but we don't know anything more about this occasion other than the fact that he completes his vow after the designated time is up.

Acts 21: When Paul enters Jerusalem, the church leaders there convince him to take part in a purification ceremony along with four men who have similarly made a temporary vow. This, James and the church elders hope, will show the Jewish Christians that Paul has not abandoned the Jewish ordinances. But, demonstrating the fact that even one's good works will sometimes be taken in the wrong way, that move turns into a disaster instead. The non-Christian Jews jump to the unwarranted conclusion that Paul has taken Gentiles into the temple and they riot.

But this event paradoxically has the effect of starting the process of arrest that will allow Paul to witness before leaders from the Jewish Sanhedrin to as far away as Rome. (See Acts 23:11 for the fact that all of this was really part of God's plan for him all along.) And in addition, this event leads indirectly to the final example of vows that I would like to highlight.

Acts 23:12-15: We learn in these verses that a group of forty co-conspirators has formed to kill Paul, and they have vowed not to eat or drink until their purpose has been accomplished. Their plot fails when a relative of Paul finds out about it. Since Paul lived on for many years after that time, I have often wondered what happened to these forty men. I find it hard to believe that they would have all starved themselves to death. I would be willing to bet that they acted just as almost all the above Old Testament examples did by somehow justifying to themselves that Paul was on his way to Rome where he would almost certainly be executed. Thus, they could be released from their vows without incurring the penalty of God's wrath.

The bottom line is: Be very careful what you promise to God or anyone else, especially when you are in a heightened emotional state and haven't taken the time to think it out clearly. Remember that you don't possess all the facts in the case and you may have a change of heart later on.

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM (MATTHEW 6:25-34; LUKE 12:22-31)

 

G.E. Ladd notes, “If the reader opens two Bibles to the report of John's preaching in Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9, or to such a passage in the Sermon on the Mount as Matthew 6:23-34 and Luke 12:22-31...he will find both a striking identity of wording, accompanied by numerous variations, particularly in the addition or omission of material.”

It is usually not the material that is identical in both gospels that is disturbing to the reader, but the differences between the two accounts. We immediately want to ask, “Which one is correct?” and “Don't the differences mean that the Bible is not inerrant?” One simple way out of this quandary, especially where Jesus' teachings are concerned, as is the case in the passages highlighted above, is to state that Jesus and the apostles spoke on numerous occasions and tailored their talks differently depending on the nature of the audience. That may in fact be true, but other “inconsistencies” are harder to explain when the surrounding context makes it obvious that the two parallel accounts were actually given on the same occasion.

In an attempt to more completely explain the various differences between the three Synoptic gospels, scholars have come up with a four-document hypothesis. Basically, this proposal says that the gospel writers had different materials at their disposal and put together their accounts by utilizing these. The most reasonable assumption in this thesis is that Mark's was the earliest account, and therefore was a primary source of information for Matthew and Luke. I will not go into all the reasons why this is a very defensible assumption, but it is.

Now in the particular case of the title passages above, none of that material happens to be found in Mark, and so we can certainly eliminate him from the picture. That brings us to the rest of the four-document hypothesis. It proposes that both Matthew and Luke had their own individual sources to rely on in addition to Mark's Gospel (generally abbreviated as M and L, respectively). There is nothing particularly upsetting in such a supposition. Thus, in the case of the apostle Matthew, that may probably include his own recollection of the events themselves. Now Luke was not an early follower of Jesus, and therefore he had to rely on others who were eyewitnesses. But he explains this fact right at the start of his two-part history (Luke 1:1-4).

And finally, there are occasions in which Matthew and Luke agree with one another in wording to a marked degree, generally in the case of actual quotations, and Mark has no such passage in his gospel or uses entirely different language. To explain this phenomenon, the scholars propose a hypothetical document which they call Q (don't ask me to explain, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with QANON or any conspiracy theories). This document has never been found, but something very much like this supposed document is the Gospel of Thomas, a much later collection of sayings by Jesus fabricated by the Gnostics or proto-Gnostics.

Then to complicate the picture even more, there is always the possibility that each Gospel author departed from his sources somewhat on purpose to make a particular point, placed a passage in a different setting for theological reasons, or utilized slightly different vocabulary than was in the source to fit his own writing style. Much of this has resulted in the situations we are faced in trying to harmonize the various accounts of Jesus' life and teachings.

To many lay readers of the Bible, the resulting “discrepancies” in chronology or wording are just too much to face, and so they would just as soon pretend that they don't exist. But this is not really a viable option, and so it is better to try to approach the biblical writings on their own terms instead of trying to force them into whatever modern mold we have created for them in our minds.

With that overly long introduction, let's look at the two passages in question. Most of us are better familiar with Matthew's version since it occurs in the Sermon on the Mount. There is a somewhat parallel sermon called the Sermon on the Plain which appears in Luke 6:20-49, but interestingly Luke has not placed the parallel passage to Matthew 6:25-34 within that sermon, but in chapter 12 instead. To explain this phenomenon, there are three basic possibilities:

    1. Matthew, as an eyewitness, placed this saying where it belonged chronologically while Luke placed it somewhere else for theological reasons. And, in fact, we have other cases where Luke apparently took an individual passage from a larger block of Jesus' teachings and placed it topically with sayings on a similar subject.

    2. Matthew has obviously arranged the material in his gospel so that large blocks of teaching alternate with extended narratives. Thus, his may be the “artificial” arrangement rather than that of Luke, who adhered to a more chronological scheme.

    3. And although either of the two above may be true, perhaps both writers departed from a chronological presentation of their material in order to group it according to other criteria. Keep in mind that we should not demand that biblical material be presented according to a straightforward time line. Teaching history was not really the Gospel writers only concern, or even their main concern.

Well, if a more topical or literary arrangement of material was utilized for either of these gospels, what were those arrangements like? I have attempted to answer that question in my posts “Matthew (and Luke): Introduction to the Literary Structure.”

If you look at the overall literary arrangement in those two posts, you can see that both gospels take the overall form of symmetrical chiasms – mirror-image placement of sections with similar themes. In the case of Matthew's Gospel, the Sermon the Mount is placed in parallel relationship to another major block of Jesus' teaching: the “Little Apocalypse” of chapters 24-25. And within the section containing the Sermon on the Mount, the following chiastic arrangement can be seen:

Figure 1: Structure of Matthew 4:18-8:34

A. Calling of disciples by the sea (4:18-22)

B. Healing ministry in all of Galilee (4:23-25)

C. Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5-7)

1. Introduction (5:1-2)

2. Blessings (5:3-16)

3. Fulfillment of the law (5:17-48)

                                                                        3'. True piety, riches and faith (ch. 6)

2'. Judgment (7:1-27)

1'. Conclusion (7:28-29)

B'. Healing ministry in Capernaum (8:1-17)

A'. Disciples who did and did not follow; sea episodes (8:18-34)

Note that (1) there appears to be a definitely thematic organization to the material, whether or not it also follows a strictly chronological one, (2) the Sermon on the Mount forms the important center portion of this section, and (3) the passage under consideration appears toward the end of the center portion of the Sermon.

The parallel teaching in Luke's Gospel is placed in an even more important position. The overall structure of that book is a 15-part chiasm in which the center section is Luke 11:1-12:34. Again, the verses in question form the very end of that center section. Thus, both accounts have utilized mainly topical, rather than chronological, rationales to order their books, and both treat the passages in question as high points of their gospels.

Despite the different contexts for these parallel passages, surprisingly they are both arranged in exactly the same way:

A. Do not worry about food, drink, or clothes (Mt. 6:25a; Lk. 12:22)

    B. Proper ordering of priorities (Mt. 6:25b; Lk. 12:23)

        C. Look at the unproductive birds (Mt. 6:26a; Lk. 12:24a)

            D. God gives them food (Mt. 6:26b; Lk. 12:24b)

                E. Aren't you of more value? (Mt. 6:26c; Lk. 12:24c)

                    F. Don't worry about your life (Mt. 6:27; Lk. 12:25-26)

        C'. Consider the lilies (Mt. 6:28; Lk. 12:27a)

            D'. God clothes them with glory (Mt. 6:29; Lk. 12:27b)

                E'. Will he not clothe you more? (Mt. 6:30; Lk. 12:28)

A'. Do not worry about food, drink, or clothes (Mt. 6:31; Lk. 12:29-30)

    B'. Proper ordering of priorities (Mt. 6:32-34; Lk. 12:31)

Despite the marked similarities in the overall arrangement of material, that does not mean that the two accounts are word-for-word the same. To compare the two, we will talk about the ways in which Luke's account differs from that of Matthew, although that does not necessarily imply that Luke changed Matthew's account. The reverse may well be true since we don't know which of the two gospels was written first. And more likely, they both were relying on the same source. To muddy the waters even further, several scholars (such as I.H. Marshall) propose that there may have been two similar sources (Q1 and Q2), with Matthew and Luke relying on different ones.

Section A: Luke omits mention of “drink.” This has the effect of somewhat weakening the parallel with A' which does contain that word. But by omitting “drink,” the correspondence with Section B is made smoother since there is no mention of “drink” there. Both Metzger and France feel that Matthew's “and drink” may in fact be a later addition to the text.

Sections A and A': Blomberg notes, “In v. 34 Jesus returns full circle to the beginning of his discussion (v. 25), encouraging daily dependence n God.”

Section B': Hill states that “righteousness” in Matthew 6:33, which does not appear in Luke's parallel, is “a term which is undoubtedly important to Matthew.” In fact, the word appears six times in Matthew's Gospel compared to only once in Luke. It is therefore safe to assume that Matthew has added the phrase “and his righteousness” to his source.

France feels that Matthew 6:34 is probably an independent saying that Matthew, but not Luke, appended here.

Section C: It is interesting that Luke has the word “ravens” for the generic word “birds” in Matthew's version. There are two opposite ways of explaining this difference. For one, Marshall starts by saying: “No strong editorial reasons for the difference can be established.” But he suggests that perhaps Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, did not want to reference an unclean bird in this context and so he changed the original “raven” to “bird” instead.

Alternatively, one could propose that the original was “birds” After all, the use of “birds” in Lk. 12:24a would fit much better with “birds” in Lk. 12:24b. If Luke did change the first occurrence of the word, a good reason suggests itself. It could have been as a reference back to the OT appearances of ravens in other contexts describing God's provision to both man and beast:

    I Kings 17:4-6: God has ravens bring food to Elijah while he is in hiding.

    Job 38:41: “Who provides prey for the raven when its young ones cry to God?”

    Psalm 147:9: “He gives to the animals their food and to the young ravens when they cry.”

By the way, similar lessons drawn from nature are found in Job 12:7-10; Psalms 37:4,25; 104:10-15,27-30; Proverbs 6:6-11; Jeremiah 8:7; and Matthew 10:29-31; 12:12.

Section D: This is another example where the differences between the two accounts can be explained in two opposite ways. Luke substitutes “God” in place of Matthew's “heavenly Father” in order to form a better parallel to the reference to God in D'. Alternatively, Matthew is very fond of the phrase “heavenly Father” (occurring 17 times within the Sermon on the Mount) since direct reference to “God” would have been frowned upon by his mainly Jewish audience.

Section F: In this central, and thus most important, unit in the whole passage, it appears obvious that Luke has made several minor changes in order to bring out more clearly the significance of this passage. In the first place, he has taken seven of the rhetorical questions present in Matthew's version and turned them into declaratory statements instead. Then he has added one more question to Section F so that the only rhetorical questions in the whole passage end up in this center section, calling attention to them.

Secondly, and most obviously, Luke has added his verse 26 to Matthew's Section F in order to bring added attention to it. Marshall agrees that this is probably a Lukan addition rather than a purposeful deletion of that verse by Matthew.

Apparently not understanding the literary structure of these verses shown in the figure above, Fitzmyer makes the unwarranted comment that Matthew 6:27 // Luke 12:25 is “an intrusive verse” since it “deals with neither food nor clothing.”

A final comment on this section is made by Fitzmyer to the point that Luke has probably substituted one of his favorite verbs katanoein (“look at”) in both verses 24 and 27.

Finally, if all of the above has somehow caused you to question whether we truly have the thoughts of Jesus in this passage, that is not what Bible scholars conclude. For example:

    Marshall: “In general the authenticity of the teaching of Jesus in this section is uncontested...”

    Yang: “...the general consensus of the scholarship that there is a strong continuity between the Sermon and the historical Jesus is correct.”