ROOFTOP EXPERIENCES IN THE BIBLE

We have all heard the expression “mountaintop experience,” referring to some important event in one's life. In the Bible, that certainly applies literally to momentous occasions such as the giving of the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai, the Transfiguration, and Jesus' delivery of the Sermon on the Mount. But the Bible also contains some important rooftop experiences as well.

“The key to understanding biblical references to the housetop is to know that the architecture of houses included flat roofs as a salient feature and that regular household activities occurred there.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery) “The roof of the house provided extra accommodation which was often utilized in the summer. The family would sleep there, and use it as a living-room during the day, as well as a storeroom where raisins, figs, flax, etc., were spread out in the sun.” (J. L. Kelso)

Because of the many activities that took place on the top of houses, we find hidden among the miscellaneous commands God gave the people though Moses a divine building code regulation outlined in Deuteronomy 22:8. They are to build their houses with parapets around the roofs to prevent anyone from accidentally falling off. This illustrates how God cares for our welfare even down to the smallest detail.

Joshua 2 contains an important event occurring during the conquest of Jericho. Rahab leads the Jewish spies to the roof of the city and helps them to escape by lowering them down the outside the city walls. Even more important, however, is the fact that this kindness by Rahab will eventually lead to her deliverance and her status as a direct ancestress in the line leading to the birth of Jesus Christ.

There is an almost perfect parallel to this event in Acts 9 in which Paul's life is saved by friends lowering him in a basket down the wall of Damascus. Although in this occasion an opening in the wall is utilized rather than the actual rooftop, in both cases God used the event not only to save the lives of individuals, but also it led eventually to eternal salvation for many through Paul's subsequent preaching.

A quite different event occurs in Judges 16:25-31 when Samson's performance for the Philistines literally brings down the house, killing 3,000 of God's enemies who had gathered on the rooftop to observe it. This is the first of several passages in the Bible in which God's judgment is associated with rooftops in one way or another.

I Samuel 9 narrates the elaborate way in which God orchestrates events so as to maneuver Saul and Samuel into a meeting together so that Saul can be ordained as the first king of Israel. Part of the proceedings involve Saul sleeping on the roof of a house. If you turn to Acts 10 and read it in conjunction with this OT narrative, you will see another example of the complicated chain of events put into motion by God in order to “ordain” the Gentiles in the presence of His chosen representative. The representative is Peter in this case, and in both stories, one of the main characters sleeps or has a vision on a rooftop.

Also, since Peter went on top of the roof in order to pray, we see a direct contrast between appropriate worship here and the examples of pagan worship on rooftops that will be listed below.

In II Samuel 11:2-5 we learn of the rooftop experience in the Bible that most people probably recall the best. It begins with King David walking about on the roof of the royal palace. This probably afforded the best vantage point in the whole of Jerusalem, and I imagine David using it to survey part of his vast kingdom. If so, it would certainly be in keeping with his desire to conduct a census of all those in his empire, against God's wishes. It would also be in perfect keeping with a much later event in which King Nebuchadnezzar goes to the rooftop of his palace in order to view his widespread empire and congratulate himself for his own mighty power and glory. At that moment, God literally brings him down to earth where he will eat grass like an ox. (Daniel 4:28-33)

The evil that resulted from David's rooftop stroll includes the death of Uriah the Hittite, the death of his first child by Bathsheba, and divisions within David's household and within the kingdom as a whole. But at the same time, their union would eventually led to the birth of the great King Solomon. It is a good illustration of God using the same circumstances to accomplish His will in multiple ways (both in judgment and blessing).

As a sort of closure to the whole sad story of David's family that brings events full circle, in II Samuel 16:20-22 David's son Absalom goes to the same rooftop and has sex with David's concubines as a demonstration to the people that he has supplanted his father as king. And then, in II Samuel 18:24-33 David learns of the death of his wayward son Absalom from a messenger first detected by a guard stationed on the roof of the city gate.

There are several passages in which God predicts judgment on Judah and the city of Jerusalem specifically for the sin of worshiping pagan gods on the roofs of their houses (II Kings 23:12; Jeremiah 19:10-13; 32:29; Zephaniah 1:4-5).

Another association of rooftops with judgment is when it is predicted that the people of Moab will wail and lament from the top of their houses when God's retribution catches up with them (Isaiah 15:3; Jeremiah 48:38).

After the return from captivity, Ezra reads to the people the Book of the Law for the first time in decades, and the people celebrate by setting up booths on the top of the houses and live there during the time of the festival (Nehemiah 8:9-18). This is certainly a happy contrast to the people of Judah worshiping pagan gods on those same rooftops generations earlier.

This event in Nehemiah is also in stark contrast to the earlier time in Israel's history when the people rejoice from the rooftops that they are still alive after the Assyrians have attacked them. But Isaiah warns them that they have no reason to rejoice since they are soon to be carried off into captivity (Isaiah 22:1-3). There is a certain similarity to the Nehemiah passage and II Samuel 18:24-33 in that both involve rooftops and contrasting expectations as to whether events constitute good or bad news.

The theme of rooftops continues in the New Testament:

One of Jesus' first recorded miracles is the healing of the paralytic who had to be lowered down from the roof of a building by his friends (Mark 2:1-12; Luke 3:19). This physical healing represents a step further in the principle expressed in Deuteronomy 22:8 in that God not only exhibits his ideal will that our bodies be preserved from harm but also that they might be healed once they are injured.

Another instance of the top of roofs being associated with God's judgment is found in Matthew 24:16 and its parallels in Mark 13:15 and Luke 17:31. Jesus advises the inhabitants of Jerusalem who see the signs of imminent danger and are on their rooftops to come down immediately and flee for their lives without stopping to take any possessions with them. I realize that almost all prophecy “experts” take the teachings of Jesus as referring to some End Times event, whether it be the Rapture, the Tribulation, or the Second Coming. But to do so is an especially egregious example of poor exegesis. Do they really believe that people can escape such world-shaking events merely by running away? The more logical conclusion is that at least some of the warnings in Matthew 24 are specifically addressing the coming judgment on Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. My detailed analysis of this chapter can be read in the post titled “Matthew 24: One or Two Questions?”

Finally, we come to a pair of sayings by Jesus to his disciples which are so similar in wording that some scholars feel they are two versions of the same original teaching.

    “There is nothing covered up that will not be uncovered, nothing hidden that will not be made known. What I say to you in the dark you must repeat in broad daylight; what you hear whispered you must shout from the house-tops.” (Matthew 10:27 NEB)

    “There is nothing covered up that will not be uncovered, nothing hidden that will not be made known. You may take it, then, that everything you have said in the dark will be heard in broad daylight, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be shouted from the house-tops. (Luke 12:1-3 NEB)

Jesus has apparently used almost the identical saying to make two somewhat different points. In Matthew 10, Jesus prefaces his words by saying, “So do not be afraid of them,” referring to enemies of the truth and their probable reaction to the disciples' outspoken proclamations. And he follows the above statement by stressing that the disciples have no need to fear those who can only destroy one's body. By contrast, the version in Luke begins with Jesus warning the disciples against the sin of hypocrisy since even their secret behavior in private will eventually be known for all the world to hear.

The context of both sayings is the final revelation of all things at the Last Judgment, but there is a difference in emphasis in each case:

    Matthew 10 had to do with “the bold proclamation of what the disciples had heard in private.” But in Luke 12, “it refers much more to a person's inner makeup.” (Fitzmyer)

    “In Lk. What is said secretly will be made known publicly; secrets will not remain hidden. In Mt., however the disciples are commanded to proclaim openly what they have learned secretly; the gospel must be spread and made known...Both forms give a good sense with what follows.” (Marshall)

And Ellis brings out another contrast in that in Luke: “The dominant note” is admonition, whereas encouragement is the emphasis in Matthew.

 

MONSTERS IN THE BIBLE

The word “monster” can have several different meanings:

1. Something or someone large and imposing in appearance.

2. One who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior.

3. A legendary animal combining features of animal and human form or having the forms of various animals in combination such as a centaur, griffin, or sphinx.

The Bible contains examples meeting all of these definitions. Thus, behemoth and leviathan would probably be examples of the first meaning (Job 40-41) as well as the “giants” that the spies observe in Canaan (Numbers 13). In terms of moral monsters (Definition 2), there are many to choose from in the OT account, and Herod the Great would certainly be one from the NT. But I would like to concentrate mainly on the last type of monster as sort of a follow-up to my earlier post on “Mixtures in the Bible” since monsters represent the most extreme form of mixtures one can imagine.

One would expect that all of these compound beings would be pictured as the product of evil forces and prohibited intercourse of all sorts between drastically different species, thus violations of God's original command for animals to only produce after their own kind (Genesis 1:21). But paradoxically, these monsters occur in two basic types: those having rather ominous and foreboding overtones and those representing benevolent forces. Another possible two-fold division is equally possible – one in which the monsters are symbols and harbingers of earthly events that will transpire in an historical time frame and those which are used in an attempt to convey to us spiritual truths which we will not fully understand in this life.

Another general concept concerning these creatures is in order before proceeding. Most of the monstrous beings pictured in the Bible appear in dreams or visions. And the vast majority of these are clearly interpreted in the text as being symbols of some literal truth, not images to be taken as physical realities in themselves. Contrary to this well accepted scholarly view is the method paradoxically followed by both skeptics and fundamentalists alike. Thus, the rabid atheist Erich von Daniken in Chariots of the Gods interpreted Ezekiel 1 as a literal flying saucer observed by the prophet, thus shooting down the whole concept of supernatural beings. Similarly, dispensationalists often cite their literal method of interpretation as being superior to any other method of hermeneutics so that, for example, Hal Lindsay explained in The Late Great Planet Earth that the monstrous locusts of Revelation 9 were merely John's feeble attempt to describe attack helicopters that he had seen in the vision.

Regarding this method of interpretation, I will quote Paul a little out of context: “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” (II Corinthians 3:6b) Thus, whether or not there is a literal meaning intended, to totally deny the images having any symbolic significance is to rob them of all their underlying meaning.

The first possible example of a hybrid creature we encounter is the serpent in Genesis 3. He apparently looks like a snake except for the legs we can surmise that he has, in light of the subsequent curse on him to be condemned to slither along the ground. And the other strange feature he possesses is his advanced mind and ability to talk. Is this a walking snake that is totally possessed by Satan or a guise in which a spiritual creature like Satan chose to present himself to the first couple? In either case, the resulting monster certainly fits definitions 2 and 3 above, as well as fitting in with the negative connotations in the Bible concerning pure vs. mixed species.

The second prominent example is described rather vaguely in Genesis 6:1-4. But at least one of the interpretations of that event is that spiritual beings such as angels had sexual intercourse with women, and perhaps the result of that union was the birth of a hybrid species, the Nephilim, who were later associated with the giant tribes encountered by the Israelites (see my post on this passage for several other interpretations). In any case, this race of people is obviously rather large and imposing and associated with other groups such as the Anakim and Rephaim.

The first monstrous beings in a dream to appear in the Bible are the cannibalistic cows and grains in which Joseph successfully interprets for Pharaoh as referring to the coming famine. (Genesis 41)

The next set of images of composite beings is far more positive and complex in tone, and it appears to begin with the furnishings of Solomon's temple, which may or may not have been designed as representations of heavenly realities. Among these were twelve bronze basin stands, each decorated with a picture of of a lion, oxen and cherub with metal wheels allowing the stands to be moved around. In addition were statues of two cherubim with wings. (I Kings 6:23-28; 7:23-37) Variations of this imagery appear several times more in Scripture as a case of either art imitating life, life imitating art, or perhaps both. “The effect of all this is to reinforce the difference between heaven and earth...the motives of strangeness and transcendence keep alive our awareness that earthly images do not exist in the ordinary manner in heaven.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

This brings us to the grand vision of Ezekiel recorded in chapters 1. It is a very complex sight apparently picturing God's heavenly throne. Embedded in the details are the fact that it moves rapidly in any direction on wheels that have eyes in their rims. These two facts appear to point, respectively, to God's omnipresence and omniscience. As part of this throne apparatus are four living creatures, each one with two pairs of wings, human hands, and having four different faces. The faces resemble a human being, lion, ox and eagle. These beasts are then called cherubim in Ezekiel 10, and in addition the ox face is described as the face of a cherub. At this point, you should be struck by the great similarity of the temple furnishings with Ezekiel's vision, as well as some more subtle differences.

As to why those four particular living creatures were chosen, there is almost complete agreement between scholars on that point. It all goes back to Genesis 1 in which the various categories of created beings were described. The ox was the epitome of a strong domesticated beast, the eagle as the swiftest of the birds, the lion as the most powerful of the wild beasts, and human beings were chosen since they were created in God's image. Consider David's characterization of Saul and Jonathan in II Samuel 1:23 as “swifter than eagles, stronger than lions.” All four examples of creation are seen to exist mainly and ultimately to serve God.

But that is not the end of this basic image. Its final reappearance comes in the grand throne scene of Revelation 4 where we see four living creatures surrounding God, each full of eyes and having six wings. The major difference between here and with Ezekiel's vision is that the unique characteristics of each beast are seen separately. Thus, each one presents only a single face, not four. One resembles an eagle, one a lion, one an ox, and the final one a human being. So to some extent, the mixtures of species are resolved into their individual species as in the original creation.

Moving from Ezekiel's vision to that of Isaiah 6:2, the prophet sees the seraphim around God's throne. “They are said to have hands, feet, faces, and wings, but nothing more is said of their appearance.” (Oswalt) We could add that they have the ability to sing, indicating a mixture of properties associated with birds and human beings. And since the word seraphim refers to serpents in Numbers 21:6; Isaiah 14:29; 30:6, they could have serpentine characteristics as well (although there are alternative etymologies associated with the word). “In any case, the seraphim typify the appropriate response to God's holiness.” (Oswalt) That includes wings to cover their eyes and private parts in God's presence and a voice with which to praise Him.

The Book of Daniel contains a whole host of dreams and visions with compound beings in them, all clearly interpreted in the text as standing for a progression of nations (from the Babylonians to the Romans) and their rulers engaged in conflict with one another. In this case, their “monstrous” physical appearance represents in general their earthly and sub-earthly nature.

    Daniel 2: a statue composed of various incompatible materials ranging from the precious to the common.

    Daniel 4: a king who will eat grass like an ox, have hair like eagles' feathers, and nails like birds' claws.

    Daniel 7: four creatures who come from the sea.

        Lion with eagles' wings who becomes like a man.

        Bear with three tusks.

        Leopard with four wings and four heads.

        Beast with iron teeth, claws of bronze, and ten horns which become eight horns. The last horn with eyes in it.

    Daniel 8: A goat and a ram fight with horns breaking off and growing back again.

This same symbolic use of compound animals appears in the final apocalyptic book in the Bible.

    Revelation 9:1-11: A swarm of very complex monsters comes out of the Pit to torture people. Ruiz says of these beast that they “combine the terrors of evil spirits and of invading cavalry.” For an explanation of this figure, consult my post “Revelation 8-11.”

    Revelation 12: This chapter introduces us to the red dragon with seven heads and ten horns who can pour rivers of water out of its mouth. The recurring use of numbers such as seven, ten, and twelve in the apocalyptic literature is explained in more detail in the post titled “Book of Revelation: the Language.”

    Revelation 13: The beast from the sea (vv. 1-10) is said to possess ten horns and seven heads as well as resembling a leopard with feet of a bear and a mouth like a lion. The beast from the earth (vv. 11-18) has two horns like a lamb and a voice like a dragon.

    Revelation 17:7-13: The symbolic meaning of the beast from the sea in terms of earthly kings and kingdoms are interpreted historically, similar to the monsters of Daniel.

Another basic image can be traced from the OT to the NT, that of a woman with wings. Zechariah (5:5-11) has a vision of a woman in a basket who is named “Wicked,” She is taken away from Judah and transported to Babylon by two women who have wings like those of a stork. In the exact same manner, the woman in Revelation 12 who is pursued by the dragon manages to escape by sprouting wings and flying away to the wilderness. This woman has been variously interpreted to stand for the Church or for Mary, who escaped Herod to Egypt with the infant Jesus.

Thus, one can see that compound beasts in the Bible appear to epitomize both the depths of evil forces and the highest of divine beings. Therefore it is appropriate to conclude with the ultimate example of a divine “monster,” Christ Himself. This is actually not as strange a concept as it might at first seem. For one thing, Revelation 5:6 pictures him as a literal monster resembling a slain lamb which has seven horns and seven eyes. But that is just a symbol of the theological mix that He is in reality.

Since most monsters are pictured as if they were the product of some sort of interbreeding, keep in mind the unique nature of Jesus' genealogy as presented in the Gospel of Matthew. Unlike traditional Jewish genealogies, there are three times when the ancestresses of Jesus are specifically mentioned in it. And even more notable is the fact that two of these represent cases of intermarriage between a Gentile women with a Jewish man: Ruth the Moabite and Rahab the Canaanite. This theme prepares us for the unique birth of Jesus as the non-sexual union of Mary and the Holy Spirit. So in essence, Christ is the ultimate divine “monster” in the Bible: wholly man and wholly God.

Finally, as two suggested discussion questions:

    Since we who are in Christ are a “new creation” in which the Holy Spirit dwells, doesn't that make us a composite creature as well?

    Considering all of the above divine “monsters,” does it help at all in our dim understanding of the mystery of the Trinity: the great Three in One?

 

BIRDS IN THE BIBLE, PART 2 (DIFFERENT SPECIES)

In a previous post (“ Birds in the Bible, Part 1”), I explored some of the biblical references to birds in general. But in addition to those passages, the characteristics of specific bird species are used for figurative or symbolic significance elsewhere. But before I begin, I should note that the proper translation of any Hebrew words of a technical nature found in the Old Testament – whether it be types of musical instruments, gemstones, or animals – may involve a bit of guesswork from the context. With that caveat, let's look at a few specific types of birds highlighted in the Bible.

Sparrows

The biblical significance of sparrows lies in their insignificance in man's eyes. “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? But not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.” (Matthew 10:29)

Ostriches

These awkward looking beasts have certainly gotten a bad rap in the Bible. For one thing, they are often featured in prophetic passages as occupying the ruins of cities destroyed by God's judgment along with owls, hyenas, and various supernaturally evil creatures. See references ranging from Isaiah 34:12-15 to Revelation 18:2, where Babylon falls and becomes the dwelling place of every foul bird (no pun intended).

Commenting on Job 39:13, Davies says that “there are negative connotations in the following verses...in what seems to be a caricature of the ostrich's worst possible traits. These are not universally or even generally scientifically observed, but a comparison might be made with the equally inaccurate modern day belief that an ostrich buries its head in the sand.”

These negative properties are also given in Lamentations 4:34. In both passages they reflect the bird's apparent character upon observation. This is another example of the Bible's phenomenological approach to what is seen in nature rather than our more scientific approach. The Jews were more concerned with describing the actual behavior than delving into the possible reasons behind the observations.

Ravens

Ravens are associated with food in several OT passages. In both Job 38:41 and Psalm 147:9, God's provision is said to extend even to the young ravens by providing them with food when they are hungry. And in turn, God utilizes ravens to themselves give nourishment to the prophet Elijah when he is in hiding (I Kings 17:6). This could be taken to mean that when we are blessed by God, we should in turn bless others. And in passing, I wondered if there couldn't be some sort of original connection between our English words “ravenous” and “raven” in light of the biblical references. It turns out that there are completely different origins for the two words.

Partridge

“Like the partridge hatching an egg it did not lay are all those who build up wealth by cheating others. Later their goods will desert them and they will be shown up as fools.” Cansdale says, “The significance of the proverb in Je. xvii.11 is not clear.” And John Bright characterizes the heterogeneous material in this chapter as “the contents of Jeremiah's 'miscellaneous file.'” Biddle says that it is “a proverb, addressing the problem of the prosperity of the wicked.” J.A. Thompson adds, “As the young birds of the deceiver grow up and recognize in the 'parent' a different breed they fly off.” D.R. Jones, contra Bright, feels that this proverb belongs firmly in its context and applies it to the immoral behavior of King Jehoiakim (see Jeremiah 22:13-17).

Doves

These birds are featured an uncommon number of times in the Bible, often highlighting entirely different characteristics. The generally amorous reputation of breeding pairs causes them to be a prime image in the Song of Songs:

    1:15 Her eyes are doves.

    2:14 She is inaccessible.

    4:1 Her eyes are doves.

    5:2 “my dove, my perfect one”

    5:12 His eyes are doves.

    6:9 “my dove, my perfect one”

Goulder notes that the fact that doves often pair off together renders them an ideal image for two lovers. The inaccessibility of doves (2:14), as with most birds, is an understandable image for the lover, as is the endearing term “dove” for one's perfect mate. But the remaining comparisons in this book need a little explanation.

Concerning the metaphor comparing a person's eyes with doves, Snaith says, “The particular reference...has puzzled commentators over the years.” He offers the possibility that this expression may derive from the Egyptian artistic practice of picturing people's eyes to resemble the contour of a bird's body. Gledhill makes the same suggestion in addition to the possibility “that the expression implies that her eyes are like the eyes of doves; that is, they have an iridescent quality.”

Hosea 7:11-12 compares their silliness with that of Ephraim running off to Egypt and Assyria. Mobley feels that doves' reputation for showing little sense comes from their over-familiarity with humans that causes them to be easily captured. However, in Hosea 11:11 there is a prophecy of their eventual return to their home. And this is also the theme of Isaiah 60:8-9 where flying doves are the image employed to describe some of the exiles returning in the future.

Perhaps related to the supposed lack of good sense of doves is Jesus' saying that believers need to be both as wise as serpents and innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16). That is a balance that few of us manage to achieve. Instead we tend to be either overly cynical or overly gullible. Neither one reflects an ideal situation.

Whereas we would characterize the sound that doves make as a cooing, indicating a sort of contentment in our minds, the Jews interpreted it in an entirely different manner as a sort of mourning or lamenting. This can be seen in Isaiah 38:14; 59:11; Ezekiel 7:16; and Nahum 2:7. This is an excellent illustration of the fact that often our view of things may be quite culturally determined.

The metaphor of the soul as a bird “finds its culmination in the Holy Spirit descending as a dove (Mt 3:16; Mk 1:10; Lk 3:22; Jn 1:32).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery).

But perhaps the most important use of the dove in biblical imagery originates with the story of Noah and the ark in which a dove is sent out and comes back with an olive branch in its beak, indicating that there is dry ground which already contains growth on it. The early Roman Christians pictured doves with olive branches on their tombs, and this symbology for peace was confirmed by Augustine.

Whereas G.F. Snyder felt that Greek thought must have been utilized by the Christians to come up with this imagery, that is not necessarily so. Consider the simple fact that the return of the dove to the ark indicated the end of God's wrath against mankind's sin, which He expressed through the flood. And the early Christians also associated this fact with the descent of the Spirit as a dove at Christ's baptism since each Christian's baptism marks the end of enmity between that person and God.

Eagles

The exact species of bird often translated as “eagle” is rather hard to pin down exactly. According to the ornithologist Cansdale, the Hebrew word raham probably refers to the Egyptian vulture; neser should be taken as a generic term for any large bird of prey; and the Greek word aetos (Matthew 24:28) refers to the griffin vulture. This last bird also appears in Micah 1:16, where its “bald” head is used as an apt description of people who shave off their hair as they lament their children being sent off into exile.

So when it comes to raptors or scavenger birds such as buzzards and vultures, such birds were considered ritually unclean “but also linked symbolically...with the realm of the dead, identifying them as agents of the supernatural.” This is seen in II Samuel 21:10; Jeremiah 7:33. Continuing with this negative symbology, “the swift carnage of war” is pictured as an eagle in Deuteronomy 28:49; Jeremiah 4:12; and Habakkuk 1:8. (DBI)

Then in Isaiah 46:11, God calls “a bird of prey from the east, a man for my purpose from a far country.” This rare example of emblematic poetic parallelism refers to God choosing Cyrus the Persian to conquer Babylon and eventually bring the Jews back from Exile. This passage casts a bird of prey in the dual role of a violent predator and deliverer. And thus, it prepares us to turn from a purely negative view of these animals to the more positive images of “eagles” in the Bible.

God says to the Israelites whom He had rescued out of Egypt: “I bore you on eagles' wings.” (Exodus 19:4)

“References to the eagle sprouting wings (Prov 23:5) and renewing its youth (Ps 103:5) may reflect its annual molting rather than its longevity, but it is clearly used of the invigorating renewal of strength imparted by Yahweh.” (P.T. Davies)

But the negative imagery associated with this class of birds is not left behind entirely in the New Testament. Witness one of Jesus' so-called dark sayings recorded in Matthew 24:28 – “Where the eagles are, there is the body.” Concerning this passage, France explains first of all that it is an echo of the proverb found in Job 39:30. As to its meaning, one must consider the immediate context. Thus, the probable interpretation is that “the parousia of the Son of Man will be as obvious as the presence of the carcass” indicated by circling vultures overhead. The alternative view that this is a reference to the military standards (with their image of eagles) of the Roman army approaching Jerusalem is probably rather far-fetched. In conclusion, we see here eagles associated with the Second Coming of Christ in judgment, with its good and bad consequences for mankind.

Other than that NT reference, the few other allusions to eagles are found in the Book of Revelation and are completely positive in tone. Revelation 4:7 pictures one of the four living creatures around God's throne who worship Him as an eagle. And Revelation 12:14 contains the symbolic rescue of the woman (Mary?) from the clutches of the dragon by allowing her to sprout wings so that she could fly away to the wilderness in safety. Beale notes that this “reflects the picture of God as an eagle protecting Israel in the wilderness, which is an allusion combining Exod. 19:4; Deut. 1:31-33; 32:10-15.”

 

BIRDS IN THE BIBLE, PART I (FIGURATIVE FOWLS)

I thought it might be interesting to review all the occasions in the Bible where the image of a bird appeared, not in literal reality but as part of the many cases and types of figurative language in Scripture. But it turns out that the allusions to birds in general or specific species of birds are far too numerous to be easily canvassed in one or two posts. So what is below should only be treated as the tip of the iceberg.

“Palestine is a land very rich in birds. It has a great range of habitats, varying from semi-tropical to true desert; moreover, one of the main migration routes from Africa...runs through the whole length of Israel.” (Cansdale) Therefore it is no surprise that figures of speech and symbolic allusions to birds abound in the Bible. “By and large the similes constructed around birds refer to their characteristic habits.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Some of the earliest references to birds in the Old Testament are decidedly negative in tone:

    In Genesis 15:11 “Abram wards off the birds of prey while making a covenant with the Lord. It is generally understood that the sacrifices here represent Israel, while the birds of prey represent unclean nations, Gentiles, possibly Egypt. In other passages, 'ayit sometimes represents foreign invaders (Isa 46:11; Jer 12:9).” (Kiuchi)

    We could also look at the symbolism found in the baker's dream in which the ravenous birds (oph) peck at his basket of bread and eventually at his dead body. (Genesis 40:17,19)

    Jeremiah 5:27 utilizes birds collectively in the simile addressed against Judah: “Like a cage full of birds, their houses are filled with treachery.”

But before jumping to the conclusion that the presence of birds always connotes something sinister, consider first a pair of Jesus' kingdom parables:

    Soils and the Seed (Matthew 13:3-23; Mark 4:3-20; Luke 8:4-15)

In this parable, the first seeds fall on the path and the birds eat it up. In his explanation, Jesus likens the birds to Satan who snatches the Word from people's heart before it has time to grow, a decidedly evil image.

    Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-33; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18-19)

Based in part on the above example, some commentators interpret the birds roosting in the mustard tree (the church) in the same negative way. Those scholars feel the growth of the kingdom will become abnormally large so that it includes even the “birds of the air,” standing for evil influences, i.e., unsaved people in the visible church body. As a variation in this belief, James Boice feels that the “abnormal” growth of church structure is in mind.” By contrast, the majority of interpreters consider kingdom growth to be entirely positive. They rightly point out that each symbol in the Bible has to be taken on its individual basis in its own context since often the same symbol represents different spiritual realities. 

The remaining examples below should serve as ample illustration of the wide variety of symbolic uses the same basic image possesses in the Bible. I would like to begin with some generic references to birds, with the caveat that it is not always possible to pin down whether a given passage is referring to birds in general or to one particular species of bird.

Wings and Flight

Of course, the most characteristic property of birds is their ability to fly. The fact that birds can fly about unobtrusively from place to place gives rise to the proverb in Ecclesiastes 10:20 that says you should be careful what you say about the rich and powerful since a bird may repeat your words to them. This proverb survives today in the expression: “A little bird told me.” On the converse side, wisdom is said to be hidden even from the birds of the air despite the fact that they can travel just about anywhere. (Job 28:21) Jeremiah 8:7 contrasts the birds knowing the time to migrate with the inability of the people to observe God's laws.

The ease of flying exhibited by birds is also alluded to in the prophecy “Ephraim's glory shall fly away like a bird.” (Hosea 9:11) And there are numerous references to the fact that birds are thus able to easily elude those who would harm them (Leviticus 14:52-53; Psalm 11:1; 55:4-7; 124:6-7;139:9; Proverbs 6:5).

Thus, there are times when both birds of prey and birds who are prey appear in the Bible. For the latter, see passages such as I Samuel 26:20 and Psalms 124:7. For example, Proverbs 7:23 compares a man who falls for a married woman to a bird rushing into a snare unawares. But Proverbs 1:10-19 makes the point that although a bird will not fly into a trap that it sees being set, evil men rush to their inevitable doom.

This image of birds being caught also appears in the rhetorical question of Amos 3:5: “Does a bird fall into a snare without there being a trap?” There are other questions in 3:2-8 which “build to an inescapable conclusion in v. 8b.” (Mobley) That passage reads, “The Lord GOD has spoken; who can but prophesy?”

Proverbs 26:2 says that an undeserved curse is like a bird flitting around – it goes nowhere. Another association of birds with curses is found in an obscure ritual in Leviticus 14 for removing the curse of “leprosy” from a house. Two birds are taken, one for sacrifice to God and the other to symbolically carry the problem far away from the site. This is strikingly like the annual ritual on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) during which two goats are taken. “The first goat...symbolizes the divine side of atonement: God's holy justice is satisfied by the sprinkling of blood before him. The second goat represents the human side of atonement. The sins of the people are transferred to the goat by Aaron's hands. The goat is then escorted outside the camp to 'carry on itself all their sins.' By means of this transfer the people are cleansed of the defilement sin has brought on them...The symbolism of two goats on the Day of Atonement indicates that both concepts are essential in the OT imagery of atonement.” (DBI)  Of course, the fulfillment of this ritual is Christ's atoning death and resurrection during which he literally flew away with our sins.

Wings become a powerful symbol in themselves. They usually are employed in the Bible as a metaphor for divine protection, especially in the Psalms (see 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; and 91:4). Boaz prays in Ruth 2:12 that God will take her under His wings (kanap). Interestingly, later on in the story it is Boaz himself who takes her under his cloak (kanap), demonstrating that sometimes God chooses us to be the instruments by which He answers prayer.

God will protect Jerusalem like a bird hovering above (Isaiah 31:5) This image carries over into the New Testament when Jesus cries out over the doomed city of Jerusalem, “How often have I desired to gather your children as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” (Matthew 23:37)

Nests

Another distinctive of birds is their unique nesting habits. “Conspicuous, yet inaccessible, nests stand as symbols of heaven-ordained security (Song 2:14; Jer. 48:28).” (DBI) And P.T. Davies adds: “Thus, birds' nests tend to typify “delight, contentment and protection in the presence of God.” The practice of sparrows and swallows nesting in various parts of the temple complex is compared to the blessing of those who spend their time in the temple singing God's praises. (Psalm 84:3-4) One could also cite Psalm 104:16-18 describing how God provides good nesting places for the birds.

By contrast, those without a nest present a totally different picture. The outcasts from Moab are compared to wandering birds kicked out of their secure nests. (Isaiah 16:2) And the wayward husband is characterized as “a bird that strays from its nest.” (Proverbs 27:8) Finally, look at Jesus' situation described in Luke 9:58: “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” (Psalm 84:3-4) In that same way, His followers today are aliens here on earth since “this world is not my home; I'm just a-passing through.”

The imagery associated with particular avian species will be discussed in a subsequent post.

 

HEZEKIAH'S TUNNEL (II KINGS 20:20; II CHRONICLES 32:2-4,30)

“Throughout its history, Jerusalem had several water systems, most of which centered on the Gihon Spring, located at the bottom of the eastern slope, which was the only perennial water source for Jerusalem and was the reason for the city's location.” The oldest water system from Gihon Spring was the Siloam Channel... The system lies outside the fortifications, and its vulnerability suggests peacetime usage.” (Borowski)

To prepare for the siege of the city by Sennacherib of Assyria in the late 8^th century BC, King Hezekiah connected the Gihon Spring located in the Kidron Valley to the Pool of Siloam inside the walls of Jerusalem with an S-shaped tunnel dug into the rock about 1,750 feet long. Diggers started at both ends and worked toward the middle. One can still detect the place inside the tunnel where the two teams of diggers met.

In June of 1880, a pupil of archeologist Conrad Schick was playing in the tunnel with some friends. He slipped and fell into the water. Getting up, he noticed writing on the wall three feet above the floor of the tunnel. Despite the attempts of some critics to ascribe this inscription to a much later time period, “the overwhelming consensus continues to date the inscription to Hezekiah's reign.” (B.T. Arnold) The evidence for this dating comes from both paleography (the shapes of the Hebrew letters) and the similarity of events with II Kings 20:20. “This is unlike any other ancient Near Eastern monumental inscription. It is a purely secular document...” (J.M. Hadley)

The inscription reads as follows:

“Now this is the manner of the breakthrough. While still [ ] the axe, each toward his fellow and while three cubits still remained to be tunneled, the voice of a man [was hea]rd calling to his fellow, for there was a fissure in the rock on the right [ ]. Now when the tunnel was cut through, each of the excavators hewed through to meet his fellow, axe against axe, and the waters began flowing from the source toward the reservoir for 1,200 cubits, 100 cubits being the height of the rock above the heads of the excavators.”

Borowski suggests that the fissure described above was possibly followed by the excavators and that is how the two teams were able to meet up in the middle.

In 1890, the inscription was broken off the wall and eventually sold to a Greek citizen of Jerusalem. The Turkish government acquired the pieces of the inscription and placed them in the Museum of the Ancient Orient in Istanbul.

 

II CORINTHIANS 6:14 "DO NOT BE UNEQUALLY YOKED."

Most Christians would have no trouble recognizing this familiar passage or identifying its meaning as prohibiting mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers. But things aren't always that simple. And even if they are at times, biblical scholars will always find a way to complicate them. First, there is the apparent issue of the authenticity of this saying:

“Whether this passage [II Corinthians 6:14-7:1] actually belongs where it is located in our canonical 2 Cor has been discussed since early in the nineteenth century, and whether it can be attributed to Paul himself has been discussed almost as long.” (Fitzmyer)

Most conservative scholars do not share this concern. But even they often disagree as to its actual meaning:

Hawthorne points to the same Greek root present in Jesus' words applied to marriage in Mark 10:9. “So it is correct to see marriage as at least one kind, if not the only kind, of mismating Paul had in mind.”

Fee and Stuart take a decidedly different approach to this passage: “Traditionally, this text has been interpreted as forbidding marriage between a Christian and non-Christian. However, the metaphor of a yoke is rarely used in antiquity to refer to marriage, and there is nothing whatever in the context that remotely allows marriage to be in view here. Our problem is that we cannot be certain as to what the original text is forbidding.”

Brauch is in complete agreement and concerning the application to marriage says, “Though this understanding may be a valid application, the context of the passage suggests that marriage was not what Paul had in mind here.” Brauch reasons: “The statement...is followed by a series of five antithetical questions which define the nature of incompatibility between believers and unbelievers. The questions are rhetorical; thus the answers are obvious.” There is nothing in common between the two parties.

Fitzmyer basically agrees with the above assessment. “As to what Paul is referring to specifically, nothing in this passage itself, or even in the wider context of 2 Cor 1-9, warrants particularizing the admonition...It is better, pending a convincing judgment on this point, to regard the appeal as a very general one, hardly more specific than the concern expressed in Jas 1:26, 'to keep oneself unstained from the world.'”

Others, such as Hughes, remain somewhat uncommitted as to the intended application but yet leave the door open for mixed marriages to be one of the possibilities. Concerning the key term for “yoke” (zygos), Link and Brown, contra Fee and Stuart, note “the association of the word group in general with marriage, though it is by no means an exclusive association.” Thus, “the whole context and argument of 2 Cor 6:14ff. appears to look beyond mixed marriages to idolatry and defilement in general...although a mixed marriage could lead to such idolatry and defilement.” As a prime example of this truth, just consider the sad end of “wise” King Solomon.

Getting to the underlying principle being expressed by Paul is Tasker, who applies it to the general danger of compromising with believers; and R.P. Martin explains that it did not counsel complete withdrawal from the Gentile world, but was warning “against compromising the integrity of faith.” As to that last point, see passages such as John 17:15; I Corinthians 5:10; 7:12-16,39; 10:27.

Clines gets a little more specific when he says, “He [Paul] is speaking generally of permanent association with unbelievers; but not all associations are yokes. He does not exhort them to abandon any such ties they may have contracted...but warns them not to continue forming them.” See I Corinthians 7:12ff about his teachings on existing mixed marriages. And whereas for Clines the forbidden “yoking” is in terms of permanent associations, Brauch defines it in terms of the degree of association: “Thus to be 'yoked with unbelievers' is to be of one heart and mind with them, co-opted by the values that guide them, seduced by their commitments to various 'gods and lords.'”

Lowery says, “Though verses 14-15 are often applied to various sorts of alliances (e.g., mixed marriages, improper business associations), Paul's primary association was probably ecclesiastical.” This would include both pagan idolaters and false prophets. Fitzmyer adds that the immediate context requires that the reference is strictly to non-Christians, not Paul's Christian opponents or Gentile Christians who do not follow the Jewish law.

In closing, it is imperative to keep in mind that Paul was quoting here directly from Deuteronomy 22:10, which along with Leviticus 19:19 contains various prohibitions against admixtures of incompatible items. So if you are interested in the broader rationale behind such OT regulations, please read my blog on “Mixtures in the Bible,” which traces the development of different aspects of this theme throughout the Scriptures.

 

MIXTURES IN THE BIBLE

Of all the regulations given in Leviticus, perhaps the most incomprehensible is the prohibition against wearing garments made from different materials (Leviticus 19:19). Also in this verse are commands against cross-breeding animals and sowing a field with a mixture of seeds. But at least these other regulations seem to have a semblance of common sense to them, as does Deuteronomy 22:10 with its prohibition against plowing a field with a team consisting of an ass and an ox.

It turns out that Leviticus 19:19 is just a small part of a whole complex of ideas that begins in Genesis and ends in Revelation. So below is a rough summary of the overarching concepts holding them all together.

Proper Borders

One of the first things we learn about God in Genesis 1 besides His creative acts is that He is a God of order, with everything in its proper place. God begins by creating certain realms formed by acts of divine separation: light from dark, atmosphere from earth, and water from dry land. Then each of these realms was populated by appropriate things or beings especially suited to their individual environments. Whether one understands Genesis 1 as a scientifically accurate account or divine mythology, the fact remains that these actions of God are definitely accompanied by theological insights into the nature of God.

Concerning the original separation acts, limits are set for the water. As it says poetically in Job 38:8-11: “God set bars and doors and pronounced, 'You shall go so far and no further, and here your proud waves with stay.'” These limits set for the water are only transgressed once in the OT, and that is of course when God allowed the water to flood the earth and cleanse it of all the evil present there. Interestingly, one of the possible precipitating factors bringing about the Flood is the prohibited interbreeding described rather obscurely in Genesis 6:1-4 between the sons of God and the daughters of men. There are various interpretations of what that really means (see my post on that passage), but in any case, it definitely represented a prohibited form of mixing what should not have been mixed.

We then read further in Genesis that after the Flood came the incident of the Tower of Babel resulting in God scattering the people throughout the earth. Paul may have been referring to that event when, in Acts 17:26, he tells the inhabitants of Athens that God “allotted the boundaries of their existence.” It is interesting that one of the few ecclesiastical groups in recent times to make a major issue out of this verse is the Dutch Reformed Church. It quoted this passage in a 1976 document defending the policy of apartheid in South Africa on biblical grounds. Of course, the rank hypocrisy of such an interpretation is exposed by the fact that it was the Dutch in the first place who colonized lands “allotted” to the African tribes inhabiting that land. This church body recanted their position ten years later. For a little more on this issue, see my post titled “Apartheid in the Bible?”

Again, assuming that Paul was citing aftermath of the Babel event, the following verse, 17:27, explains God's rationale for dividing up mankind into different geographical regions when he says, “so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him – though indeed he is not far from each one of us.” (NRSV) If so, then this passage in Acts thoroughly discredits Michael Heiser's repeated assertion in his writings that God was punishing the people at Babel by disbursing them, and basically washing His hands of all non-Jews at that time.

This OT theme of dividing people groups geographically and linguistically takes a complete U-turn in the New Testament beginning at the Day of Pentacost when there is a symbolic reversal of multiple languages now becoming one spiritual language that all can comprehend. That reversal is continued during the ministry of the early church beyond the bounds of Israel to encompass an Ethiopian, Samaritans, and pagans living throughout the Roman Empire. Paul stresses that in Christ there is neither Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). And it culminates in the Book of Revelation with its seven-fold repetition of the saved of “every people, every tongue, every tribe, etc.”

Getting back to the original separations made by God and described in Genesis 1, that theme also reaches its conclusion in Revelation, where we learn that the moon will become blood and the stars will fall from the sky (6:12), there will be no more sea (21:1), heaven will come down to earth (21:2), and there will be no more night or sun (22:5). At that point in time, there will no longer be the need for any such physical boundaries since all will be incorporated together in the New Heaven and New Earth under the eternal reign of God.

Another aspect of the theme of proper boundaries is seen in man's repeated attempts to transgress the limits set for him. We see this first in Adam and Eve's attempt to be like God Himself, followed later by the building of the Tower of Babel in trying to reach heaven when God had told them to disburse throughout the earth instead. The theme continues as Job and his friends try to figure out God's secrets when they don't even yet understand the secrets of the physical world around them, as God points out in a series of questions addressed to Job in chapters 38-41.

Again, this particular aspect of proper boundaries reaches its conclusion with another reversal. Instead of mankind ascending to heaven at last, it is actually God who transcends boundaries by descending to earth from heaven (Revelation 21-22).

Clean and Unclean Animals

Taking these original creations one step further, the animals dwelling in the three realms described in Genesis 1 are then described in more detail in the regulations in Deuteronomy 14:2-20 concerning which are ritually clean animals suitable for food and which are unclean ones. The reason behind these regulations is given at the start of that chapter – “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God.” – as well as in verses 9-11. The rationale behind the particular divisions of animals has been explained as due to hygienic reasons, avoidance of pagan worship rituals of the time, or as a totally arbitrary set of criteria chosen by God to test the people's obedience and form a division between them and all surrounding cultures.

I think the rationale goes way beyond all of those explanations, as hinted at in Deuteronomy 14:1 quoted above. Levinson give the reason succinctly: “Animals that do not satisfy the defining characteristics for their group are not to be eaten.” Thus, for example, birds are clean as long as they can fly, are active in the daytime, and eat nothing other than plants and invertebrates. All others fall outside the ideal type for air dwellers. Similar restrictions are laid down for the fish and land creatures.

It is not hard to imagine which of the two categories the ancient Jews would have assigned for the platypus, the epitome of an animal which has characteristics found in a number of different species.

This points to another related sub-theme found throughout the Bible where fantastic creatures are described. A tracing of that theme is found in the post “Monsters in the Bible.”

Deuteronomy 22:5 is a command against cross-dressing. Deuteronomy 22:9 contains the same restriction against mixing seeds as in Leviticus 19:19, and Numbers 15:37-40 is another passage concerning the mixing of different materials together in a garment. D.P. Wright says, “One reason mixtures are prohibited is that such prohibitions are reminders that the people, keeping themselves distinct, are holy.” And Levinson says that “these laws attempt to maintain specific boundaries between categories seen as incompatible...”

This theme of clean and unclean pops up again in the New Testament. Self-righteous groups such as the Pharisees take great delight in criticizing Jesus for associating with “sinners” such as tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, and Samaritans whom they categorize as unclean, unlike themselves. And we all know what Jesus thought of their attitude. But the whole issue of food became a major stumbling block for the early Jewish Christians, as several incidents in the Book of Acts attest. But God pronounced the definitive word on the subject when he presented Peter with a rooftop vision that in one fell swoop laid to rest both the issue of clean and unclean food and of clean and unclean people groups. (see Acts 10).

All that is not to say that the issue of clean and unclean human beings was a moot point, but it was redefined by Jesus in terms of the ultimate divisions between believers and non-believers at the Last Judgment using images such as the sheep and the goats, the faithful and non-faithful bridesmaids, or the gulf between Lazarus and the rich man. And to make the point even more abundantly clear, read the final chapters of Revelation (21:7-8,27; 22:14-15) describing the greatest divide of all.

Intermarriage

A final type of divine prohibition against mixing is this category. This theme begins with regulations involving animals. A mixed team of an ox and an ass is not to be employed for plowing (Deuteronomy 22:10); experiments in interbreeding animals are not to be carried out (Leviticus 19:19); and humans are not to have sexual intercourse with animals (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16).

The whole issue of intermarriage between the people of God and those of neighboring cultures seems not to have been a very big issue in the days of the patriarchs, although it always came with the danger that the purity of religion would be affected. The prime example of that happening later on in Israelite history is King Solomon and his sad end when he was seduced by foreign gods due to his many pagan wives.

But by the time of the return from Exile, this issue became of prime concern for Jewish leaders such as Ezra and Nehemiah (see Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah 9:30;13:23-27), who even went to the extent of enforcing divorce decrees to set aside existing marriages. We would expect that trend to continue into NT times, and we would not be mistaken. The religious leaders of the day were fairly fanatical in seeing that the Jews avoided almost any sort of interactions with non-Jews. And the nearby Samaritans were included in that category.

However, as mentioned above, there is also a strong counter trend in the NT away from all distinctions based on national origins. For one thing, Paul (unlike Ezra and Nehemiah) specifically does not counsel divorce for existing marriage alliances between believers and non-believers (I Corinthians 7:14-15). And finally, Jesus informs the Sadducees that in heaven there will be neither marriage or giving in marriage (Mark 12:25).

Finally, the one apparent counter-counter-trend in the NT back to more restrictions in this matter is found in II Corinthians 22:10, but that is the subject of yet another post.

 

NOTES ON THE MINOR PROPHETS

Hosea 10:12 Righteous Teacher was adapted by the Dead Sea community as the name of their leader.

Joel 2:23 see note to Hosea 10:12

Joel 3:5 See Colossians 3:17.

Amos 2:1 see II Kings 3:27.

Amos 2:8 See Deuteronomy 12:12.

Amos 5:22 Excavations of the temple area in Dan show that animal bones found were consistent with 

Levitical rules of sacrifice. This indicates that it was the attitude of the Northern Kingdom, not their 

heterodox worship practices that Amos speaks against.

Amos 6:7 The bed was used for sprawling guests during their feasts. An ivory inlaid bed from Amos' 

time was found in Salamis, Cyprus.

Amos 6:12 If bqrym has no letter breaks it means oxen. But bqr can also mean oxen, and ym = sea. 

Thus, "Does one plow the sea with oxen?"

Amos 7:9 Judgment first on the church and then on the government.

Jonah 1:7 There is a recent proposal that the fish is “a manifestation of Jonah's fear and sense of 

alienation while afloat during a long winter's night, with the constellation “the whale's belly” showing 

prominently in the skies. Unlikely.

Jonah 1:17-3:3 According to one commentator, Jonah's prayer implies that Jonah died and was later 

brought back to life, forming a close parallel with Jesus' resurrection (Matthew 12:38-41).

Nahum 2-3 The Qumran book called the Nahum Pesher relates 2:12 to Alexander Jannaeus (who 

crucified Pharisees) and 3:5 to his widow Salome who ruled Israel for years.

Zephaniah 3:8 Dan Curtis paper: “perhaps the most amazing use of the alefbet occurs in Zephaniah 

3:8 in which all 22 of the Hebrew letters plus the 5 special final forms occur in a single verse. Such 

constructions require author intent and show the literary importance of the Hebrew letters in Hebrew 

literature.”

Zeph. 3:17 yaharish = “he will be silent” (meaningless) or “he will plow” (plausible if a euphemism 

for sexual congress as a figure of God married to his people. Another possibility is a textual error for 

 yadarish = “renew his love” (as in the Septuagint and the Syriac Peshitta (BR).

Zechariah 2:8 See Deuteronomy 32:10.

Zechariah 6:12 was taken to be a prophecy of St. Assisi (= East) rebuilding a cathedral.

Zechariah 14:7 See Revelation 21:23.

Zech. 14:21 Canaanite = lit. “trader”

Malachi 1:8 Verse 8c is a good way to put into perspective our own actions by looking at earthly 

examples.

Malachi 2:15-16

Verse 15 is extremely difficult to translate. It is felt by some to refer to Genesis 2 and the two 

becoming one flesh.

Verse 16 is translated by some: "If one hates and divorces...he covers his garment with violence." Thus, 

a divorce based on mere aversion is branded as reprehensible.

 

ACTS 27

I once taught a creativity workshop to a group of pastors. As part of it, I asked them to name some Bible passages on which they had never given a sermon. I can't remember what they came up with, but I imagine the list would include some of the same subjects that Sunday school teachers hope they will never have to teach on, such as the Song of Songs, Ezekiel's temple vision in Ezek. 40-48, and Acts 27 which appear to be of interest mainly to marriage counselors, architects and maritime historians, respectively. And in fact, regarding the last passage, experts in the field generally treat Luke's account here as one of the earliest and most accurate descriptions of sailing practices of the time. But getting any spiritual meat out of these passages seems to be rather slim pickings. As Toussaint asks, “Why did Luke go into such lengthy detail about the voyage from Caesarea to Rome? There is no easy answer.” However, since I have already tackled the other two “problem” passages in earlier posts, I felt I really ought to see what might be said regarding the long chapter [44 verses] in Acts as well.

One way to view the whole of Acts 27 is as an allegory of the soul's experience. We should always be 

rightfully suspicious of those who interpret Scripture primarily in an allegorical manner since the 

approach is particularly susceptible to subjectivity. However, also keep in mind for this particular 

example that the saving of Noah and his family from the flood is treated by Peter as a type of a 

believer's water baptism (I Peter 3:19-20). Also, Jonah's salvation from the waters when he is in the 

belly of the sea beast for three days is a type of Jesus' death and resurrection (Matthew 38-40). And we 

ourselves are associated with Jesus' experience through baptism (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12).

Secondly, the story reveals the real character of Paul as seen in times of crisis, demonstrating that 

sometimes it is the strongest one spiritually who can offer the most practical help in the time of crisis. 

This fact flies in the face of the popular saying concerning those who “are so heavenly minded that 

they are of no earthly good.” An excellent, but decidedly fictional, example also attempts to give the lie 

to this cynical belief. That is G.K. Chesterton's beloved Father Brown, whose ideas are dismissed by 

the police authorities around him as being totally out of touch with earthly realities since he is a 

celibate Catholic priest who can't possibly know what other people are capable of doing. But in fact, it 

is (a) his experiences hearing confessions and (b) his strong belief in original sin that enable him to 

solve crimes that the police have given up on. Just look at vv. 9-11 as a very similar situation in which 

the official authorities ignored Paul's advice to their detriment.

John Stott says, “Here then are aspects of Paul's character which endear him to us as an integrated 

Christian who combined spirituality with sanity, and faith with works...He was a man of God and of 

action, a man of the Spirit and of common sense.”

There is a similar lesson in vv. 21-28 where we see Paul taking charge of the ship, not the centurion. A 

church congregation may have a set of official leaders in it. But on occasion, the true prophetic voice 

of God comes from an entirely different source. At that point, one can only hope and pray that the 

“leaders” have the spiritual discernment to listen to it, as did the centurion later on (see vv. 42-43).

One somewhat jarring detail is given in v. 21 in that Paul appears to rub it in by delivering an “I told 

you so” speech to those who had ignored his advice. But I do not believe that was Paul's motive at all. 

It is sometimes necessary to walk a tightrope between the extremes of trying to insert ourselves into 

matters when we shouldn't and being so meek and mild that we are afraid to even open our mouths at 

times when it is really needed.

Paul's statement in v. 10 that there will be the loss of lives aboard the ship is sometimes viewed as a 

false prophecy. But instead we should see it just as a case of reaching a probable conclusion based on 

the facts of the case guided by prior experience. By contrast, consider Paul's statement in v. 22-23 after 

he had received a definite word from the Lord. Bruce says, “But on that [earlier] occasion he spoke 

simply as an experienced traveller of sound judgment.” Our problem is that we sometimes have trouble 

distinguishing between what is God's word and what is merely our word. See the even earlier incident 

in Acts 17:22 in which Paul hints that he will probably be killed when he returns to Jerusalem, which 

doesn't actually happen although it certainly could have.

27:21-26 The other obvious biblical example of God's grace being given to non-believers because of 

His people in found in the teachings in Genesis 18:23-33. F.F. Bruce says, “Not only would he himself 

survive to stand before the emperor; the lives of his shipmates were also to be spared for his sake. The 

world has no idea how much it owes, in the mercy of God, to the presence of righteous men.”

27:29 John Ogilve compares the four anchors the sailors let down to stabilize them until the time of 

darkness has passed to the four anchors Paul (as well as all believers) have been given in dark 

situations:

    1. The anchor of God's direct intervention through sending a messenger to reassure him (v. 23)

    2. The anchor of faith even in the darkest hour: “Do not be afraid” (v. 24a).

    3. The anchor of a sense of destiny: “You must stand before the emperor” (v. 24b)

    4. The anchor of peace through prayer: “There are times when there is nothing to do but claim the 

promises and pray for dawn to break...The anchor of prayer really makes all the other three anchors 

secure.” (Ogilve)

27:33-38 Paul urges everyone to stop and take some food to renew their strength. In this action, I see 

Paul following the example of God Himself who brought Elijah out of his depression by first seeing 

that his physical needs were met through food and rest. (I Kings 19:1-9)

Paul begins by blessing the food. Luke uses some very familiar words at this point in his description: 

“He took bread, gave thanks and broke it.” C.R. Matthews remarks, “The meal in which all partake has 

clear eucharistic overtones” (see Luke 22:19) That may well be true, but other scholars such as Stott 

have disagreed. He points out that is doubtful that an actual communion service was being celebrated 

since “neither the occasion nor the gathering of unbelieving soldiers, sailors and prisoners, was 

appropriate for this.”

W. Kelly adds, “For though the terms are just such as were so employed, they are no less expressly 

applied to an ordinary meal in Luke 24:30...But the most ordinary food should be sanctified by the 

word of God and prayer.” A good point to ponder is brought up by this incident. Why is is so hard for 

us to thank God in the midst of trials for at least the blessings that we do possess?

As a final discussion item to ponder, note the various ways that God accomplished His will in this 

chapter including an angelic revelation, people's enlightened self-interest, their gratitude, Paul's 

actions, and the physical elements.