JOB 41: TRANSLATING HEBREW POETRY

 

Translating from Hebrew to English is hard enough as it is, at least in some cases, due to factors such as lack of punctuation and vowels in the oldest manuscripts. But where Hebrew poetry is involved, there are at least three complicating factors: their poetry often used words that were already archaic even at the time the poetry was written; the form of Hebrew poetry required the use of different synonyms for the same thing and thus there was sometimes recourse to use obscure vocabulary; and, unlike OT narratives, the lack of logical progression within a poem meant that the translators could not always tell whether some verses had been displaced from their original position during the course of hundreds of years of copying manuscripts.

However, one factor working in favor of obtaining an accurate rendering of the standard Hebrew text, especially where it doesn't seem to make much sense as is, is the availability of ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the OT found among the Dead Sea scrolls, as well as early translations into Greek, Aramaic and Latin which may have been based on earlier Hebrew manuscripts that differed somewhat in their wording.

In addition, John Hartley notes, “The Hebrew text of Job requires numerous emendations in order for it to be rendered into readable English.” As just one example, the Hebrew word sometimes translated as “tie down” or “press down” in Job 41:1 actually means “to sink,” which makes no sense in the context. The above factors involving the accuracy of modern English translations can be illustrated by examining five problem verses from Job 41.

Job 41:1

NRSV: “Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook or press down its tongue with a cord?”

A footnote in the study Bible edition indicates that Leviathan can be translated as “the crocodile,” if taken literally but may also be “a sea monster symbolizing cosmic chaos.”

NEB: “Can you pull out the whale with a gaff or can you slip a noose round its tongue?” Note that once the translators settled on “whale” as the proper translation, they were forced to come up with a more impressive weapon that just a fishhook.

NIV Study Bible says that it is “a large marine animal.” And the Jerusalem Bible adds as a note that if it is a crocodile, that happened to be the symbol of Egypt.

Marvin Pope in the Anchor Bible translation first notes that this entire verse is missing in the Greek Septuagint. Then he explains that “the allusion is to the marine monster called Lotan in the Ugaritic myths,” which was apparently a seven-headed dragon. If so, it would fit the statement in Psalm 74:14 proclaiming, “You crushed the heads of Leviathan.”

As Hartley summarizes the situation: “The identification of the Behemoth and Leviathan is disputed, ranging from earthly creatures to mythical monsters.”

There is another thing of which you should be aware. The Hebrew Bible sometimes divides the chapters differently than most Christian Bibles do. Thus, if you have a Jewish translation of the Old Testament, it will put 41:1-8 at the end of the previous chapter and number it 40:25-32 so that Job 41:9-32 now becomes 41:1-26. The Jerusalem Bible translation actually follows the Hebrew numbering method. And if you happen to be reading a scholarly commentary on Job, you may find yourself rather confused as to which method the author is using when he or she refers to a particular verse. Some translations and commentaries even give the Hebrew numbering but follow it with the English equivalent in brackets.

And if the above hasn't confused you enough already, there is an added complication if you have a New English Bible. For some reason, the translators decided that the first six verses of chapter 41 made more sense if they were relocated to a new place between Job 39:30 and 40:1. The result of this move, which is not supported in any ancient manuscript, is that now the remainder of Job 41 becomes a further description of Behemoth, not Leviathan at all.

Let's proceed to other translation issues that are perhaps a little easier to follow.

Job 41:9

In regard to verses 9-11, the notes to JB say that the Hebrew text is corrected. Similarly, AB explains, “The lines are difficult, and it is apparent that the text has suffered some sabotage intended to obscure gross pagan mythological allusions.”

NRSV: “Any hope of capturing it* will be disappointed. Were not even the gods overwhelmed at the sight of it?” *The Hebrew text reads “of it.”

The NRSV Study Bible also notes that the whole line is corrected based on the Aramaic (Syriac) version of the verse. Note that NRSV appears to contain one of those mythological allusions that the Anchor Bible mentioned having been presumably deleted at one point or another from the Hebrew text. The AB also reads much as the NRSV: “Lo, any hope is false. Were not the gods cast down at the sight of him.”

    RSV: “Behold, the hope of a man is disappointed; he is laid low even at the sight of him.”

    JB: “Any hopes you might have would prove in vain for the mere sight of him would stagger you.”

    NEB: “No, such a man is in desperate case, hurled headlong at the very sight of him.”

You can see that there is a different philosophy of translation here between NRSV / AB and RSV / JB /NEB. The latter group of versions works with the standard Hebrew text and only emends it slightly in order to make better sense out of the words. But the first group turns to other ancient translations of the verse which read quite differently. They are following a principle well known to textual critics. When ancient sources differ in their wording, one should generally ask yourself which version was more likely to have given rise to the other one. In this case it boils down to the question: Is it more likely that an original reference to “the gods” would have been changed later to remove possible polytheistic theology, or vice versa? The first two translations above opt for the former scenario while the last three translations do not ask the question in the first place but just stick as closely to the Hebrew text as possible.

Job 41:10

The basic translation possibilities with this verse are illustrated by considering the two groups of versions below:

RSV: “No one is so fierce that he dares to stir him up. Who is he that can stand before me?” NIV reads much the same way. According to this reading, the second sentence basically implies that since God is mightier than the mighty Leviathan, no mere human being can confront God.

By contrast, NEB (along with NRSV, JB and AB) reads like this: “No one is so fierce as to stir it up. Who can stand before it?” These four translations instead say that no one dare confront Leviathan. Both readings appear to make equal sense. So who is right?

There are many other cases like this in your Bible where different people will swear loyally by their particular translation and even condemn others for using theirs. But in most cases, the people who do this have absolutely no idea why the versions they are using differ from one to the other. That is why a good study Bible or commentary is very helpful in explaining some of the reasoning behind the translators' decisions.

Thus, the study Bible I consulted for the NRSV reading has a footnote which explains that the word “it” actually reads “me” in the Hebrew text. So that pinpoints the root of the different understandings of this verse. But that still leaves unclear why the modern translations given above would change it to “it” or “him.” To get that reason, one would have to consult a Bible commentary. Thus, Marvin Pope explains that the uncertainty between the two readings stems back to the earliest manuscripts of Job that we possess. Some have the Hebrew word lepanaw (“before him”) while others read lepanay (“before it”). There was obviously an accidental error made by a scribe in copying the text at some early point which gave rise to the confusion.

But the above doesn't yet explain why some translators would go with one reading and some with the other. Again, a commentary, this time by John Hartley, gives the reasoning behind each option. While admitting that “before him” makes a little more sense in the context of the verse, “before me” has stronger manuscript support and is also the more difficult reading. This illustrates another principle of textual criticism stating that the harder reading is usually to be preferred since it is more likely that scribes would have purposely altered to text to make it more understandable, not less so.

In the final analysis, there are valid reasons behind either option, and it is obviously not something to start an argument over.

Job 41:11

The exact same factors affecting the understanding of the previous verse apply here also. If one believes that 41:10 refers to God (“me”) then this verse comes out such as rendered below

    RSV: “Who has given to me that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine.”

    NIV: “Who then has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.”

Marvin Pope notes that this is “a lofty thought entirely out of keeping with the context.” But if one believes that 41:10 refers to Leviathan, then the following are possibilities:

    NRSV: “Who can confront it and be safe? – under the whole heaven, who?”

    NEB: “Who has ever attacked him unscathed? Not a man under the wide heaven.”

    JB: “Who can attack him with impunity? No one beneath all heaven.”

But whichever way one goes with a translation, there is ambiguity associated with this verse, as several translators note: “meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain” (RSV), “probable reading” (NEB), and “Hebrew text reads, 'Who ever came before me (with a gift) that I should repay.'” (AB). Marvin Pope notes that Paul actually quotes this verse in Romans 11:35 in a version which makes v. 11 refer to God while the Greek Septuagint has it refer to Leviathan.

Job 41:15

    RSV and NRSV: “Its back is made of shields in rows, shut up closely as with a seal.”

    NEB: His back is row upon row of shields enclosed in a wall of flint.”

    NIV: “His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together.”

    JB: “His back is like rows of shields sealed with a seal of stone.”

    AB: “The folds of his flesh are compact, molded on him unmovable.”

The Hebrew text of this verse actually reads gaawa (“pride”) in place of gewah (“his back”). But no modern translation that I know of goes with that reading since it makes little sense in the verse. Hartley notes that the there is no difference between the two Hebrew words other than in the vowels. But since vowels were not in the original manuscripts, there could have easily been a mistake in assigning them when they were first added at a much later date.

The other inconsistency between the various translations above concerns the second half of the verse. The Hebrew text uses the word sar, meaning “narrow” or “tight” while sor means “rock” or “flint.” Hartley accurately notes that sar makes perfect sense in the context of the verse, there is really no reason at all to alter it.

PHILIP: THE CLUELESS FACILITATOR

 

John 1:43-48 Philip brings Nathanael to Jesus, whom he calls “the son of Joseph.” This is in stark contrast to Nathanael's ready perception of Jesus as the Son of God.

John 6:5,7 As a “test” Jesus asks Philip where bread can be purchased nearby for the multitudes, and Philip tells them that even if he could find some, there wasn't enough money to pay for it. He says this even after he had witnessed Jesus earlier performing numerous m

In conclusion, I would say that Philip fully deserves the label I put on him. He always seems willing enough to help even though his sense of spiritual discernment may be somewhat stunted.

iracles. Apparently, Philip flunked the test either because of a lack of imagination or of faith.

John 12:21-22 Some Greeks at the festival approach Philip and ask if they can see Jesus. But rather than take them, he first goes to Andrew (Did he feel the need to seek Andrew's approval or advice on whether to honor the request?) Finally, both Philip and Andrew escort the Greeks to Jesus.

John 14:8-9 Philip says to Jesus, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” Jesus has to explain to him that He and the Father are one. Even at this late date, he apparently still hasn't grasped Jesus' true identity the way Nathanael had understood immediately.

However, in the various listings of the Twelve in the NT, Peter always heads the first group of four names while Philip consistently heads the next group of four.

PSALM 58: FORMS OF HEBREW POETRY

 

To better understand the overall flow of a psalm, it is often helpful to first consider the way translators have broken it up into separate paragraphs. For example, the NRSV groups the following verses together: 1-2; 3-5; 6-9; and 10-11. Some of the reasoning behind these divisions is rather obvious. Psalm 58:1-2 is addressed directly to a group of evil judges. (Whether these are gods, angels, or human judges is another subject altogether).

    Psalm 58:3-5 contains the Psalmist's description of evil people.

    Psalm 58:6-9 is addressed directly to God.

    Psalm 58:10-11 is a description of what will happen if God does put these judges in their place.

Keep in mind when reading the Psalms or any other poetic passage in the Bible, that such shifts back and forth between addresses to various audiences is quite common.

Next, if you wanted to go further in analyzing the overall structure of a given psalm, you might try to figure out how the various paragraphs, or sections, relate to one another – looking especially for any symmetrical pairings that might result. Here is one way, but probably not the only one, to order the material in Psalm 58:

    We are ruled by wicked judges (1-2)

        Description of evil people (3-5)

            God, Stop their evil ways (6-9)

        Response of the righteous (10)

    Then everyone will see that God judges rightly (11) 

Note that (a) for the most part, the divisions in the NRSV are preserved; (b) the end result is a perfectly symmetrical ordering; and (c) this arrangement locates the central point of the whole poem squarely in the plea to God (vv. 6-9).

Next, let's drill down into the structures behind the individual verses. For more on the basic principles behind Hebrew poetry, you might want to look at my post entitled “Understanding Biblical Poetry.” For now, it will suffice to say that although the two or three lines in a given verse will probably not rhyme or possess a regular rhythm, usually the thought of the first line will be echoed or expanded upon in the subsequent line or lines. And this can be done in a variety of ways, as the analysis below demonstrates. The parallel elements between the two lines are placed above one another so that you can get the general idea better.

Verse 1: Do you      indeed decree             is right, you judges?

             Do you       judge the sons of men rightly?

This form of poetry is called identical, or synonymous parallelism since the major elements of the two lines mirror each other. However, note that since “you judges” in the first line is left out of the second line, a somewhat longer parallel to the verbs is used in the second line to compensate. In that way, both lines are basically the same length.

Verse 2: No, in your hearts you think up wrong doing

                        your hands        deal out violence on earth.

Verse 3: The wicked go astray from their mother's womb

                they              err       from their birth, speaking lies

In both verses 2 and 3, we again have identical parallelism, but note how the second line gets a little more specific than the first in describing the sins of the evil people.

Verse 4: They have venom    like that of a serpent 

                    x

            like the deaf adder   that closes its ears.

In this case, you can see that the parallel elements of the two lines are not located in the same order, but in the opposite one. This is called introverted, or chiastic, parallelism. The second label comes from the Greek letter chi, which is written as an x.

Verse 5: so that it does not hear the voice of snake charmers

                                                              or of the cunning enchanter.

This is a classic example of what is called an incomplete parallelism, for obvious reasons.

Verse 6: O God,

                            break the teeth in their mouths;

                            tear out the fangs of the young lions,

            O LORD.

This is a slightly more complex version of an introverted parallelism. The first and last elements address the same God, and the two requests in the middle express the same thoughts in a parallel fashion.

Verse 7: Let them vanish    like water that runs away;

                                    x

             like grass               let them be trodden down and die.              Introverted Parallelism

Verse 8: Let them be like the snail which melts into slime,

                                  like the untimely birth that never sees the sun.    Incomplete Parallelism

Verse 9: Without warning, may they be rooted up like a thorny bush,

                                                                                like weeds which a man clears away angrily.

In this case, the ending of the first line is paralleled by the first element of the second line, which continues the thought quite a bit further. This form is sometimes called stair-step parallelism.

Verse 10: The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance;        Emblematic Parallelism

                he                   will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.

In this relatively rare form of Hebrew poetry, one line expresses the basic idea of the verse literally while the other one does it using symbolic, or figurative, language. In v. 10 above, it is the second line that is the figurative one.

Verse 11: People will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous;   Incomplete Parallelism

                                           surely there is a God who judges on earth.”

Once you become familiar with the various ways in which Hebrew poetry is composed, you can use this knowledge to better understand what each verse means. If the first line is confusing, just go to the second line for further clarification. Also an interesting technique to try out sometime is to rewrite each verse using a different poetic form than is in the original, but conveying the same meaning. Let me give you one example:

I haven't shown you any cases of an additional type of parallelism: antithetic. It is found more commonly in Proverbs than in the Psalms. In this form of Hebrew poetry, the second line expresses the reverse side of that which is in the first line. Thus, here is one way to turn Psalm 58:10 into antithetic parallelism:

         The righteous will live to see God's vengeance on evil doers

while the wicked    will die an early death                for their deeds.

In a way, this is like a sentence with a double negative which cancels out since righteous and wicked are opposites, as are live and die.

Try your hand at one of the other verses in Psalm 58 to see if you can transform it into a different type of parallelism.

ARE BIBLE PARAPHRASES USEFUL? (ROMANS 3:19)

Is there any place where a Bible paraphrase should be used, or should we always stick to more literal translations? This is not really a simple question to answer since it depends on several factors. Let me illustrate it with a somewhat randomly chosen NT passage: Romans 3:19. First, let's look at how the original Greek reads in a literal word-for-word English translation:

    “We know but that whatever things the law says to the [ones] in the law, it speaks in order that every mouth may be stopped and under judgment may become all the world of God.”

There are a number of translations that adhere fairly closely to this original, other than changing around the word order a bit to keep it from sounding like Yoda-talk. Here is how the NRSV renders this verse:

    “Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God.”

At this point, the reader may have a few questions regarding the meaning of Paul's words. For example:

1. What “law” is he talking about? A new reader to the Bible might wonder if it refers to the civil and criminal laws of the Roman world at that time. However, those more knowledgeable concerning the Old Testament would realize that there are actually four ways that the word “law” could be construed by Jews: the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible), all of the rules and regulations contained in the Pentateuch, the Ten Commandments, or the entire Old Testament.

                        2. Who are the people under the law? 

                        3. Why would God want to silence everyone?

                        4. What is the nature of the accountability to God?

Let us look next at some versions of Romans 3:19 that are not as literal, but also not a free paraphrase either, to see if they go further than NRSV in addressing these questions:

    TEV: “Now we know that everything in the Law applies to those who live under the Law, in order to stop all human excuses and bring the whole world under God's judgment.” 

By capitalizing the word “Law,” the reader is at least alerted to the fact that it doesn't just refer to any laws formulated by mankind. Also, this version helpfully explains what “stopping the mouth” means. And thirdly, we now realize that these people are accountable to God, who will render some sort of judgment on them. By the way, one can't simply look at the Greek manuscripts to see if “Law” is capitalized or not since those documents were for the most part either written all in capitals or all in lower case letters.

    NEB: “Not all the words of the law are addressed, as we know, to those who are within the pale of the law, so that no one may have anything to say in self-defence, but the whole world may be exposed to the judgement of God.” 

This British version doesn't really add anything more in understanding the verse than does TEV, and has the disadvantage of utilizing unique British spellings of “defence” and “judgement,” as well as using the phrase “under the pale,” which may not be understandable to many readers.

    Jerusalem Bible: “Now all this that the Law* says is said, as we know, for the benefit of those who are subject to the Law, but it is meant to silence everyone and to lay the whole world open to God's judgment.” *“'Law' here means all the O.T.” 

The translators' note is part of the text of JB and answers Question 1 above, at least in the mind of the translators. Also, the use of “subject to the Law” goes a way toward explain what it means to be “under the Law.”

Now, at last, we come to the category of true Bible paraphrases of Romans 3:18, beginning with:

    The Living Bible: “So the judgment of God lies very heavily upon the Jews, for they are responsible to keep God's laws instead of doing all these evil things; not one of them has any excuse; in fact, all the world stands hushed and guilty before Almighty God.” 

At last, we have an English version that makes it clear that “those under the Law” are, in fact, the Jews. But then, this paraphrase makes it also abundantly clear that all of us, not just the Jews, are guilty before God. Note also how the Living Bible with its phrase “all these evil things” clearly directs the reader's attention back to the previous verses, Romans 3:10-18, with its catalog of sins.

    J.B. Phillips: “We know what the message of the Law is to those who live under it – that every excuse may die on the lips of him who makes it and no living man may think himself beyond the judgment of God.” 

In its day, this was not at all a bad rendering. However, one off-putting feature today is the introduction of the gender-specific words “him” and “man,” when they are clear additions to the original Greek wording. In rendering other verses, however, I should point out that the male gender is definitely indicated and should not be translated with a gender-neutral term.

    The Message: “This makes it clear, doesn't it, that whatever is written in these Scriptures is not what God says about others, but to us to whom these Scriptures were addressed in the first place! And it's clear enough, isn't it, that we're sinners, every one of us, in the same sinking boat with everyone else?” 

Now, at last, we have a very vivid and understandable rendering of Romans 3:19. But, unfortunately, it raises its own set of questions:

    1. Is Eugene Peterson implying that “Law” in the Greek of this verse is just limited to what is written in the preceding nine verses from the OT?

    2. To whom were these verses “addressed in the first place?”

    3. Does “the same sinking boat” really convey the meaning behind the Greek text, or was it just chosen by Peterson because it has a nice ring to it?

To address the first question, we must go back first to the string of OT quotations that came before verse 19. They are drawn from Isaiah, Psalms, and Proverbs. Thus, they represent ideas taken from the Prophets and the Writings, which together with the Law constituted the whole Hebrew Bible. So in that sense, one could certainly not say that they represent “the Law,” as the Greek states. Also, Peterson limits the meaning of “Scripture” (elsewhere in Paul's writings referring clearly to the Old Testament) by modifying it with the word “these,” so that it clearly refers to only the six preceding quotations. This is quite a contrast to the understanding of the Jerusalem Bible which applies Paul's reference to the whole of the Old Testament.

Then, concerning Question 3, my personal opinion is that the Living Bible is really too loose a rendering of the original. To equate the Final Judgment with being on a sinking ship does make sense in a way if Peterson is saying that we all live on an earth that will pass away eventually. But I don't really think that it clarifies the meaning in any way for most readers.

I will personally admit that I am still not 100% sure how to answer Question 2, even after reading all of the versions given above. One would think that the obvious original audience for those passages was the Jews, but that seems to contradict Paul's comment in Romans 3:19 that they were originally addressed to “us,” since he was writing to a predominantly Gentile audience. So I had to turn to some commentaries on Romans to see what they had to say. Basically, there seem to be three different ways to take these verses:

    1. Although the Scriptures were originally given to the Jews, they really apply to everyone. This view is implied in JB and NEB and actually stated in The Living Bible.

    2. The Scriptures were originally intended for all people, Jew and Gentile. The Greek is vague and can easily be taken to mean this.

    3. Surprisingly, there is a third view not expressly reflected in any of the above sources, and it is held by four prominent Bible commentators. They basically feel the context practically demands that Paul is saying that Romans 3:10-18 does not apply to the Gentiles only, but also to the Jews. Paul is addressing these words primarily to his Jewish opponents who point the finger at the Gentiles, rather than at themselves also.

        “The law, being from God, has its relevance for all mankind, certainly. But Paul's point here is that the Jew cannot rest on a fancied security, holding that he is safe while the Gentile will come under the judgment of God. (Morris)

        Fitzmyer: “Jews, who might think they are exempt from Paul's indictment, actually fall under it as well, because what the law says is applied specifically to them.” Davidson and Martin agree with this assessment.

But whether the critical words of God applied originally to the Jews only, the Gentiles only, or everyone, all are in agreement that now they condemn all people.

A final comment on translations vs. paraphrases is in order. Keep in mind that almost all true Bible translations are the product of a committee of experts. This has the effect of eliminating any gross errors in translation as well as any overly sectarian opinions. But each paraphrase of which I am aware is a product of single author, who may have his or her own set of preconceived ideas and theologies. You should always approach a paraphrase as if you were reading a Bible commentary instead.

 

CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE GOSPEL ACCOUNTS

 

Here are three more apparent contradictions between the four Gospels proposed by Aaron Wilson for discussion. Before you read my comments on them, you might want to see if you can resolve them yourself or within a group.

“Blessed are those who hunger.” (Matthew 5:6)

“No one who comes to me will ever be hungry.” (John 6:35)

Even in the above highly truncated form of these passages, it is difficult to see how anyone could call this pair a contradiction. The Matthew passage clearly refers to those who are hungry (present tense) while the passage in John describes a future state. A consideration of the more complete texts makes this even more obvious:

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” (Matthew 5:6)

“Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.” (John 6:35)

These are exact parallel statements, not contradictions. In each case, the hungry and thirsty come that way to Christ and leave after accepting him filled with spiritual food and with their thirst quenched.

These next two examples are slightly more challenging, and so I will rely on competent scholars for comment.

“Do not judge.” (Matthew 7:1)

“Judge according to righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

The rest of the Matthew quote continues with “...so that you may not be judged,” and goes on in verses 2-5 to explain that it is only by first taking care of your own problems first that you can adequately address other people's shortcomings. The setting for this saying was in the Sermon on the Mount where he was talking to a mixed crowd. However, as Ellison states, that crowd was “not under consideration but it is those who arrogate the right of judgment to themselves.” Barbieri calls it “an example of pharisaical behavior,” and Nixon says that “a censorious attitude towards others will bring a divine judgment.”

Henricksen asks “Did he mean that all manner of judging is absolutely and without qualification forbidden..?​” For an answer, he actually cites John 7:24 as well as eleven other NT passages indicating “that no such wholesale condemnation of forming an opinion about a person and expressing it can have been intended.”

Moving on to John 7:24, Jesus is again addressing the Jewish opponents who were tying to get him killed because He had a different view of Scripture than they did. (Blum) “Jesus criticized their whole basis of judgment. They were using the wrong criteria.”

Morris points out that “the aorist imperative, 'but judge', directs urgent attention to the specific example [of them being guilty of wrong judgment]. Jesus is not laying down a general rule.”

Finally, in discussing Matthew 7:1,Van Leeuwen offers a good piece of advice for those of us who demand a black-and-white resolution to all apparent contradictions in the Bible. “Even in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus presents sayings that on one level or another present conflicting advice (cf. Matt. 7:1 and 7:6 which require the reader to make judgments; also 6:1 and 5:14-16). Rather than forcing us to erase of 'harmonize' the ambiguities and 'contradictions,' biblical wisdom invites us to ponder the nuances and complexities of life; it invites us to become wise.”

“I did not come to judge the world.” (John 12:47)

“I came into this world for judgment.” (John 9:39)

Several scholars have tackled this apparent contradiction and come to basically the same conclusion:

    Hartin: “This paradox finds its resolution in understanding that people, in the very act of rejecting faith in Jesus, pronounce judgment on themselves. The act of believing or not believing in Jesus is one of self-judgment.”

    Guthrie: “Although judgment is determined by the word of Christ, His mission was not primarily for this purpose. Salvation was the objective, judgment but the consequence.”

    Morris: “There is indeed a sense in which Christ judges...But in a very real sense men judge themselves.”

    Borchert: “While his intention in coming to the world was not condemnation, the rejection of him and his mission meant that condemnation was inevitable.”

NATHANAEL: THE TRUTHFUL LIAR

I must admit that I came up with that title after considering G.K. Chesterton's many paradoxes, especially the title of one of his novels, Four Faultless Felons. Also, I lifted the general premise of this post from a recent sermon given by our pastor Ernest Jones.

Just to continue the allusions, consider the lyrics to one of the songs in The Music Man: “How can there be any sin in sincere?” In fact, one may actually speak a lie but do it quite sincerely. Being sincere does not necessarily keep you from being sincerely mistaken. The only sin is if you refuse to admit that you are wrong, even when all the facts are against you. Fortunately, that was not the case with Nathanael. As you may recall, about all we know concerning this apostle is told in John 1:43-51 when Jesus calls him.

Philip comes to Nathanael and tells him that they had found the one of whom Moses and the prophets had spoken. Prior to this point in John's account, the identifications given to Jesus are “Lamb of God” and the “Son of God” (by John the Baptist and two unnamed disciples), “Rabbi” (by the same two disciples), and “Messiah” (by one of those disciples). Nathanael is totally incredulous and expresses, in the truths of the Bible, just that he honestly didn't seem to comprehend them.

the form of a question, his opinion that nothing good could ever come out of Nazareth. Nonetheless, Nathanael is willing to have his “facts” questioned and comes with Philip anyway.

Jesus sees him and pronounces that Nathanael is an Israelite without guile. The Greek word for “guile” is dolos, and it literally means a bait or snare. It applies to someone who tries to mislead with their words, a definite form of a lie. And yet, Nathanael had just expressed a a statement that was not the truth. The most guileless person I ever knew was a fellow chemist, and yet he was an atheist. On the few occasions when religious matters came up in conversation, if wasn't as if he was dead set against But Nathanael is soon to comprehend Jesus' supernatural nature, even if he did come from Nazareth. Before long, he is calling Jesus not only Rabbi, but also “Son of God.”

One important lesson for us from this encounter of Nathanael and Jesus comes from consideration of the various ways we may hold totally inaccurate opinions in the areas of faith, politics, science, etc. The question is, “Are we open enough to new information, or reconsideration of old information, that we will be willing to admit we are wrong?” Unfortunately, it is usually human nature for us to dig in our heels when our favorite “facts” are questioned, and to label everything else as heresy, “fake news,” or biased science. I could list example after example right out of today's news, but I think all of you can easily come up with your own lists.

Finally, here is one question that I had never seriously considered before: Was Nathanael really an apostle? If you look at the four listings of the Twelve (found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts), you will see that his name does not appear in any of them. However, the story of his call by Jesus certainly is the same as that of the other apostles. Also, many Jews at that time had two different names, a Jewish one and a Greek or Aramaic one. Nixon concludes, “He seems to be one of the Twelve and he has been variously identified, especially with Bartholomew.” Less common possibilities that have been proposed include Matthew, Matthias, John, Simon the Canaanite, and Stephen. I will let you make up your own mind on this issue.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT: PART 2 (REVELATION 18)

There are two other aspects to the idea of “context” not covered in Part 1 of this post that I would like to illustrate using Revelation 18 as an example.

Biblical Context

Individual books of the Bible and passages within these books do not exist in a vacuum. They are all interconnected. And when it comes to the Book of Revelation, it is especially important to be aware of the way in which its words constantly refer back to passages in the Old Testament. It has been pointed out by a number of commentators that Revelation undoubtedly contains more allusions to the OT per chapter than any other NT book. Much of the material below comes from Beale and McDonough, including the quotations. However, the same references they cite are also mentioned by most commentators on Revelation.

    18:1-2a Ezekiel 14 also describes the prophet seeing a bright light and hearing a loud voice. God showed him a vision of Israel being restored in the final days and telling the people to separate from the world. J.M Ford also sees similarities in 2a to the dirge of Amos over Jerusalem before it fell.

    18:2b See Isaiah 13:21-22; 34:11-14 for similar descriptions of Edom and the Babylon of that day. The creatures like birds in these passages are understood to be demonic.

    18:3 concerning the merchants echoes the Septuagint version of Ezekiel 27:12,33. “Tyre's destruction is the model for the destruction of the latter-day Babylon, Rome and her evil descendants.”

    18:4 There are many similar exhortations to God's people to separate from all evil nations found in the OT. Especially close to v. 4 here is Jeremiah 51:45. Beale and McDonough also point to Isaiah 52:11, where the Israelites are told not to touch Babylonian idols.

    18:5a Sins “reaching up to heaven” in the OT is a phrase generally occurring in the context of extreme corporate sin (as in Genesis 18:20; 19:13; Jeremiah 51:9; Ezra 9:6 and Jonah 1:2).

    18:5b God also “remembers” sins in verses such as Psalm 109:14 and Hosea 9:9, meaning that He will judge them.

    18:6a is practically a quotation from the Septuagint renderings of Psalm 137:8 and Jeremiah 50:29.

    18:7b The description of future Babylon's self-assured attitude is identical to that of historical Babylon portrayed in Isaiah 47:7-8.

    18:8 The borrowing from Isaiah continues here (see Isaiah 47:9,13).

18:9-19 is modeled after the prediction of Tyre's destruction in Ezekiel 26-27, “although the cargo lists have been adapted to fit the realities of economic exploitation in the Roman Empire.”

    18:9 Strong allusions to Jeremiah 51:8 and Ezekiel 27:33 appear in this verse.

    18:12-13 Actually, fifteen of these products are identical to those found in Ezekiel 27.

        18:16 “The picture of an ungodly economic system as a person dressed in luxurious clothing made of trade products has been partly inspired also by the same figurative portrayal of the king of economically prosperous Tyre in Ezekiel 28:13.”

    18:17b-19 The picture of sea-going merchants bewailing the demise of Babylon also appears in Ezekiel 27 (verses 28-33) where the same group mourns the fall of Tyre.

    18:19 The practice of throwing dust on your head as a sign of mourning appears in Joshua 7:6; Job 2:12; Lamentations 2:10; and Ezekiel 27:30.

    18:20 One reason for the judgment against the historical Babylon in Jeremiah 51:48-49 was because of the Israelites who had been killed by them.

    18:21 A very similar symbolic action occurs in Jeremiah 51:63-64, where the scroll prophesying historical Babylon's destruction is attached to a stone and thrown into the river.

    18:22-23b combines elements from Isaiah 24:8; Jeremiah 25:10; and Ezekiel 26:13.

    18:23d recalls Nahum 3:4 in which Nineveh is portrayed as a purveyor of witchcraft to the nations.

And John does not omit references to the New Testament either. For example, Revelation 18:4 echoes Jesus' warning to the believers in Jerusalem to depart before it is too late (Matthew 24:15-22). Also Revelation 18:24 is similar to Jesus' accusation against Jerusalem (Matthew 23:34-35; Luke 11:49-51).

All of the above allusions to earlier scriptures should serve as a clear warning to those who would take a given biblical passage and automatically treat it as a literal prophecy of an event still future to us today. If one engages in this sort of biblical interpretation, one would have to confidently predict that the Babylon of Revelation 18 is a future city or empire located on the site of ancient Babylon or in the territory of Edom or Tyre or Nineveh or even Jerusalem, depending on which previous Bible verses you happen to zero in on. It is a much more responsible approach to view all of these passages as mere types of something to come.

Historical Context

Additional valuable information that helps to establish the context of a biblical passage comes from consideration of writings and events that are nearly contemporaneous with the writing of that passage. Thus, here are some historical contexts that go a long way toward showing what the current Jewish and pagan thinking was when John penned Revelation 18. Most of these come from J.M. Ford's commentary on Revelation.

    18:3 Some of the Dead Sea scrolls indicate that orthodox Jews of the time were critical of any person prospering under Roman rule.

A Qumran commentary on Nahum 2:12 says that Jerusalem has become a dwelling place for the wicked of the nations.

    18:5 The apocryphal book of IV Ezra speaks of Rome's insolent attitude ascending to God.

    18:7 In the Dead Sea scrolls, Jerusalem is called “princess of all the nations.”

    18:11 An early rabbinical writing said that Rome received nine-tenths of all the wealth in the world.

    18:11-17 Josephus mentions that a number of these items were also traded to Jerusalem from other countries as well as in trade within Israel.

    18:12 Silk was a common Roman fabric around AD 70.

    18:13 Contemporary Roman writers mention the use of cinnamon in Rome.

    18:14 Josephus uses the same word translated as “luxury” to describe the Spartan's pleasing appearance due to physical exercise.

    18:19 The Greek word for “devastation” is not a common one, but Josephus applies it to Gessius Florus (AD 64-66) when he says that his greediness brought about devastation on all the cities.

Very little actual action occurs in Revelation 18, so contemporary events are not as important in helping us to understand the historical context as in some of the other chapters. Nevertheless, the writings outside the Bible that were in common circulation at the time help to show what the influential ideas and thought processes were during the period in which Revelation 18 was penned.

 

LESSON IN CONTEXT: PART 1 (REVELATION 18)

When Sunday school teachers or pastors stress the fact that you have to read the Bible in its context to understand it, they generally mean that you need to look at the verses before and after for an accurate interpretation. In fact, “context” is a rather broad term that encompasses many aspects surrounding a given passage. As an example, I would like to look at Revelation 18 concerning the fall of Babylon.

Literary Context

This area alone is comprised of several different types of contexts.

Genre: It is self-obvious that you do not approach a historical book of the Bible as you would Psalms, for example. And in this case, “apocalyptic” constitutes its own separate type of literature, which is even distinct from prophetic writings, though there is a certain amount of overlap between the two categories. They both may deal to some extent with events of the future. But whereas the classic OT prophets wrote mainly in a poetic form (using figurative language such as metaphors, similes, hyperbole, etc.), apocalyptic language goes even a step further in that many of the nouns used are actually symbols for something entirely else. Therefore, any attempts to explain the details in a woodenly literal manner are doomed to miss out on what the author is really trying to convey.

Thus, in Revelation 18 it is more than a mere possibility that “Babylon” actually stands for something other than a once grand, or even rebuilt, city located in the Middle East. As to what it does stand for, that would take a long discussion in itself. And it is not just the first verse of the chapter that is likely to be symbolic. In v. 21, as Ruiz points out, we have a “symbolic action representing the total destruction of the city,” not the exact manner in which the city will be destroyed.

The Book of Revelation is composed of both prose and poetry, and so is Revelation 18. In poetic language, subsequent lines within a given verse tend to repeat the same basic thought, not describe a new idea. In this manner, the “dwelling place of demons” and the “haunt of every foul spirit” are one and the same thing (v. 2). Similarly, when verse 3 says “the nations have drunk the wine, etc.,” “the kings have committed fornication,” and the merchants “have grown rich from the power of her luxury (NRSV), all of these are similar descriptions of how the rich and powerful have benefited in the past from all that Babylon had to offer. Finally, verses 4 and 5 are a matched pair that can be pictured as below:

    Don't partake of her sins

                                            or you will share in her plagues.

    She is filled with sin

                                            and God has remembered her iniquities.

In that manner, you can more clearly understand that God “remembering” her sins means that He will visit her with plagues.

Organization of the Book: This is a key factor in deciding where Chapter 18 fits into the scheme of the whole of Revelation. Concerning the overall book, there are at least five completely different ways to view the book, and not all of them are incompatible. But there is one school of interpretation which conflicts with all the other four: the chronological view. Unfortunately, it is also the most popular view among evangelical Christians.

Critics have pointed out many problems with treating the revelations in the book as if they follow one another in the order in which they are described. But it is probably best to quote from one of the proponents of this view to see what he has to say first regarding Revelation 17-18, both dealing with the fall of Babylon. John Walvoord starts out with this admission: “These chapters do not fall chronologically within the schemes of the seals, trumpets, and bowls of wrath, and expositors have had difficulty in determining precisely the meaning of the revelation in these chapters.”

But in attempting to explain where they do fit in, he runs afoul of several problems which he has to talk his way around. For one, consider the number of times Babylon appears to fall if one takes a chronological view of that one event:

    Revelation 14:8 – “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!”

    Revelation 16:19 – “God remembered great Babylon and gave her the wine-cup of his wrath.”

    Revelation 17:16,18 – Concerning the Harlot, “The beast and the ten horns...will devour her flesh and burn her up with fire...The woman you saw is the great city.”

    Revelation 18:2 – “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!”

    Revelation 18:21 – “With such violence Babylon the great city will be thrown down.”

Note that the first, second, and fourth passages above say that Babylon has already fallen while in the third and fifth passage that fall is pictured at some future time. That alone would cause a reader to seriously question whether the chronological view is the best.

Walvoord confidently places the events of Chapter 17 within the first half of the seven years preceding Christ's Coming. (Elsewhere in the same commentary he locates it at the midpoint of those seven years.) But, he goes on, Chapter 18 takes place at the end of the seven years. The reasoning behind these conclusions is not given. To explain why chapters 17 and 18 appear to both describe the same destruction, he states that the woman of chapter 17 is not really the power of Babylon, only its religious aspects (in clear contradiction to Revelation 17:16-18). By contrast, the fall described in chapter 18 has to be an entirely different event since different people are mourning the two happenings (as if the two descriptions of the same event have to mirror one another in every detail). As to what exactly is falling in Chapter 18, Walvoord's heading to this chapter describes it as “political Babylon” even though the whole chapter actually centers on its economic power instead.

But where do chapters 14 and 16 fit in? He says that 14:8 “apparently is in anticipation of the description of that city” in chapter 18 and treats 16:19 in the same manner. He passes over the fact that, according to the verb tenses, the fall has already happened in chapter 14 and 16 while somehow it remains a future event in 18:21.

By the way, it is not just the case of Babylon's fall where a certain event appears to happen multiple times. It also occurs with the Battle of Armageddon, the rising of Satan from the pit, godly reigns on earth being set up, a third of the stars being swept down, people being tormented but not repenting, and Paul bowing down to an angel (even though he had been told not to do it the first time), two Second Comings of Christ, and up to seven different “last judgments.”

As I have explained in more detail in my post “Book of Revelation: Sequence of Events,” there are four other ways to order the book rather than the rather dubious chronological scheme. These are: alternating scenes between events on earth and in heaven, parallel cycles which tell the same series of events seven different times utilizing different imagery each time, progressive recapitulation (as is clearly used in the OT apocalyptic writings) which is similar to parallel cycles but advances the action chronologically each time, and a chiastic structure in which sections with similar themes are matched up symmetrically from the first and last literary units working toward the center of the book.

Note that it is really impossible to derive a chronological scheme of future events from any of these organizations. That should only be a problem for those Christians who are intent on being in on all the secrets of God's plans for the future rather than concentrating on living according to God's will in the present.

Organization of the Chapter

One tool to determining how the author intended his work to be read is to divide it into separate paragraphs (sections) by looking for obvious break-points in the text. In the case of Revelation 18, consideration of who is talking in each case, who their audience is, and the subject of the verses is the best, but not only, way to accomplish that goal. Thus:

    A vv. 1-3 “another angel” announces that Babylon has fallen

        B vv. 4-8 “another voice” addresses believers regarding the future fall of Babylon

            C1 vv. 9-10 “the kings of the earth” lament the fall

            C2 vv. 11-17a “the merchants of the earth” lament the fall

            C3 vv. 17b-19 “seafarers” lament the fall

        B' vv. 20 an unknown voice tells believers to rejoice over the fall

    A' vv. 21-22 “a mighty angel” demonstrates how Babylon will fall

The suggestions for the speaker in v. 20 has been variously identified as the prophet himself (Bruce, Beasley-Murray), the angel (Phillips), perhaps God himself (Ford), or the angel of 18:1 (Beale). Assuming that this speaker came from heaven, we can now proceed to define the structure of the chapter a little more precisely, as indicated by the letters before each section above. They form a regular pattern called a chiasm, where there are clear parallels between A and A' as well as between B and B'. The central section C consisting of laments is divided into three parts, and together they form the point of emphasis of Revelation 18.

Another thing to note from this literary analysis is that as you work your way through the various sections, there is absolutely no chronological order within the section. If you go from verse 1 to 22 in order, the time scheme for the fall of Babylon is: past, future, past, past, past, past, and future. If you view it from the bounds of the chapter to the center (A-A' to B-B' to C), the time indicators make even less sense. This should be one of many indicators that the whole of Revelation is not to be taken as a chronological account of future events.

The above discussion does not exhaust the number of different contexts one must consider in looking at a given passage in the Bible. But I will save this further analysis of Revelation 18 for a companion post.

 

CHRISTIAN PARADOXES

One accepted definition of a paradox is “a situation, person or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities. A master of paradox was W.S. Gilbert of Gilbert and Sullivan fame. Many of the plots of his operettas center around a paradoxical situation. Consider the following:

    The Pirates of Penzance: A young lad is apprenticed to a pirate (don't ask how that happened) until his 21^st birthday. But when he turns 21, he is informed that in reality he is still only five years old since he was born on leap-day.

    The Gondoliers: The enlightened ruler of a province in Italy decides to give exalted titles to all in the kingdom with the result that “when everyone is someone, then no one's anybody.”

    Ruddigore: A meek man has fallen under a hereditary curse by which he is condemned to commit one crime every day or he will die. After a while he can take the situation no longer and announces that he refuses to commit any more crimes (minor misdemeanors up to that time). But that action is equivalent to committing suicide, which in itself is a crime. So through a paradox, he escapes from the curse.

    The Mikado: To get around the Mikado's decree that flirting is punishable by death, the town authorities appoint as High Executor the next man scheduled to be beheaded. That effectively stops all executions since the executioner obviously can't cut off his own head.

Another definition of a paradox is “a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.” Interestingly, some of the most noted examples of both these types of paradox are found in the writings of two other British authors, both Christians involved deeply in apologetics: C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton.

C.S. Lewis

“There is a paradox about tribulation in Christianity. 'Blessed are the poor,' but by judgement (i.e., social justice) and alms we are to remove poverty wherever possible. Blessed are we when persecuted, but we may avoid persecution by flying city to city, and may pray to be spared it.”

“The crucifixion is the best, as well as the worst, of all historical events.” This is an obvious variation on Dickens' famous “It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.”

“There is a paradox. As long as Dick does not turn to God, he thinks his niceness is his own, and just as long as he thinks that, it is not his own. It is when Dick realizes that his niceness is not his own but a gift from God, and when he offers it back to God – it is just then that it begins to be really his own… The only things we can keep are the things we freely give to God. What we try to keep for ourselves is just what we are sure to lose.”

“Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in; aim at earth and you get neither.”

“If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this.” An often-used modern parallel to this saying is the description of a person who is so heavenly minded that he is of no earthly good.

“We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”

G.K. Chesterton

He has been called The Prince of Paradox. He himself defined paradox as “truth standing on its head to gain attention.” His love of the art of paradox is seen right away in the titles of two of his books: The Paradoxes of Mr. Pond and Four Faultless Felons. However, it is perhaps demonstrated most clearly in his non-fiction Christian writings such as Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man.

“The primary paradox of Christianity is that the ordinary condition of man is not his sane or sensible condition; that the normal itself is an abnormality. That is the inmost philosophy of the Fall...That whatever I am, I am not myself.”

“Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die. 'He that will lose his life, the same shall save it' is not a piece of mysticism for saints and heroes. It is a piece of practical everyday advice for sailors or mountaineers.”

“Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians...Its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden.”

“The criminal we must forgive seventy times seven. The crime we must not forgive at all.”

“One can hardly think too little of one’s self. One can hardly think too much of one’s soul.”

“ The point is not that this world is too sad to love or too glad not to love; the point is that when you do love a thing, its gladness is a reason for loving it, and its sadness a reason for loving it more.”

“There is a great man who makes every man feel small. But the real great man is the man who makes every man feel great.”

“Though we are all liars, we all love the truth.”

“All the exaggerations are right, if they exaggerate the right thing.”

“The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right.”

“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”

Why are these great Christian apologists also among the greatest propounders of paradoxes? It is due to the fount of all their wisdom – the Bible, more specifically the New Testament and, most of all, Jesus Himself.

Sara Park McLaughlin: “A Savior who could not save himself. A King who had no visible kingdom. An immortal God who died so mortals might have immortal life. A speechless infant who was the Incarnate Word – only a few of the paradoxes with which Christianity is riddled. But why? Why is Christianity paradoxical? Specifically, why did G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis turn to paradoxes so often?” She concludes that “paradoxes pointed to themselves when all other routes were exhausted. Rather than acting as a roadblock, however, they functioned as landmarks, signposts, confirmations that I was nearing my destination. Like Lewis' joy, the paradox points beyond itself, lures its followers closer to the truth, closer to God.”

Joseph Pearce notes that many modern parables such as found in Chesterton's Father Brown stories, The Man Who Was Thursday, and Manalive “have their archetype in the parable of the Prodigal Son in which the younger son ceases to be childish and becomes child-like, returning in humility to his father, whereas the older son, outwardly more virtuous, remains childish in his refusal to share in his father’s joy at the prodigal’s return. The moral is thus encapsulated in that other great paradox: 'The first shall be last and the last shall be first.'”

“If Chesterton is the 'Prince of Paradox,' then Christ is its King. As He has told us, 'we are in, but not of this world'; 'he who loves his life, shall lose it'; 'he who humbles himself shall be exalted'; 'my yoke is easy;' and 'blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.' Christ’s words invite us into a deeper meaning of life through the portal that is the paradox. Ayn Rand’s philosophy – 'Existence is Existence; A is A' – is devoid of paradox and hence devoid of depth.” (Donald Demarco)

Just consider some of the paradoxical statements and situations in the Bible in addition to those just mentioned above:

Joseph becomes second in command of perhaps the most powerful civilization of his time only when he leaves his favored position in his father's house, is sold as a slave, and thrown into jail for years. Joseph is an obvious type of Jesus' “stooping to conquer” as described in Philippians 2:6-11. Isaiah describes a coming Suffering Servant who would heal the people with his stripes (Isaiah 53:5), a clear prediction of the coming Messiah.

Then in the New Testament we have:

Jesus' advice to the full-grown Nicodemus: “You must be born again.” (John 3:3-4)

“The Word was with God and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

“The first will be last, and the last will be first.” (Matthew 19:30, etc.)

“Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.” (Matthew 10:16) By the way, this principle is illustrated in the famous Father Brown mystery stories by G.K. Chesterton in which the innocent priest is always the wisest person around.

“Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time.” (I Peter 5:6)

“When we are weak, we are strong.” (II Corinthians 12:10; 13:9)

“Whoever wants to be greatest, should be everyone’s servant.” (Matthew 23:11)

“Count it all joy when you fall into various trials.” (James 1:2)

“Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone, but if it dies it will bear much fruit.” (John 12:24)

“We are afflicted...always carrying in the body the death of Jesus so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in our bodies.” (II Corinthians 4:8-10)

In Matthew 11:18-19, Jesus notes his opponents' paradoxical way of reasoning: “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon'; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'”

“There is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or brother or father or children or lands for my sake and the sake of the gospel who will not receive a hundred times more in this age – houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and lands, with persecutions – and eternal life in the time to come.” (Mark 10:29-30) There are actually two paradoxes here: (1) the only way to get more is to give up what you have and (2) your blessings here on earth always come with persecution as well. Note that the one thing not promised by Jesus for those who leave everything for his sake are more fathers, since what you gain is the one Father.

But the greatest paradox of all, of course, is the crucifixion itself during which man killed God who had become man so that man could live and be with God. That paradox appears again as the main theme of C.S. Lewis' The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe and even in Obi-Wan Kenobi's sacrificial death at the hands of Darth Vader.

Aaron Wilson has also compiled a number of paired Scripture passages which he feels should not be viewed as contradictions but as paradoxes instead. Here are a few of them:

“We are worthless servants.” (Luke 17:10) vs. “We are his workmanship.” (Ephesians 2:10)

“Blessed are those who hunger.” (Matthew 5:6) vs. “No one who comes to me will ever be hungry.” (John 6:35)

“Take up my yoke and learn from me.” (Matthew 11:29) vs. “Don’t submit again to a yoke.” (Galatians 5:1)

“Everything is futile.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2) vs. the idea that everything is meaningful—“Whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31)

I am afraid that I would argue these are not real paradoxes at all since none of these individual sayings was purposely constructed as a paradox. Instead, the pairs do not appear together originally and most involve different authors and entirely different contexts. But they are certainly useful for sparking conversations between believers or between believers and non-believers alike. Thus, I will attempt to resolve these contradictions in other posts.

Titus 1:12-13

In closing, there is one really difficult paradox to understand found in Titus 1:12-13a: “It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said, 'Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.' That testimony is true.” Of course, the paradox is that if a Cretan stated that Cretans are always liars, how can his testimony be trusted? But I will also deal with that in another post.

 

NOTES ON THE BOOK OF JOB

Job 1:7 Some add “seeking someone to destroy” to indicate Satan's reason.

1:9 When Satan can’t get us to question our actions, he gets us to question our motives.

1:20 Compare II Sam 12:21-23 for handling grief. Also see Genesis 37:34-35, II Kings 6:33 and II 

Kings 4:26-28.

Job 9:17 This should be translated “push on the hairline" (not “tempest”)” in accord with an early 

north Syrian custom whereby a king would reject a petitioner with a smack on the forehead. (Edmard 

Greenstein, BAR)

9:30 Job is convinced that even if he is innocent, God will frame him (put him in a muddy pit).

Job 11:5-6 There are two sides to wisdom—one accessible to us and the other side known only to God. 

This is similar to Kafka's character K in The Trial.

Job 13:15 Other translations not as positive in tone. It boils down to a choice of going with the ketiv 

(what is written) or the qere form (what is to be spoken). (George Grose, Christianity Today, Sept. 

2018)

Job 19:20 The old KJV phrase “skin of my teeth” should probably be translated to indicate that Job's

teeth are beginning to spew forth from his mouth due to a disease such as leprosy. (Biblical Archeology 

Review BAR, Summer 2020, p. 59)

Job 31:1-12 The progression of sin described in these verses is like that found in James 1:14-15.

31:13-15 This is similar to Galatians 3:28.

31:35 see Ezekiel 9:4,6

Job 36:4 Dahood proposes, basis usage in the Ebla tablets, that "Perfect" is a designation for God

Job 37:16 see note on Job 36:4.

.

 

THE CREATION AND THE FLOOD: PAGAN MYTHOLOGY?

Sometimes the same facts that are used by critical Bible scholars to try to disprove the historicity of the early stories in Genesis actually turn out to disarm those same critics. As one example, cuneiform tablets uncovered from the remains of Ur (located north of the Persian gulf) and Nineveh in the 1800's appear to be copies of originals dated to about 1800-1600 BC, well before Genesis was written (considering that Moses lived around 1500-1300 BC).

These tablet contain a Creation myth in which there was a watery chaos at first followed by seven epochs of creation with man being formed on the sixth day. There was a later flood on earth, which one of the gods warns the tenth patriarch about. He builds a ship to hold his family and some animals. After the flood starts to subside, the ship lands on a mountain and the patriarch sends out a dove, a raven, and a swallow. When the family sets foot on dry land, they offer a sweet smelling sacrifice to the gods and we are told of their promise never to send another flood in the future.

There are many small discrepancies between the details in the Genesis story and these pagan accounts. In addition, our knowledge of the latter is actually fragmentary due to the condition of the tablets and some inconsistencies between the various versions of the myth that appear to be present. And even though some of the details of the story are similar, the Babylonian myth differs significantly in theme and intent from that in the Bible. Thus, in the former accounts:

    The gods (plural) cause the flood “because their hearts prompted them.” In other versions, it is said to have been because the humans were making so much noise the gods couldn't sleep.

    It was man, not God, who shut the door of the ship (described as something that could be steered in contrast to the ark, which was designed for floating only).

    The gods then get drunk and begin to argue among themselves.

    They begin to waste away since they had not thought ahead enough to remember that they were completely dependent on the odors of the sacrifices to stay alive.

    At that point they relent and allow mankind to multiply again, even if it does mean spending some sleepless nights due to the noise.

Notice how self-serving this pagan tale is in elevating the status of man in comparison to the feeble gods. One sees the same phenomenon in the tales of the various Greek, Roman and Norse

Getting back to the various pagan flood myths, the latest scholarly view on the subject is that these neither copied from the biblical accounts or served as the source for Genesis. Instead, the most likely scenario is that both stemmed from a much earlier story. This fits the situation where an authentic tradition of a cataclysmic event in the Near East related in Genesis was taken by pagan cultures in the area and changed into create a more self-serving story. In any case, the admitted close correspondence in details between the biblical and pagan accounts makes it highly unlikely that the early chapters of Genesis were only “manufactured” after Israel had become a nation, as earlier scholarly proposals held.

gods whose lives resemble a TV soap opera. Or one could look at some of the African tales in which the trickster rabbit (who later popped up as Br'er Rabbit) goes around outwitting the gods.

One might wonder why some of these cultures seem to have no concept of an all-powerful and loving God. The answer might be found in the book Eternity in Their Hearts by an ex-missionary named Don Richardson. He spent years with a tribe in Africa trying to learn more about their religious beliefs. At last, he gained the confidence of one of the tribal elders. After describing the biblical God, he asked why there didn't seem to be any vestige of that concept in their religious practices. The elder said that he fully recognized the biblical description as their chief God. But nobody talked about him or bothered worshiping him since he never did anything bad to you. It was the other malevolent deities that needed to be worshiped and appeased; otherwise they would hurt you in numerous ways.