GENESIS: SIX LEVELS OF SYMMETRY

Books such as The Shape of Biblical Language and Chiasmus in Antiquity demonstrate that some of the symmetrical literary forms found in the Bible are the same as those seen in the ancient literature of other Mediterranean cultures as well as in later religious writings and liturgies (see my posts entitled: “Chiasms in the Book of Mormon” and “John Welch's Literary Analysis of the Book of Mormon”) . This symmetry can be defined as literary units or paragraphs which match up in language and/or theme with other units in the same book in a regular manner in parallel cycles (such as ABC-A'B'C'); chiastic structures (such as ABC-C'B'A'); or combinations of these two forms (such as AB-CDC'-AB).

What those books fail to point out is that the extrabiblical examples often occur in (a) only one section of a larger literary work or (b) do not extend any further than one level of symmetry. By marked contrast, the books of the Bible not only show overall symmetry, but that symmetry almost always extends down to at least one more level. As an example, look at the Book of Genesis. The overall literary structure in Figure 1 demonstrates that it alternates in a regular manner between narrative sections and genealogy lists.

Figure 1: Divisions in the Book of Genesis

I. Narrative (1:1-4:26)

II. Genealogy (5:1-6:8)

III. Narrative (6:9-9:29)

                                                IV. Genealogy (10:1-31)

V. Narrative (10:32-11:9)

VI. Genealogy (11:10-26)

VII. Narrative–Abraham (11:27-25:11)

VIII. Genealogy (25:12-18)

IX. Narrative–Isaac/Jacob (25:19-35:29)

X. Genealogy (36:1-43)

                        XI. Narrative–Joseph (37:1-50:29)

Of these eleven major sections, the last one is the largest. Its structure is defined below:

Figure 2: The Joseph Cycle

A. Jacob’s family dwells in Canaan (37:1-2a)

B. Joseph’s favored status (special garment) (37:2b-3)

C. Separation from brothers (37:4-36)

1. Joseph dreams

                                                    2. The pit–threatened death, slavery in Egypt

                                                        3. Jacob deceived by Joseph’s brothers

D. Judah’s first test (ch. 38)

E. Joseph as a slave (39:1-20)

1. The Lord is with Joseph

                                                                                        2. Overseer of house

                                                                                            3. Potiphar prospers

                                                                                                4. Joseph’s first test

                                                                                                    5. Thrown into prison

E'. Joseph as a prisoner (39:21-41:36)

                                                                            1. The Lord is with Joseph

                                                                                2. Overseer of prisoners

                                                                                    3. Work prospers

                                                                                        4. Joseph’s second test

                                                                                            5. Released from prison

B'. Joseph’s favored status (special garment) (41:37-44)

C'. Reunion with brothers (41:45-42:38)

                                        1. Joseph’s dream fulfilled

                                            2. Prison–threatened death and slavery in Egypt

                                                3. Jacob told the truth by Joseph’s brothers

D'. Judah’s second test (43:1-44:34)

A'. Jacob's family dwells in Egypt; Promise of return to Canaan (45:1-50:26)

Sub-Structure of the Joseph Cycle

The symmetry present in the Joseph Cycle can actually be shown to exist on a further level of organization for the largest unit in Figure 2 – Section A':

Figure 3: The Structure of Section A' (Genesis 45-50) 

1. Joseph weeps and comforts distressed brothers (45:1-8)

    2. Joseph and father's household dwell in Egypt (45:9-47:27) 

        3. Years of Jacob's life (47:28-29a)

            4. Promise to bury Jacob (47:29b-31)

 

                5. Jacob blesses Joseph's sons; younger favored (48:1-20)

                    6. Joseph blessed; promise of return to Canaan (48:21-22)

                5'. Jacob blesses his sons; younger favored (49:1-28)

 

        3'. Jacob dies (49:29-33)

            4'. Jacob is buried (50:1-50:14)

1'. Joseph weeps and reassures distressed brothers (50:15-21)

    2'. Joseph and father's household dwell in Egypt (50:22-26)

The largest of these sub-units, Section A'2, evinces a symmetry of its own:

Figure 4: The Structure of Section A'2 (Genesis 45:9-47:27)

a. Joseph will provide food during famine (45:9-11)

    b. Joseph's charge to brothers (45:12-15)

        c. Pharaoh's provision for Jacob's family (45:16-24)

            d. Charge delivered to Jacob; “I must see him before I die” (45:25-28)

                e. Israel “sets out” to Beersheba (46:1-2)

                    f. God's promise to Jacob (46:3-4)

                e'. Jacob and family “set out” to Egypt (46:5-27)

            d'. Jacob sees Joseph; “I can now die” (46:28-30)

    b'. Joseph's charge to brothers (46:31-47:6)

        c'. Jacob blesses Pharaoh (47:7-10)

a'. Joseph provides food during famine (47:13-27)

 

In turn, the largest of these units can be further subdivided:

Figure 5: The Structure of Section A'2e' (Genesis 46:5-27)

(1). “Jacob and his offspring who came to Egypt” (46:5-8)

    (2). Eight tribes (46:9-19)

        (3). Joseph's two sons (46:20)

    (2'). Three tribes (46:21-25)

        (3'). Joseph's two sons (46:26-27a)

(1'). “All the offspring of Jacob who came to Egypt” (46:27b)

 

Drilling down even further into the structure:

Figure 6: The Structure of Section A'2e'(2)

(a) children of four patriarchs (46:9-12a)

    (b) children of Perez (46:12b)

(a') children of two patriarchs (46:13-14)

        (c)“These are the sons of X...she bore to Jacob,” “daughter”(46:15)

(a'') children of two patriarchs (46:16-17a)

    (b') children of Beriah (46:17b)

        (c') “These are the children of Y...she bore to Jacob,” “daughter” (46:18)

I would defy anyone to find a document, ancient or new, outside of the Bible which contains six successive layers of symmetry or near-symmetry in it

 

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS: JESUS' RESURRECTION

Either one, two, three, or more than three women came to the tomb (John 20:1; Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10)

1. One approach to this conundrum is to simply say that each gospel account gives us only part of the story, and so all must be taken into account to get the complete picture. Thus, John only mentions Mary Magdalene since she is the most important figure for him. He does not specify one way or the other whether there were any other women present. Similarly, Matthew gives us an additional name, as does Mark. Luke gives the most complete details by adding a number of additional women without giving their names. This is in keeping with Luke's emphasis on women in his gospel.

2. An alternative explanation is offered by Geldenhuys in his commentary on Luke. It goes roughly like this: The three women listed by Mark run first to the tomb while the others follow with the spices. Mary Magdalene reaches the tomb first, sees that it is empty and runs off to tell Peter and John. The other Mary and Salome approach the tomb and see an angel inside. Then the remaining women, including Joanna, reach the tomb and see two angels. This scenario also helps to answer the next contradiction.

Two standing angels were seen by the women. (Luke 24:4)

Only one sitting angel was seen by the women. (Matthew 28:2,5)

One should also add the account in Mark 16:5-6 into the mix. A more complete summary of the three accounts is as follows:

    Matthew: The women go to the tomb. The “angel of the Lord” descends from heaven, rolls away the stone and sits on it. The guards become as dead men. The angel talks to the women.

    Mark: The women go to the tomb and find the stone already rolled away. A young man is seated to the right of the tomb.

    Luke: The stone is already rolled away when the women arrive. Two men in dazzling clothes stand before them.

Let's take the details one at a time to show how they can be resolved:

When was the stone rolled away? Mark and Luke agree that it had been done before the women arrived. But what about Matthew? F.F. Bruce states the obvious alternatives: “Matthew seems to imply that they also saw the opening of the tomb, although he may narrate the opening of the tomb as something that happened while the women were traveling and before they arrived at the tomb.”

Was/were the angel/angels sitting or standing? Again, Bruce points out that unless we feel that angels are somehow incapable of motion, they could move about at will so that, for example, a seated angel could get up and stand, and vice versa.

How many angels were there? Here are three possible approaches to answering this question:

1. Geldenhuys explains that although two angels were present, “obviously only one of the angels would act as spokesman” and thus the other one could easily be ignored or forgotten by the witnesses who acted as sources for Matthew and Mark or by the evangelists themselves in the interest of simplicity.

The stress on two angels as witnesses to the resurrection by Luke also serves the function of tying this event with the two heavenly witnesses at Jesus' transfiguration (Luke 9:28-36) and ascension (Acts 1:10). This possibility is brought up by Ellis, Craddock, and Porter in their commentaries on Luke's Gospel. In favor of this proposal is the fact, brought out by Marshall, that the clothing in Luke's transfiguration story is said to be dazzling (exastrapto) and angel's garments are similarly called radiant (astrapto).

3. A final point is that there is no telling whether or not an angelic being possesses the power to appear as either a single or multiple entity, depending on the viewer and the circumstances. Consider Genesis 18-10 where Abraham interacts with angelic beings:

    18:1 The LORD appeared to Abraham.

    18:2 It was three men who appeared.

    18:3 Abraham addresses them in the singular as “my Lord.”

    18:5-9 They are now in the plural.

    18:10 One of them speaks.

    18:3-15 The LORD speaks to Abraham.

    18:16 The “men” leave for Sodom.

    18:17-20 The LORD speaks to himself.

    18:22 The men leave while the LORD stays behind.

    18:23-33 The LORD speaks with Abraham and then leaves.

    19:1 The two angels come to Sodom.

One explanation is that God appeared as one of the three men, but another possibility is some sort of supernatural “shape-shifting” going on.

The women came to the tomb at sunrise. (Mark 16:2)

It was some time before sunrise. (John 20:1)

Robertson's Harmony of the Gospels gives two possible explanations.

1. John notes the time that the women started from Bethany when it was still dark. Soon it would have become early dawn, as Luke records in Luke 24:1. But by the time they arrived it would have been daylight, as in Matthew 28.

2. The expression in John 20 “the sun was risen” (aorist participle) may refer to the general phenomena of sunrise. Thus, the first gleam of daylight had appeared although the sun had not yet risen. Robertson quotes three OT passages in the Septuagint that employ the phrase in this way.

Two angels were seen by within the sepulchre. (John 20:11-12)

Only one angel was seen within the sepulchre. (Mark 16:5)

Even a cursory glance at the settings for these verses will show that they occurred at different time periods. Mark 16:5 happened the first time Mary Magdalene entered the tomb while John 20:11-12 occurred after Peter and the other disciple had already heard the word, gone to the tomb and then returned home.

The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection to go to Galilee. (Matthew 28:10)

The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection to tarry in Jerusalem. (Luke 24:33-37; John 20:19)

In the first place, the references in the second group above are totally incorrect. John 20 says nothing regarding a command to stay in Jerusalem, and the Luke 24 reference should be to verse 49 instead.

Secondly, there is no contradiction here. Jesus tells Mary that he will be meeting the disciples in Galilee, but that very evening he appears to them himself and tells them to first stay a little while in Jerusalem. We don't know the exact reason for his “premature” appearances to them in Jerusalem, but it may have been to totally convince them all, including Thomas, that he was indeed risen. Or, of course, it could have been to give them the reason for that tarrying.

The Holy Ghost was bestowed at Pentacost. (Acts 1:5,8)

The Holy Ghost was bestowed before Pentacost. (John 20:22)

Much has been written on this subject, distinguishing between the two events. For the sake of simplicity, I will just repeat what Leon Morris has written on the subject in his fine commentary, The Gospel According to John:

Some scholars hold that the two are incompatible. They maintain that Luke thought that the Spirit was not bestowed until ten days after the ascension, whereas John thought of this gift as taking place on the evening of the the day of resurrection. But this may be going too fast. The circumstances of the two gifts are completely different. And, whereas that in Acts 2 is followed immediately by some very effective preaching, no sequel to this gift is narrated [in John 20]. It is the teaching of the New Testament that “there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit (I Cor. 12:4), and the problem is probably to be solved along these lines. It is false alike to the New Testament and to Christian experience to maintain that there is but one gift of the Spirit. Rather the Spirit is continually manifesting Himself in new ways. So John tells us of one gift and Luke of another.

Again, the minor differences in wording and details should convince us that the four gospel authors did not simply get together to fabricate a common lie between them. These are four separate witnesses to the same events, either seen personally by themselves or as relayed to them by eye-witnesses.

 

INTERTEXTUALITY IN THE BOOK OF MICAH

Intertextuality is a technical term that simply means one book referring to another one. As might be expected, the Bible has a great deal of intertextuality in it since, although it was composed by many different human authors, it was all inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Two books have been published in the last few years that are of immense help to anyone who wants to study how different books of the Bible interact with one another: Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament edited by Beale & Carson and Old Testament Use of Old Testament by Gary Edward Schnittjer.

On this blog, I have written a number of posts entitled “The Old Testament in – Mark's Gospel, Acts, Revelation, etc. etc.” but none concerning the situation when two OT passages in different books, A and B, use the same or similar language. In that particular case, as Schnittjer says, “Nearly every aspect of the scriptural use of Scripture remains contested.” The reason is that there are at least four possible reasons for such similarities:

    1. Both A and B may simply be using stock phrases and idioms common to the time and culture.

    2. Both A and B may be dependent on a third source C.

    3. A may be dependent on B.

    4. B may be dependent on A.

As a random example, I would like to look at the Book of Micah to discuss some examples of potential borrowing. Micah was one of the earliest Minor Prophets, a younger contemporary of Isaiah, and was active in the second half of the 8^th century BC during the neo-Assyrian period. First consider the cases where the later prophet Jeremiah appears to echo Micah's words. One would think that there would be no doubt as to the direction of borrowing here, but Andersen and Freedman propose that Micah 4-5 may be a later addition to the book, and thus these chapters may actually have been taken from Jeremiah instead of the reverse. Cha has identified four major themes and 23 specific examples of common vocabulary between these two prophets. Without attempting to be exhaustive, here are some of those parallels abstracted from writings by Keil, Schnittjer, Mobley and others:

Micah 1:8 // Jer. 50:39     The stock phrase “howl of the jackal and ostrich,” which is also used three times by Isaiah, indicates the desolation of the cities.

Micah 1:16 // Jer. 7:29; 16:6      The concept of shaving one's head during mourning and lamentation also appears in Isaiah 15:2 and 22:12. The practice was usually accompanied by wearing sackcloth and ashes and wailing out loud.

Micah 2:1 // Jer. 18:11      Andersen and Freedman note that the order “plan (evil)” and “do (it)” in Micah is reversed in Jeremiah.

Micah 2:4 // Jer. 31:22; 49:4     The key noun translated as captors, plunderer, apostate, etc. only appears in these three biblical passages. It appears in the masculine form in Micah and the feminine in Jeremiah.

Micah 3:5 // Jer. 6:14; 8:11; 23:17     Three times Jeremiah repeats Micah's denunciation of those prophets who falsely promise peace to the people when there is no peace.

Micah 3:5,11 // Jer. 6:13; 8:10     Abuse of the custom of giving a gift to a prophet for a consultation is mentioned in these passages. (Grisanti)

Micah 3:9,12 // Jer. 26:18      This is perhaps the most interesting use of Micah in the OT in that he was quoted at Jeremiah's trial. “A century after his death, the words of Micah concerning the downfall of Zion were still remembered. On that occasion the prophet Jeremiah might well have been put to death for prophesying destruction for the Temple and the Holy City had not certain elders of the land recalled that Micah of Moresheth had said precisely the same thing a hundred years earlier.” (Harrison) So we have a unique case of one OT prophet being saved by another one.

And D.J. Clark adds, “On the testimony of Jer. 26:17-19, this passage (Mic. 3:1-12) or at least the last part of it...was influential in stimulating reform.”

Micah 4:9-10 // Jer. 4:31; 48:41; 49:22     The simile comparing Jerusalem in her distress with the travails of a pregnant woman undergoing birth pains is found in Micah and Jeremiah 4:31. The other two Jeremiah passages apply it to surrounding nations as God visits them in judgment. This picture also appears in Isaiah 13:8 and 26:17.

Micah 5:11 // Jer. 5:17      The only similarity between these two passages is that they both contain prophecies that the fortified cities of the land will be overthrown.

Micah 6:16 // Jer. 19:8; 25:9,18; 51:37    These passages use the stock prophetic phrase of judgment on a nation which will become “an object of hissing” (and desolation, object of horror, etc.).

Micah 7:5 // Jer. 9:4      Society has degenerated to the point that Micah warned his audience to even beware of their friends and relatives. Similarly, Jeremiah warns the people to beware of their neighbors and own kin.

Note that Jeremiah may well be borrowing from Isaiah rather than from Micah in three instances noted above. And since Micah and Isaiah were writing during the same time period, that brings up the additional possibility that either of those two prophets may have borrowed from the other one in the parallel passages listed below (also derived from lists in Keil, Schnittjer, and Mobley):

Micah 1:2 // Is. 1:2      Both prophets begin by giving their name and then stating that what follows is “a vision” (or something the prophet “saw”) “concerning Samaria (Judah) and Jerusalem.”

Micah 1:3-4 // Is. 26:21      A coming time of judgment is described as when “Yahweh will come out of his place.”

Micah 2:1-5 // Is. 5:8-12; 32:7     L.C. Allen says that Isaiah wrote “in the same rhetorical vein” in Is. 5:8 regarding the greedy land barons, but makes no suggestions regarding any direct borrowing between the two prophets here. Both Micah 2:1 and Isaiah 32:7 talk about those who “devise wickedness.”

Micah 2:11 // Is. 28:7     The common phrase “teachers of wine and drunkenness” appears in both passages.

Micah 3:2 // Is. 5:20     There are roughly parallel statements in these two passages describing how the people have perverted truth and values completely. Micah denounces those who hate the good and love the evil. Isaiah similarly exposes those who call evil good and call good evil.

Micah 3:5-7 // Is. 29:9-12     Both passages denounce false prophets who will be blinded from receiving any messages from God, as seen by the excerpts below: 

        “Therefore it shall be night for you without vision and darkness to you without revelation. The sun shall go down upon the prophets and the day shall be black over them” (Micah 3:6 NRSV)

        “...blind yourselves and be blind...For the LORD...has closed your eyes, you prophets, and covered your heads, you seers.” (Isaiah 29:9-10 NRSV)

Micah 3:8 // Is. 11:2; 58:1; 61:1-3     There are several echos between Isaiah and Micah 3:8. Both prophets declare the spirit of God is upon them. However, in Isaiah 61:1-3 it is in order to declare good news to the oppressed while in Micah's case it is in order to denounce the nation for its sins. In Isaiah 58:1, he declares “to my people their rebellion and to the house of Jacob their sin.” In a similar manner, Micah declares “to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin.” As a final similarity between the two prophets, Micah declares in 3:8 that he is “filled with power, with the spirit of the LORD, and with justice and might.” Compare this declaration with the well-known messianic passage Isaiah 11:2 where the prophet foretells that the “spirit of the LORD shall be upon him, the spirit of...counsel and might.”

Micah 3:11 // Is. 1:23     Similar denunciations of the people of Israel are given in these passages including the fact that bribe-taking by those in charge has become a common practice.

Micah 3:12 // Is. 32:13-14      Both prophets tell of a time when Jerusalem will be utterly deserted.

Micah 4:1-5 // Is. 2:1-5     Shared language includes “mountain of Yahweh” and “walk before Yahweh.” Schnittjer extensively discusses the relationship between these two passages before saying: “In sum, the evidence tentatively suggests Mic 4:1-5 as an exegetical allusion to Isaiah's vision of the mountain of Yahweh. Micah elaborates on personal benefits but also sharply distinguishes between Jacob and 'them' in last days.”

    Just to show that even careful and knowledgeable Bible scholars do not always agree, Andersen and Freedman devote ten pages to considering the same issue, but using slightly different criteria. They conclude that the direction of borrowing was by Isaiah from Micah.

    To confuse the matter even more, Archer proposes that perhaps “the same revelation was granted to both prophets at about the same time; it is hardly likely that one would have copied from the other.”

    Oswalt labels Archer's suggestion as “strained.” His own explanation is: “It is more likely that the saying...had become a common possession of the several priestly and prophetic communities within the nation and that one or both of these prophets drew from that common heritage.”

    Finally, Blenkinsopp states, “Every possible explanation for this duplication has been given at one time or another...In this instance certainty is unattainable.” But he personally leans toward the explanation that Isaiah was the original.

Micah 4:10 // Is. 39:6-7      Both of these passage clearly predict the Babylonian captivity, although Micah also offers a vision of hope for the people eventually.

Micah 5:2 // Is. 63:9      Allen notes that the phrase “days of yore” which occurs in these two verses is “always set within a historical framework.”

Micah 5:2-4 // Is. 7:14; 9:6-7     The same verb “has brought forth (a child)” is present in both passages. The verb form indicates that the event is imminent, according to Smith. In this messianic prophecy, “Micah is echoing and endorsing popular expectation...rather than directly citing Isa. 7.” (L.C. Allen) Isaiah 9 is similar to Micah 5 in that both describe the birth of a child who will act as savior.

    Smith cites several scholars who feel that a common source was used by both prophets as well as others who feel that Isaiah's prophecy came first and Micah added to it.

Micah 5:10-15 // Is. 2:6-22      Blenkinsopp says, “It appears, moreover, that Mic 5:10-15 has borrowed motifs and turns of phrase from the poem about judgment on faithless Israel in Isa. 2:6-22.” One such phrase is when the people “bow down to the work of their hands.”

Micah 7:10 // Is. 10:6     Enemies will be trodden down like the “mire of the streets.”

Micah 7:12 // Is. 11:11      God will return a remnant of his people from exile from many countries including Egypt and Assyria.

Micah 7:17 // Is. 49:23     Defeated enemies will “will lick the dust” of your feet (Isaiah) or like a snake (Micah).

 

I SAMUEL 11:1-2

During a recent Sunday school class the question came up concerning what would happen if a missing letter of Paul were discovered. How much proof would we need to accept it as genuine? Also, wouldn't it bring up the question as to why God allowed it to be lost for so many years? The closest analogy to that situation I could think of involved the above passage where it appears that indeed a whole verse of the Bible may have been missing until recently. Granted that omission did not involve any great theological issues, but the incident is still enough to make one think.

There are two main problems with this I Samuel 11 passage: Who is Nahash and why did he attack Jabesh and want to blind the people? The first presents a problem since in all other cases when a foreign ruler is introduced (in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel or Kings), that person's full title is given. The second question arises since the opening of I Samuel 11 seems to come out of the clear blue with no historical context behind it. And then one of the Dead Sea scrolls was deciphered which seems to solve both questions. (The story is summarized in Bible Review I (3), pp. 28-29.)

The scroll in question was an early Hebrew copy of I Samuel in which the passage in question read:

“Nahash, king of the children of Ammon, sorely oppressed the children of Gad and the children of Reuben, and he gouged out all their right eyes and struck terror...in Israel. There was not one left among the children of Israel be[yond the Jordan who]se right eye was not put out by Nahash king of the children of Ammon; except that 7,000 entered Jabesh-Gilead. About a month later – [followed by the start of I Samuel 11:1].”

This version not only explains who Nahash was but also why he was attacking the city. It was because the 7,000 refugees from the trans-Jordan tribes were hiding there. By the way, that title “king of the children of Ammon” is a rather unusual one. But a four-inch bronze jar from ca. 600 BC was uncovered in recent years from Ammonite territory. The inscription on it gives the title of the Ammonite ruler as “king of the children of Ammon.”

This addition has all the marks of authenticity, and so NRSV for example has added this long passage from the Dead Sea scrolls at the end of II Samuel 10:27 to serve as a prologue to II Samuel 11.

 

BOOK OF PROVERBS: LESSON STUDY OUTLINE

Some books are best studied verse by verse while others should really be tackled in a topical manner. My own feeling concerning the Book of Proverbs is that a combination of these two approaches is preferable. So below is a suggested outline that also references in the right hand column various posts on this site for useful material to study.

Introductory Topics

    The nature of proverbs                                                      “Interpreting Biblical Proverbs”

    Key words defined

    Overall organization of the book                                      “Proverbs: Introduction to the Literary                                                                                                         Structure”

Proverbs 1-3: Lady Wisdom and the “Strange” Woman     “Proverbs 1-3”

Proverbs by Topic                                                               “Proverbs: Main Topics” contains a list of                                                                                                     specific passages in Proverbs arranged                                                                                                         topically. These could be used as a                                                                                                             springboard for group discussion rather than                                                                                             lecture.

    The Righteous vs. The Wicked

    The Wise vs. The Foolish                                               “Proverbs: The Wise vs. The Foolish”

    The Fear of the Lord

    The Tongue                                                                    “Proverbs: Proper Speech”

    Disciplining and Living Under Authority

    Work and Business Principles

    Defending the Underprivileged

    Sexual Relationships                                                     “Proverbs 5-7”

    Other Human Relationships

    Wealth and Poverty                                                      “Proverbs: Wealth and Poverty”

Proverbs 30:1-31:9 (Agur and Lemuel)                          “Proverbs 30 and 31:1-9”

Proverbs 31: The Virtuous Woman                                 “Proverbs 31:10-31: The Virtuous Woman”

                                                                                         “Proverbs 31:10-31 Updated”

 

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS: THE WISDOM LITERATURE

The following “contradictions” came from an anonymous posting on the internet. Since they involve the Wisdom Literature I must first reiterate that the Book of Proverbs and the comments of Job's friends usually quote common wisdom in terms of general rules. By contrast, Job and the author of Ecclesiastes often point out the limitations of conventional wisdom in applying universally to all situations. But we don't even need to invoke that general principle in order to see through the apparent discrepancies in the pairs of “biblical” statements given below. You will see that the rather underhanded techniques utilized most often in fabricating these are to (1) misstate what the quoted verses actually say and/or (2) completely ignore the context in which the individual verses appear.

Annihilation is the portion of all mankind. (Job 3:11,13-17,19-22; Ecclesiastes 9:5,10; 3:19-20)

Endless misery is the portion of all mankind. (Matthew 25:46; Revelation 20:10,15; 14:11; Daniel 12:2)

For the general concept of annihilation of the unsaved rather than eternal punishment, see my several posts on Annihilationism. However, that is light years away from saying that either annihilation or endless misery is in store for “all mankind,” as stated above. The first thing to note is that, with the exception of Daniel 12, there is no mention of any sort of afterlife in the OT verses above whereas it is found in the NT as an example of the well-known principle of progressive revelation in the Bible.

In regard to Ecclesiastes 9, the emphasis in that chapter is strictly on life “under the sun” (a phrase found in vv. 3, 6, 9, 11 and 13), meaning this present existence only. What I find most interesting is the purposeful omission of verses associated with those quoted above. For example, right after Eccles. 3:19-20 comes v. 21 in which the author hints that perhaps humans will have a different fate than the animals, but “who knows?”

The same trick is used elsewhere by the author of these contradictions. Thus, it is patently obvious that endless misery is not the fate of all mankind, but only for the unsaved. Just look at Matthew 25:46; Revelation 14:13; and 20:12-13.

Longevity is denied to the wicked. (Ecclesiastes 8:13; Proverbs 10:27; Ecclesiastes 7:17)

Longevity is enjoyed by the wicked. (Job 21:7-9; Psalm 17:14; Ecclesiastes 8:12; Isaiah 65:20)

There are a lot of passages to consider here, but I will try to keep it brief:

Ecclesiastes 8:12-13: Glenn labels this chapter “Man's Ignorance.” He adds, “Failure to punish wickedness [here on earth] is a great enigma...such a contradiction of the doctrine of retributive justice was meaningless or enigmatic.” Of course, it did not remain an enigma with the further revelations given in the NT.

Proverbs 10:27: Buzzell states: “Usually the wicked have none of these [i.e. long life, joy, safety, etc.] when seen from the perspective of eternity.” And even in this life, a wicked lifestyle can have the effect of limiting one's lifetime. As are most proverbs, this one expresses a general rule that may not apply in all cases.

Ecclesiastes 7:17: One must also consider the parallel thought in 7:16. Putting both of them together, they simply state that excessive preoccupation with striving for either absolute righteousness or wickedness will drive you to an early grave. In addition, from a practical point of view, those who lead a reckless and foolish life may not live very long due to drug overdoses, auto accidents, obesity, liver disease, etc.

Job 21:7-9: Job looks in this chapter at examples he has seen of the wicked rich and asks in v. 16 what advantage the righteous have since (v. 26) their common fate is to die. Again, this makes no sense whatsoever if there is no afterlife.

Psalm 17:14: I fail to see what this verse has to say about the subject at hand. It is a wish expressed by the Psalmist to God that He would destroy his enemies as they are trying to destroy him.

Isaiah 65:20: This verse says nothing whatsoever about the wicked or present conditions on earth. This whole chapter is an apocalyptic vision of the new heaven and new earth.

Ecclesiastes 8:12-13 is by far the most interesting example that the critic presents since he places these two adjacent verses (which are actually part of the same Hebrew sentence) in different categories. That should immediately give rise to doubts in any reasonable mind whether an author could baldly contradict himself within the same sentence unless the author himself was not in possession of all his mental faculties. Below are some comments on this passage by a variety of scholars:

    The first thing to explain is that there are some serious problems related to the proper translation of these two verse. Whybray notes that the Greek Septuagint translates the Hebrew word “prolong” as its alternative meaning of “postpone.” Thus, “the sinner is able to persist in his wicked deeds only because God in his patience postpones the punishment.” He also points out that “his life” does not even appear in the Hebrew original.

    Seow says that “Qohelet accepts the orthodox doctrine of retribution, but he points to a contradiction of it in reality.” Scholars such as Glenn, Scott, and Longman practically parrot these same thoughts.

    So where does that leave Qohelet? Glenn says that the author concludes that it is an enigma (see vv. 10 and 14 which bracket these two verses). Longman states, “It is difficult to tell whether Qohelet thus exposes his own conflicting thoughts or else is quoting conventional wisdom...” And Ellul says that it expresses Qohelet's faith “in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.” Of course, if the author had had an eternal perspective on the situation in which judgment is reserved for the afterlife, there would be no enigma at all. As Seow puts it: “The wicked may live long, but the human life-span is finally limited.”

Poverty is a blessing. (Luke 6:20,24; James 2:5)

Riches are a blessing. (Proverbs 10:15; Job 22:23-24; Job 42:12)

Neither poverty nor riches are a blessing. (Proverbs 30:8-9)

Let's consider these passages in turn:

Luke 6:20 is parallel to Matthew 5:3, which clarifies that it is the “poor in spirit” being talked about.

Luke 6:24 is a condemnation of the rich who consider themselves self-sufficient because of their riches.

James 2:5 does concern the materially poor, but it doesn't say that poverty itself is a blessing, only that those people are among those who have been chosen to receive riches in heaven as a compensation.

Proverbs 10:15 only states that in this present life, wealth gives certain advantages over poverty.

Job 22:23-24 actually says the opposite of what the Bible critic claims. It states that you should quit thinking about material wealth and God will give you spiritual blessings. And that is exactly what Job receives in 42:12, as well as material ones.

Proverbs 30:8-9 is a good summary of all the above passages: There are pitfalls at both extremes in that riches may cause one to desert God while absolute poverty may drive one to disobey God's commandments.

Wisdom is a source of enjoyment. (Proverbs 3:13,17)

Wisdom is a source of vexation, grief and sorrow. (Ecclesiastes 1:17-18)

In the context of Proverbs 3:13-35, a hymn to wisdom, it is obvious this does not concern earthly wisdom, but the sort of wisdom on how to live your life in the fear of the LORD. By contrast, by concentrating instead on the knowledge of all that is going on in the world (vv. 13-14), one will only become more sorrowful (v. 18).

Concerning Eccles:1:17-18, Kidner says, “If one fate comes to all, and that fate is extinction, it robs every man of his dignity and every project of its point...if death is the end of the road, the contention that there is nothing to choose between them [i.e. good and bad, wise and foolish, etc.] will get the last word.” D.G. Moore adds that “some of the most thoughtful non-Christians...can easily analyze that humanity doesn't get along well without God, yet they struggle to find an antidote.”

A good name is a blessing. (Ecclesiastes 7:1; Proverbs 22:1)

A good name is a curse. (Luke 6:26)

Eaton clarifies Ecclesiastes 7:1 by saying, “In Israel a name was no mere label but intended to express an underlying nature. What is in view is not simply a good name (which may be undeserved), but a reputation which flows from character.” Similarly, Waltke on Proverbs 22:1 says, “In sum, a good name is the outward expression of a person's inner wisdom.”

When we come to the NT text given above, however, the context (see Luke 6:22-23) is the contrast between God's faithful spokespersons who will be condemned by society and lose their public reputation vs. the false prophets who had a good name with the populace since they said what people wanted to hear. This is much like the Prosperity Gospel proponents vs. those who preach the sometimes uncomfortable truth.

Laughter is commended. (Ecclesiastes 3:1,4; Ecclesiastes 8:15)

Laughter is condemned. (Luke 6:25; Ecclesiastes 7:3-4)

In the first place, laughter is not commended in Eccles. 3; it merely says that there will be times when laughter may be appropriate. Loader does not even go that far but states that this poem often suffers “from mistaking these pronouncements for prescriptions.” In other words, laughter is not being commended at all. Moving to Eccles. 8:15, it says nothing at all about laughter, but instead commends “enjoyment” since it comes from God and is given to those who please him (Eccles 2:25-25). As Glenn puts it: “Man cannot control or predict adversity or prosperity; however, each day's joys should be received as gifts from God's hand.”

Jesus in Luke 6:25 does not condemn laughter per se but merely warns that there will be surprises and reversals of fortune at the last judgment. And if you consider the whole context of Eccles. 7:3-7, you can see that it is a warning to fools who take no heed for what comes after death. As D.G. Moore says, “It is not that Solomon believes all laughter to be wrong...Here he is speaking of a frivolous laughter that is not anchored to truth.”

The rod of correction is a remedy for foolishness. (Proverbs 22:15)

There is no remedy for foolishness. (Proverbs 27:22)

Waltke: Youth's folly is described in Prov. 22:7-14 bracketed by the necessity of teaching him while still young (vv. 6, 15) before he becomes intractable. That latter condition when he becomes older is described in Prov. 27:22 and just reinforces the necessity of discipline when a person is young and teachable.

 

NOTES ON RUTH

Ruth 1-4 Nine times God's name is used in a prayer asking for a blessing on a major character in the 

book. The text then shows how each of these prayers was answered. (Kaiser)

 

Ruth 1:1 Naomi and her husband did not have to leave Bethlehem to survive, as evidenced by the 

many people there who still recognized her. Deuteronomy 23:3-4 teaches that Jews were not to have 

anything to do with Moabites since Moab would not give bread and water to Jews coming out of Egypt 

and even hired Balaam to curse the Israelites. (George L. Miller, who is also responsible for some of 

the other comments below)

 

Ruth 1:2 The verb in verse 1 denotes a brief stay while “remain” in verse 2 denotes a settling there.

Implications? 

Mahlon = "sickly" and Chilion = "pining away."

 

Ruth 1:4 Oprah Winfrey was named Orpah but someone transposed two letters accidentally.

 

Ruth 1:6 The famine had probably been over for some time, and it was only the deaths that decided 

her to return. 

 

Ruth 1:8 It has been suggested that the primary motive for Naomi's actions was to hide the fact that 

her sons had married Moabites. But in any case, it does not reflect well on Naomi that she wanted her 

daughters-in-law to remain in a pagan nation instead of coming to Israel.

Ruth 1:16-17 This reflects the proper order of events in v. 16. First a person must become a Jew 

("your people") and then they can partake of all religious ceremonies ("your God").

In S. Korean culture these verses are used during the wedding ceremony as part of the vows to control 

the bride by her mother-in-law.

 

Ruth 1:21 She blames God for her misfortunes rather than her own sinful actions. Similar to the 

Prodigal Son story.  Miller asks, “How long would that prodigal son have stayed away from home if he 

had kept on winning at the slot machines, and the lottery and his stocks kept going up?”

 

Ruth 2:2This verse indicates that at least Naomi had taught Ruth about the Mosaic laws regarding the 

practice of gleaning.

 

Ruth 3:4 Why was it done at night? Perhaps so that Ruth would not publicly embarrass Boaz 

if he had refused to be the kinsman-redeemer.

 

Ruth 4:5 A suggestion as a motive for the refusal was that the man thought the family was 

cursed due to all their untimely deaths and he didn't want any part of it. This is reminiscent of the story 

of Judah story with the deaths of of the sons who had married Tamar.

 

Ruth 4:14 Naomi is a picture of Israel out of fellowship with God until the son is born.

 

DIALOGUE WITH AN ATHEIST: PART 7

Below is the last correspondence the two of us had on the subject. As far as I know, he is still a non-believer. This is a demonstration that apologetics can only take one so far. For even if all objections to a theistic worldview have been met, there are still non-logical reasons remaining that may keep a person from faith. To make this final dialogue a little more understandable, I have included by friend's comments in bold. 

I don't understand why it's grasping at straws (etc.) to say that free will, though unexplained today, might someday be explained by naturalistic processes.

In the first place, I fully accept your “might.” Secondly, forgive me for tweaking you, but I was merely turning the tables on those (perhaps not yourself) who characterize theists as ignorant boobs who have no idea what logical thought entails and rely solely on feelings and wishful thinking to justify their belief in an entity who cannot be observed by the physical senses. I hope you see that in actuality there is not that much difference ultimately in thought or belief processes between those who “feel” that there must be a God and those who “feel” that there must be a way to preserve their own free will in the absence of God and the absence of any other present explanation.

You seem to be claiming that naturalism implies determinism. You said that for naturalistic explanations, "given identical operating factors, two given people would act in exactly the same manner as one another all the time." But that isn't even true of electrons. Quantum mechanics is simply not a deterministic theory. And some people (though not me) even think that consciousness and free will are strongly related to quantum mechanics.

I fully agree with you that quantum mechanics does not relate directly to free will. That extrapolation is akin to deriving Social Darwinism from Charles Darwin's teachings. At most, quantum mechanics may provide a possible antecedent model for your hypothetical theory regarding free will. The literature on this general subject is voluminous, and much of it (I admit) way beyond me. For example, you might be very interested in reading http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/ , which seems to provide ammunition for both our competing points of view. To support mine, it states the obvious fact that quantum mechanics is only “random” on a microscopic level, and certainly not on a macroscopic one. Therefore your statement “But that isn't even true of electrons” should more properly say “But that is only true of electrons.” Also, there is a stream of thought that denies any randomness to quantum mechanics even on that level (witness the strange phenomenon in which one paired particle seems to influence at a distance the other one so that if one particle is free to act randomly, the other member of the pair has no “free will.”), and certainly not to other laws of nature—which are generally accepted as being deterministic. In addition, the above article actually attempts to show that quantum mechanics itself provides one of the strongest proofs for absolute causality in the universe, albeit a strange one in which cause and effect may also run backwards in time as well as forward.

“I also think that belief in causality & the objectivity of reality need not (and cannot) be predicated on an ability to explain subatomic phenomena based on analogies to macroscopic phenomena. A belief in causality & objective reality which incorporates an acknowledgment that the behavior of subatomic particles must inevitably be somewhat strange when compared to our macroscopic world represents a pragmatic synthesis of 'predictivism' and 'realism'": The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by Ben Best

As to Occam's Razor, ... it looks to me like Occam's advice isn't all that useful in many of the "curiosity"cases, because of the difficulty of agreeing on how many entities are necessary.

I agree with you wholly in this case since that was actually the point I was attempting to make in my roundabout way; good detailed analysis on your part.

You're right that my view of morality starts from some sort of axioms that are skewed toward a non-poor, non-religious, Western point of view.

In this regard, there is an interesting article by Sharon Begley in the latest Newsweek (March 1) summarizing some of the latest experiments in the area of “cultural neuroscience.” The article concludes, “It is important to push the analysis to the level of the brain. Especially when it shows how fundamental cultural differences are—so fundamental, perhaps, that 'universal' notions such as human rights, democracy, and the like may be no such thing.” I believe that was my contention in my last letter.

A person viewing things that way is happy to support a libertarian-like morality which emphasizes "don't initiate force" or "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone."

Of course, such laissez faire morality falls far short of the behavior which actually initiates good toward another person rather than just letting him alone, whatever the State might decide to do about situations of inequality.

Actually, I'm not sure I'm entirely clear of what you mean by absolute morality. You take moral axioms as coming from someplace outside the human race; I take them as coming from introspection regarding the most important needs of one's self and one's "people"; but might those two approaches converge on similar rules for behavior in most cases?

My own definition of absolute morality basically means that it came from an Absolute source, not one culturally determined. And, yes, the two approaches may in a number of cases give the same results because of sheer chance, or because both are valid approaches, or because your introspection is biased by the largely Judeo-Christian society you grew up in, or because of some spark of divinely inspired conscience implanted in you. The New Testament even speaks to such a situation by stating that some people by their very nature or by following their own conscience will fulfill God's law even if they have never heard of it.

What are your answers to the soldier, hangman and self-defense questions?

From a biblical point of view, there are a few considerations to begin with. First, understanding the Old Testament command not to kill begins with a proper definition of the Hebrew word for “kill.” It basically means to murder in cold blood and is different from other Hebrew words that describe a legally mandated execution for crimes, causing a death during battle, or manslaughter. Jesus went to the heart of the matter when he basically replaced this absolute command with the statement that whoever was angry with another person was guilty of murder. I realize that this does not really form a firm basis for decisions of morality in all cases, but then Christianity is not mainly an ethical religion. By going to the motive behind the action, Jesus instituted what might be called situational ethics, but not in the lax sense in which that term is usually employed.

Soldier: This subject was controversial even in the 1st century church. The New Testament letters mention several soldiers who served Rome even after they converted to Christianity without condemning them for their actions. I know a number of Christians who have served voluntarily in the Armed Forces and I would not question their morality at all since they seemed to have done it more from a defensive than offensive view. Personally, I would try to avoid any possible future moral conflicts that would inevitably arise from serving in the military by not enlisting and trying my best to avoid the draft (which we were both successful in doing).

Hangman (or juror in a capital offense trial): The Old Testament is, of course, replete with examples and teachings that support execution for a number of offenses. The historical situation was one in which there were no convenient ways to lock up and maintain a prisoner. Thus, society could only be preserved from their future actions by execution or fining them. The New Testament has nothing to say on the matter since the early Christians were not in a position to enforce any form of capital executions. One exception is the NT story in which Jesus prevents a crowd of self-righteous teachers from stoning an adulterous woman, even though that was the penalty for that offense according to Jewish law. That leaves us with more general principles and guidelines to fall back on. Basically, physical life is not as important as one's eternal soul. Therefore the Christian thing to do would be to lock a person up rather than kill him since there is always the real possibility of true repentance over time (attested by several of my friends who carry out prison ministries).

Self-Defense: Again, I would probably reach the same conclusion you would in this case. It is hard (but not impossible) to imagine a situation in which an aggressor to one's family or person could not be stopped except by killing him. Calling the police, locking one's self in a safe place, forcibly restraining the attacker, using psychology on him, or even maiming him would all appear to be reasonable alternatives. You may ask: don't some of these approaches contradict sayings of Christ regarding “turning the other cheek” or “going the extra mile?” Not if you consider the context of these sayings. In neither case was one's own life in jeopardy, in neither case was another innocent party involved, and in both cases the motive is stated to be an attempt to convert the attitude of a merely annoying and unloving person by shaming them through your non-aggressive response. None of these factors applies in the typical self-defense scenario.

Hard-to-explain phenomena: I must disagree on the one about the time factors necessary for biotic evolution.

Since you did not mention the other phenomena I threw out, I would assume that they fall into the category of things you have faith that science will eventually be able to explain. Fair enough. Regarding time, I obviously do not believe in an earth that is only a few thousand years old. However, you may be surprised to learn that it is by no means universally accepted by scientists and mathematicians that a 4.5 billion year old earth provides enough time to account for the initial origin of life or the present diversity and complexity of species utilizing random Darwinian processes. Thus we see the efforts to push the ultimate origin of life to another universe to escape this difficulty (as well as the so far insolvable problem of monochirality). Just a few typical articles are shown below (The last one may be from a Christian source so you may not trust it, but it certainly demonstrates Fred Hoyle's firm belief that life could not have originated on earth and some of the problems with his own proposed solution.)

1. http://journalofcosmology.com/SearchForLife123.html on lack of enough time to account for purely evolutionary mechanisms to account for life's origin on earth with only 4.5 billion years available.

2. ttp://beta.springerlink.com/content/hx7532v250081w20/ on unlikelihood of homochirality of biomolecules originating on earth, whatever the time frame..

3. http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm on Fred Hoyle's proposals

" the histories of three revolutions" An interesting point, but I think more examples are necessary. Another feature that distinguishes the American Revolution on one hand from the French and Russian revolutions on the other is the distinction between a remote colonial regime refusing to be ruled by the mother country (and violently resisting the armed forces of the mother country) versus the violent overthrow of the "homeland" government.

The distinction is not as great as you make it out to be since the American Revolution could almost be characterized as a civil war in that there were many loyalists in America who sided with England in addition to those specifically serving on behalf of the English government on American soil at the time. I should read the book you cited on democracies and peace, but offhand it sounds as if he adds so many qualifiers as to what constitutes a true democracy that I can't believe he is left with many concrete examples to cite. And it still doesn't answer the question as to why democracies, such as our own, have seemed to be hellbent on waging war on so many non-aggressing nations or peoples.

Also, I'm pleased to see that “peace between states” is not the only criterion worth consideration since forcible interference in another state's governmental processes, which you morally justify, certainly qualifies as breaking the peace.

Utilitarian issues make moral questions much more complicated.

I agree with you on the messiness of dealing with such complicated issues in a real world situation. But I would take issue with you on one statement: “the system of sovereign states is probably responsible for most of the immorality (by anyone's definition) in the world.” Even without a single discrete nation or tribe on the face of the earth, I'm convinced that evil, in all its guises, would still proliferate and that political solutions can, at most, only put a band-aid on the situation..

Interesting Afterthought

I usually don't quote from news magazines or consider them the last word on a subject, but the Newsweek issue I mentioned above had another very interesting summary of an amazing archeological find in Turkey by Klaus Schmidt. Here are a few selected quotes from the article:

“Schmidt has uncovered a vast and beautiful temple complex, a structure so ancient that it may be the very first thing human beings ever built. The site isn't just old, it redefines old: the temple was built 11,300 years ago.

In fact, Schmidt thinks the temple itself, built after the end of the last Ice Age by hunter-gatherers, became that ember--the spark that launched mankind toward farming, urban life, and all that followed.

Schmidt's thesis is simple and bold; it was the urge to worship that brought mankind together in the very first urban conglomerations...The temple begat the city. This theory reverses a standard chronology of human origins [in which religion was the culmination of a long process of civilization].

Religion now appears so early in civilized life--earlier than civilized life, if Schmidt is correct--that some think it may be less a product of culture than a cause of it, less a revelation than a genetic inheritance.”