HABAKKUK 2: TRANSLATION PROBLEMS

Most people realize that English translations of the Bible differ for a number of reasons. But it still can be a shock when you are in a group Bible study and someone starts reading from a translation that appears to have little or no correspondence to what you are reading in your own Bible. The one great temptation we need to fight is to immediately denounce other version as being heretical in intent, purposely departing from the true word of God in order to promote some agenda of its own. This possibility may seem to be overemphasized to many today in our world where we are blessed with a number of good translations, but I have seen major controversies arise within the church during my lifetime over this sort of issue. The best way to counter this divisive trend is to get back to the basics concerning all the factors that go into the production of a Bible translation. I would like to take a chapter from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament to demonstrate how these various factors play out. In this post I will concentrate on Habakkuk 2.

One simple factor affecting how the original languages are translated is that each translation, when it was produced, was geared toward a particular audience at that time. Thus, one obvious factor is that every living language tends to change with time. If you don't believe that to be true, just try reading Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in the original some time. Move forward in time a little to Shakespeare in the 17^th century and his English becomes quite a bit more understandable, but it still contains many passages that are almost incomprehensible to most of us. Then consider the fact that the King James Version was produced during Shakespeare's time.

Thus, some of the archaic words in it have been replaced with modern equivalents. In other more dangerous cases, a modern word may appear in KJV but with an entirely different meaning in mind. Think of Jesus' words: “Suffer the little children to come unto me.” Below are some examples comparing KJV words with those in NRSV, a translation within the same general family:

Verse           KJV                                            NRSV

5                 enlargeth his desire                      open their throats wide

6                 ladeth                                           load

8                spoiled                                          plundered

8, 12, 17    blood                                            bloodshed

9               coveteth an evil covetousness       get evil gain

10             consulted shame                            devised shame

12             stablisheth                                     found

13             very vanity                                    nothing

18             graven                                           shaped

18             molten image                                cast image

18-19       dumb                                             can't speak, silent

19            laid over                                         plated

The NKJV updates of these archaic usages.

A more subtle difference between various translations is found in the way they break up the text into individual paragraphs. Again, taking Habakkuk 2 as an example, we have the following divisions:

JB 1-4, 5-6a, 6b-8, 9-11, 12-14, 15-17, 18-19, 20

NEB 1-3, 4-8, 9-11, 12-14, 15-17, 18-19, 20

NIV 1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-11, 12-14, 15-17, 18-19, 20

RSV, NRSV 1-5, 6-8, 9-11, 12-14, 15-17, 18-19, 20

For additional divisions, see my post “Habakkuk: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”

So which set of divisions is correct? In fact, the ancient Hebrew had no paragraphs for us to use as a guide. Therefore it is more a matter of style than anything else, except where the text itself gives us a hint as to where the division points fall. Notice that all of the above translations agree in starting new paragraphs with verses 9, 12, 15, and 18. That is because the first three of these verses begin with the same words: “Alas for you” or “Woe to you.” These words do not, however, appear in v. 18 although they are present in v. 19 instead. Because of that fact, the Jerusalem Bible has taken the bold step of actually reversing the order of verses 18 and 19 in their translation.

In this particular case, that move does not appreciably change the meaning of the words, but emending the original Hebrew text in this way is not something that most other translators would be comfortable doing without strong manuscript evidence to back up their decision. And there may, in fact, have been a good reason for saving the “woe” statement for v. 19. Thus, Eaton explains the delay of the “woe” clause as follows: “the doom-laden 'woe' is held back, heightening the tension while two rhetorical questions [in v. 18] prepare the way.”

Another subtle feature to look for in translations is how the sentences are indented. Most KJV editions will treat every single verse the same. This is, however, not very helpful in indicating the difference between prose and poetry in the text. By contrast, most modern translations will indicate through appropriate indentations and line divisions which passages are poetic. But even within these translations, there will be some variation as to what sort of indentations to make:

Habakkuk 2:8

Because you yourself have plundered mighty nations,

    all the rest of the world will plunder you;

        because of bloodshed and violence done in the land,

        to the city and all its inhabitants. (NEB)

Because you have plundered many nations,

    all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder you,

for the blood of men and violence to the earth,

    to cities and all who dwell therein. (NRSV)

NEB attempts to diagram the meaning of the passage with the dependent clauses indented more than the independent ones. By contrast, the NRSV portrays it in strictly poetic bicolons where the first and third lines are parallel to one another as are the second and fourth lines. And then there is the TEV which feels that the whole chapter is composed in prose, instead of poetry as with most other modern versions.

In case there are any of you who aren't yet lost, let me point out that all of this is merely an introduction to the more important translation issues involved with Habakkuk 2. Some of the difficulties are due to uncertainties in the present Hebrew text we possess, usually abbreviated as MT for the group of Masoretic scholars who preserved it over the centuries. Fortunately, we now have other ancient sources with which to compare the MT. In the case of the Book of Habakkuk, one such valuable source, at least for its first two chapters, is the Habakkuk Pesher (i.e. commentary) found among the Dead Sea scrolls. It is written in Hebrew and alternates between quoting a verse and then providing a modern fulfillment of the prophecies being cited. Wurthwein states that there are approximately 60 places in which this Pesher differs from the MT. But Robertson cites Brownlee for a warning against taking the evidence of the Pesher too strongly since the Qumran author may have been quite selective as to the Hebrew text he chose to quote in his commentary.

There is another document among the Dead Sea scroll of use to scholars of Habakkuk. That is the Scroll of the Minor Prophets, discovered in 1952 and written in Greek. However, there is a great controversy as to whether this translation originated with an original Hebrew document or is based largely on the Septuagint version. So that, for example, J. W. Wevers states: “It is clear that the text [of Habakkuk 2:6] represents a revision based upon the Hebrew text, because the changes tend toward a more literal translation...but it is equally clear that the reviser began from a Septuagint base.” Because of this uncertainty, as well as the poor state of preservation of the scroll, the value of the Scroll of the Minor Prophets in establishing the original Hebrew text of Habakkuk is somewhat limited.

“The significance of the Qumran documents for textual criticism can be summarized in three propositions. First and foremost, the Dead Sea Scrolls take the textual scholar back around one thousand years earlier than previously known Hebrew manuscript evidence. Prior to the Qumran discoveries, the earliest complete copies of OT books dated from about the early eleventh century C.E. The Qumran manuscripts thus give much earlier evidence for the test of the OT than anything that was previously known.” And in addition, “the Qumran scrolls, while being much earlier than the MT, generally support the accuracy with which the MT was copied.” (Brotzman and Tully)

Below is a sampling of some of problem verses in this chapter:

Habakkuk 2:1b The standard Hebrew text reads, “I will keep watch to see what he will say to me, and what I will answer concerning my complaint.” Although, this may make sense, the NRSV for one prefers to go with the ancient Aramaic translation which substitutes “he” for the underlined “I” in this verse. 

Habakkuk 2:2 Stephens-Hodge explains that the literal reading “so he may run who reads it” is actually a Hebrew idiom that means “that he may read it quickly (whoever may happen to see it).” In other words, it is written in large letters. This illustrates the quandary that a translator often faces. Do you render the Hebrew words literally so that it is meaningless to today's audience, or do you paraphrase it to convey the intended meaning instead?

Habakkuk 2:3 If 'od in the parallel line is changed to 'ed (“witness”), then one can translate: “For the vision is a 'testifier' at the appointed time, indeed, a witness at the end and does not lie.” (Chisholm)

Habakkuk 2:4a

    “Look at the proud! Their spirit is not right in them.” (NRSV)

    “Those who are evil will not survive.” (TEV)*

    “See, the enemy is puffed up: his desires are not upright.” (NIV)

    “Behold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail.” (RSV)**

    “See how he flags, he whose soul is not at rights.” (JB)***

    “The reckless will be unsure of himself.” (NEB)

        *Hebrew unclear

        **Heb is puffed up

        ***Heb: It is distended (=full of pride?). Latin Vulgate: “He who is unbelieving.” Greek: “If he flags, my soul is not pleased with him.”

Note that even if you do not understand a word of Hebrew, those translations which provide textual footnotes (such as TEV, RSV, and JB above) will give you an idea that the meaning of that verse is not quite certain.

Interestingly, this verse is quoted by the author of Hebrews (Heb. 10:38) from the Septuagint form instead of the Hebrew. And thus it reads, “If he, i.e. the promised deliverer who will surely come (Habakkuk 2:3), draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him.”

One possible clue available wherever Hebrew poetry is involved, as in this verse, is that the second line of the verse will almost always have some sort of relationship with the first line, either as a parallel statement or as its exact opposite. In this case, Habakkuk 2:4b clearly reads, “But the righteous live by their faith.” This is a tip-off that 2:4a probably makes a contrasting statement about those who are not righteous. So A.R. Hulst explains that the key word 'uppla(h) is the feminine form of “puffed up.” However, other forms of the same Hebrew root give rise to the meaning “the one who is puffed up” or “the wicked.” Similarly, the reading 'ullap zu can be adopted in place of 'upplah, making possible the translation shown for RSV above.

By the way, both NIV and NRSV provide a helpful translation footnote for 4b explaining that the Hebrew word for “faith” can alternatively mean “faithfulness.” Stephens-Hodge elaborates: “Here faithfulness as well as faith is in view; the term is wider than in Paul or Hebrews.” He cites several OT references where the word may mean faithfulness, truth, or righteousness.

Habakkuk 2:5 Stephens-Hodge states, “The meaning of v. 5 has been a long-standing problem.” And Nute seconds that opinion: “Verse 5 presents a number of textual and exegetical problems.” Hulst rehearses the problems associated with this verse beginning with the fact that a literal rendering of the Hebrew makes little sense:

        “how much more, the wine, acting disloyally, man, reckless, and he shall not have rest.”

One approach is that taken by the RSV, to try and make sense out of the Hebrew words as they stand. This gives rise to a translation such as: “moreover, wine is treacherous; the arrogant man shall not abide.”

But the Habakkuk scroll found at Qumran substitutes the word hon (“wealth”) for hayyayin (“the wine”) as well as changing the verb form. So, assuming that this version stems from an alternative Hebrew text dating to before that time, one can now read, “how much more, wealth deceives the reckless man; he shall know no rest.” The NRSV has adopted that basic approach to v. 5.

Habakkuk 2:7 Wakeley: “Opinion is divided on whether the word [nsk] means 'your debtors (those who pay you interest)' or 'your creditors (those who take interest from you)' but, given the context, the reading 'your creditors' is the more probable.” This serves to show that often the individual words cannot just be translated one at a time, but the whole sentence or even the larger context of the passage must be kept in mind.

Habakkuk 2:9-11 Bruckner notes, “the distinct hissing sound of the Hebrew letter s resounds in the key words of the text: 'builds gain' (bosea, besa), 'to escape' (lehinnasel), 'you have plotted' (ya asta), 'the ruin of' (qesot) and 'woodwork' (me'es).” A translator can chose to ignore such wordplay or attempt to somehow duplicate the idea with a paraphrase using phrases such as Bruckner employs: “wall-stones and woodwork will cry out.”

Habakkuk 2:11a The Hebrew word for “plaster” used here can also be translated as “beam,” according to NRSV.

Habakkuk 2:13 The word bede'es in this verse may be comparable to bederiq (“for nothing,” as in NEB) in place of “for the fire.” (Carroll)

Habakkuk 2:15 NRSV offers as an alternative translation to “wrath” – the word “poison.” And Brooke notes, “Whereas scholars had frequently emended Hab 2:15 to read 'from the goblet of' (missap), the same reading as MT is preserved in [the Qumran Pesher on Habakkuk].”

Habakkuk 2:16 The Hebrew text of first part of this verse reads, “You will be filled with contempt instead of glory. Drink, you yourself and be uncircumcised.” The meaning of this last word may also be rendered as “show your uncircumcision” or “uncover yourself.” (Hulst) But if the Hebrew word for uncircumcision (he'arel) is actually an accidental copying error for hera'el (“stagger”) instead, then one obtains a different meaning to the sentence. And this is exactly how the Dead Sea scroll and the Greek Septuagint versions of this text read. Among modern translations going with the word “uncircumcision” are RSV, NIV, and JB. Those adopting “stagger” instead include NEB, TEV, and NRSV.

Habakkuk 2:17 A footnote to the first half of this verse in the NRSV says, “Meaning of Heb uncertain.” And so those translators went instead with the clearer meaning found in both the Septuagint and Aramaic versions to yield “For the violence done to Lebanon will overwhelm you; the destruction of the animals will terrify you.”

Fortunately, not all portions of the OT present as many translation uncertainties as this chapter.

 

BOOK OF JEREMIAH: ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

This book contains more autobiographical features than are found in most other prophetic writings, and Jeremiah intersected with some important events in the history of Israel. Therefore it is not entirely unexpected that archeological findings would confirm some details found in this book. I would like to just mention two of these findings.

The first consists of a trove of 250 bullae that came on the antiquities market in 1975. A bulla is a lump of clay impressed with a seal and attached to a document in order to (1) secure it and (2) identify the sender. They appeared to have all come from the same source in Judah, probably as part of a royal archive. Also, they were well preserved since it was obvious they had all been through a fire which had the effect of baking them. It has been proposed that this fire took place when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC.

Although there is always a degree of uncertainty regarding objects whose exact provenance is unknown, these objects show all the signs of being authentic. Of special interest are three of the seals with the following inscriptions:

    1. “Belonging to Baruch-yahu (“blessed of Yahweh”)

        son of Neriah

        the scribe”

If you look at Jeremiah 36:4, you will find: “then Jeremiah called Baruch son of Neriah, and Baruch wrote on a scroll at Jeremiah's dictation all the words of Yahweh that He had spoken to him.” So Baruch was actually the first to take down much of what we have today in the book of Jeremiah.

    2. “Belonging to Elishama

        servant of the king”

Jeremiah 36:12 lists among the officials of the king gathered in the royal secretary's chamber to hear Baruch recite from the scroll, the secretary himself who is named Elishama. After the scroll is read, the king destroys it.

     3. “Belonging to Jerah'meel

        son of the king”

At this point, the king orders his son Jerah'meel and others to arrest Baruch, but God hides Baruch and Jeremiah from them, and Baruch makes another copy of the scroll. (Jeremiah 36:26)

The next archeological find of interest consists of the Lachish Letters, These were communications written on ostraca (fragments of broken pottery) from a military scout positioned outside the city of Lachish to his commander within the city. It was actually quite common for people to use ostraca as a convenient writing surface since broken pottery was found littering the ground just about anywhere near an inhabited city. At least two of the letters are of particular interest to scholars of Jeremiah:

    1. In one message, the scout reports that he saw the signal fires go out at Azekah.

Jeremiah 34:1-7 reports to the King of Judah what happened when Nebuchadnezzar's army attacked. In verse 7, Jeremiah talks of the time “when Babylon was fighting against Jerusalem and against all the cities of Judah that were left, Lachish and Azekah.” So the Lachish letters actually contain an eye-witness account of the exact moment when Azekah fell, but before Lachish had been taken. And the Hebrew word for “signal fire” in the letter is the same one that Jeremiah uses in Jeremiah 6:1 – “Blow the trumpet in Tekoa, and raise a signal on Beth-haccherem.”

    2. On another ostracon, the scout mentions a prophet who had been proclaiming warnings about a coming disaster, which had the effect of “making the people's hands weak.” That was precisely what Jeremiah had been doing at the time. In Jeremiah 38:1-4 makes the dire prediction to all the people that the city of Jerusalem is soon going to be taken by the Babylonians. So he urges them to surrender. In response, the king's officials say, “This man ought to be put to death, because he is discouraging the soldiers who are left in this city.” The underlined phrase in Hebrew is literally “making the hands weak,” the same idiom found in this Lachish letter.

 

SIN PERSONIFIED (GENESIS 4:7; JAMES 1:3-5)

The Bible is filled with vivid images rendering abstract concepts as concrete realities. One of the first such images is found in Genesis 4:7 where God confronts Cain regarding his attitude after his sacrifice was rejected:

    “If you do well, will you not be accepted? But if you do not well

        sin is lurking at the door

        its desire is for you

        but you must master it.” (NRSV)

God's warning words appear to be rather straightforward even if they employ two word pictures for “evil”: a carnivorous beast and a slave-owner. But often in the Bible, things are not always as simple to understand as they appear to be. And concerning this particular passage, Procksch calls it “the most obscure verse in Genesis.” Hamilton echoes this opinion: “It is fair to say that this is one of the hardest verses in Genesis to translate.” The Jerusalem Bible offers only what it calls an “approximate translation of a corrupted text.” In spite of this, Ellison states, “The Heb. of v.7 is difficult, but we need not doubt that the general sense has been given by NIV...when it sees sin personified as a ravenous beast.” But not all scholars agree with that assessment as you will see below. Even the general meaning of the verb translated above as “lurking” is in doubt. Hamilton notes that “Gen. 49:9 is the one other clear instance, besides Gen. 4:7, that permits the translation 'lie in wait for, lurk.'”

The causes for this difficulty in understanding the Hebrew text of Genesis 4:7 are many, some of which I am too ignorant to comment on. But suffice it to say that problems include the possible accidental transposition of some of the parallel lines shown above in the process of transmission over the centuries, improper vowel markings for some of the Hebrew words, uncertainty regarding the intended gender of “it” and what “it” refers to, and the exact translation of the words “sin” and “lurking.” Opinions regarding these various issues have given rise to some alternative understandings such as:

Sin is pictured as relaxing “at the door like a predatory monster that through long habitude has become domesticated.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

The Hebrew word robes (“couching, lying”) “is cognate to an Akkadian term used of a type of demon...The first edition of the Jewish Publication Society's Torah offered the translation: 'Sin is the demon at the door.' If such a translation is legitimate, then there is a connection with the oracle about the seed of the serpent [see Genesis 3:15].” (A.P. Ross)  Speiser in his Anchor Bible translation takes this same approach, as does NEB.

“Interestingly, the Hebrew language uses the same word for 'sin sacrifice' (Lev 4) as it does for 'sin.' The one word describes both the problem and the solution.” (Hamilton) Because of that ambiguity, it is possible to take Genesis 4:7 as God telling Cain that the solution to his problem is already close at hand, simply make a sin sacrifice.

Minority opinions aside, the probable image of sin as a predatory beast in Genesis 4:7 has a strong echo in the New Testament in I Peter 5:8 in which “the devil prowls around like a lion, looking for someone to devour.” So in a way, Satan himself becomes the personification of evil.

Other word pictures for the abstract concept of evil appear throughout the Bible:

    Isaiah 5:18 talks about those “who drag sin behind you as with cart ropes.” Blenkensopp comments: “Bearing the burden of sin is represented vividly as dragging along a large and recalcitrant animal.” One could picture a mule that has set in his heels and refuses to budge. One can't make any progress in life with such an impediment.

    Proverbs 5:22: “The wicked man is caught in his own iniquities and held fast in the toils of his own sin.” Waltke notes that in “1:18 the wicked lie in wait for their own blood, now, personified, the iniquities themselves set and spring the trap leading to death.”

    Isaiah 59:2 reads, “Our transgressions before you [God] are numerous, and our sins give evidence against us.” In this case, the prophet pictures sins as witnesses for the prosecution in the case.

    I Corinthians 15:56: “O Death, where is your sting? The sting of death is sin...” In this passage, Death is personified as a stinging insect such as a wasp, and the sting itself is sin. “Once the sting is removed the power to conquer is gone. That will be so when immortality has been ushered in.” (Grosheide)

    Galatians 3:23: “But Scripture has declared the whole world to be prisoners in subjection to sin, so that faith in Jesus Christ may be the ground on which the promised blessing is given, and given to those who have such faith.” (NEB) “Only in the present verse...does Paul use this expression [“subjection to”] to speak of two active powers. One of these, the scripture, does not itself enslave, but merely conveys everything to the slave master Sin.” (Martyn)

    Hebrews 3:13: “But exhort one another every day...that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness.” “The expression sin's deceitfulness describes sin as a seducer, and may be an allusion to that first sin when Eve was seduced by the serpent.” (Hawthorne)

    James 1:13-15 Here in this vivid word picture we have the whole story of Sin presented as the life history of a living being. The final image of sin giving birth to death is especially striking:

        1. One's own desires lure and entice

        2. Desire conceives

        3. Desire gives birth to sin

        4. Sin becomes fully grown

        5. Sin gives birth to death

Closely related to the above personifications is the way the concept of Evil is sometimes treated in the Bible. However, keep in mind that there are really two separate concepts related to this word. In some passages, “evil” refers to unpleasant things that happen to people, with no necessary moral component attached. In other cases, however, the word is practically synonymous with “sinful deeds.”

    Job 30:26a: “But when I sought good, evil came instead.”

    Job 31:29: Job speaks of his enemies having evil overtaking them.

    Psalm 34:21: Evil brings death.

    Psalm 40:12 “For numerous evils have surrounding me.”

    James 3:8: “No one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” Note the similarity of the imagery with that in I Corinthians 15:56.

But the highest frequency of living images for “sin” is found in Romans 5-7:

    5:12 It enters into the world through one man.

    6:6,17,20; 7:14 Sin is a slave owner.

    6:12-14 It exercises dominion over our bodies.

    6:23 The wages of sin is death.

    7:5 “While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.” This statement is quite similar to the last clause of James 1:15.

    7:8 “Sin seizes an opportunity in the commandment to produce covetousness.”

    7:9 “I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came back to life.”

    7:13 Sin works death in Paul.

    7:17,20 Sin lives within him.

Finally, tying personified Evil and Sin together as well as providing a strong echo to Genesis 4:7 (see the italicized phrase below) is Romans 7:21-23:

    “So I find it a law [basic principle] that whenever I wish to do good, evil lies close at hand...making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.”

 

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (EXODUS 20:2-17)

Exodus 20:2-17 Here are several questions I have regarding the Ten Commandments.

Two generalities to keep in mind when considering the Ten Commandments:

First, a major purpose of these laws was to help form a united people of God with a strong social structure to keep it intact.

Second, the concept of progressive revelation says that we should consider the New Testament teachings on these same subjects for a more complete understanding of their true implications for today's people of God.

1^st Commandment: This almost seems to imply that other gods exist, which is a bit of an anathema to most contemporary Christians.

The Hebrew in this verse does not necessarily exclude the idea of other gods existing, but it does imply that they should not exist as far as the Jews are concerned. Subsequent passages in the Old and New Testament, however, make it clear that there are no other gods PERIOD.

As early as Deuteronomy 4:28, Moses makes fun of “other gods made by human hands, objects of wood and stone that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.” Prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah are particularly sarcastic in describing the other “so-called” gods. In Acts 19:26, Paul is accused by a pagan of “saying that gods made with hands are not gods.” Paul, in Romans 1:22-23, accuses the pagans of exchanging “the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.”

I Corinthians 8:4-6 is a problem passage since on one hand Paul says that no idols really exist and there is no God but one. However, he then proceeds to say there are many gods and many lords, but Christians are only to follow the one God. The best solution to this “contradiction” is to see that Paul, in verse 5, is speaking about the popular conception of polytheism in the Roman world where people follow many “gods” and have many “lords.”

In closing this discussion, it should also be mentioned that the word “gods” is sometimes used in the Old and New Testament to refer to supernatural powers (but not on a par with God and not to be worshiped) such as angels or demons (see II Thessalonians 2:4; Ephesians 6:10-11).

2^nd Commandment: The syntax of this is a bit weird. Is it saying that both carving the image and worshiping it is a sin, or just the combined act of both carving and worshiping?

It is probably meant to be read together as one process: making an idol, bowing down to it, and serving (worshiping) it. Otherwise, just painting a picture of a landscape would qualify as idolatry. The Jews probably overreacted by banning representations of people or animals in the Temple and on their coins. But they did allow images of plants in both places, although a strict reading of Exodus 20:4 would prohibit that as well.

4^th Commandment: Is God saying that we must keep Saturday/Sunday holy, or is he saying that we need to take one day a week and devote that to him? I tend to interpret the latter. What is meant by “do not work”? Would exercising be work? Or is it just practicing your profession? I see this as both taking a day for reverence to God, but also a practical need to recharge batteries.

I think you have the proper understanding of this commandment. The Pharisees in Jesus' time started emphasizing what you couldn't do on the Sabbath rather than what you should do. And Jesus pointedly said that the Sabbath was made for man's benefit rather than man being made for the Sabbath's benefit. One day's rest a week from one's usual profession is needed to be fresh for the coming week.

Christians in Acts were said to meet on the first day of the week rather than on Saturday since that was the “Lord's Day” when he rose. Interestingly, when Jesus addresses the commandments in the Sermon on the Mount, he doesn't even mention keeping the Sabbath.

5^th Commandment: This is vague; what is considered to “honor” aside from the typical mother and father’s day commercialism?

In Jesus' day this meant supporting them financially in their old age and treating them with respect. With old age supposedly came increased wisdom, so children were to listen to their teachings and heed them also. There is an interesting promise attached to this command which may indicate that refusal to honor your parents might result in removal from the Promised Land, perhaps because the people had stopped listening to the godly teachings of their parents.

The problem with this command today is that many people do not have parents worthy of respect. One's parents, in any case, do not take the place of God when it comes to following their teachings.

7^th Commandment: What is the sin of adultery? Is it sex with someone who is married to someone other than you? Is it sex outside of any marriage? God seems to approve of some sex outside of marriage, or at least not come down too hard on it, but severely frowns upon sleeping with someone else’s wife. This is obviously addressed in several places, but one of those things in which it is somewhat difficult to understand the delineation between a “sin” and a “bad idea.”

Strictly speaking, adultery involves at least one of the parties being married. Adultery breaks down the unity of the marriage, the family, and ultimately society and that is why it is so important to God. Also, as Paul and all the Old Testament prophets makes clear, marriage is an image of the relationship between God and his people. Jesus actually expands the definition of adultery in the Sermon on the Mount to condemn just about every warm-blooded male. But this is to show how none of us is really worthy to be saved by our own holiness.

I wouldn't say that God actually approves of sex outside of marriage, but certainly fornication (the technical word for it) is not stressed as much as an affront against God. After saying this, however, one should look at Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 where fornicators are listed right alongside idolaters and sorcerers as those who will be excluded from heaven. Keep in mind that a fornicator in this context probably refers to an habitual fornicator.

8^th Commandment: Biblically speaking, stealing from one another is bad, but conquering and plundering seems to be occasionally acceptable……..as long as the people aren’t Israelites.

These occasions, of course, were directly and supernaturally commanded by God for a particular time period. After the settlement, there were rules assuring that the Jews would actually care for the pagans in their midst. I suppose the time might come in the future when Christians would be told, in some supernatural and unambiguous manner, by God to do the same thing, but I highly doubt it, and it certainly doesn't fit in with Jesus' teaching to love even our enemies as ourselves.

9^th Commandment: Why phrase it this way? Why not say, “Thou shalt not lie”? Is there a significance to this, i.e is it addressing a more specific issue than just lying?

The specific instance being addressed in the commandment was probably giving witness in a court of law—again, a very important issue to assure justice in the community. There were harsh penalties for those caught lying under these circumstances.

Jesus again updates this commandment (in Matthew 5:33-37) to include all affirmations we make; we are to simply state the truth without adding some sort of formula such as “as God is my witness, etc.” James 5:12 emphasizes the same point.

10^th Commandment: This commandment is weird, as it is the only one that doesn’t either show disrespect to God nor does it actually harm anyone else. Why would it make the top ten list? This is also the only one that, in my opinion, is impossible to keep. It is also almost impossible to enforce unless someone talks about it significantly.

You are correct in seeing that this command differs from the rest in being unenforceable and not obviously hurting God or our fellow man. It is strictly a matter of our attitude, not our actions. That is probably why Jesus felt no need to update it in the Sermon on the Mount.

The problem with coveting is that it is usually the direct cause of all the other commandments against our fellow human beings. James 1:14-15 describes the process that coveting initiates: “But one is tempted by ones own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death.”

In a way you are also right in saying that this is the only commandment impossible to keep. That was 

possibly why God added it to the other nine—to keep people from being so self-righteous that they felt 

they were perfect. And since that still didn't stop the Pharisees from thinking they could maintain 

spiritual perfection, Jesus went to the root of the sins in the Sermon on the Mount rather than just the 

outward manifestations—to point out everyone's imperfections.

 

THE LAST SHALL BE FIRST, AND THE FIRST SHALL BE LAST

This theme of reversal is one of the most ubiquitous in the whole Bible. It appears in a number of variations depending on whether the first clause, the last clause, or both are illustrated in a given passage. Another parameter concerns whether the change of fortune is pictured as occurring in this lifetime or only in the afterlife. In addition, the reversals take different forms depending on which portion of the Bible one zeroes in on. So below are a few examples taken from the separate sections:

Pentateuch

Usually, but not always, the reversal concerns which son is to be given the birthright. In some cases, the oldest son (or sons) is obviously disqualified for one reason or another. But in other instances, the choice of inheritance appears to be solely due to God's inscrutable will. And finally are those cases in which a combination of these two factors appears to be in play. A few examples will suffice:

When Cain kills Abel, neither of them is obviously going to carry on the chosen line, and so that falls upon Seth instead.

Abram's oldest son, Ishmael, is driven out after he was seen playing with (or making fun of) his younger half-brother Isaac. It is not clear whether Ishmael did anything at all wrong by his action or whether he was exiled merely because Sarah was jealous (Genesis 21:8-13). But in any case, Isaac's preferred status was clearly predicted beforehand by God (Genesis 17:19).

The well-known story of the rivalry between Jacob and Esau again illustrates several factors in play leading to the younger son, Jacob, receiving his father's preferred blessing. These include the way Esau practically gave away his birthright in favor of a pot of stew, Rebekah's plotting, and Jacob's deceit.

The pattern continues in Jacob's family. The three oldest sons were Reuben, Simeon, and Levi. Reuben had sex with his father's concubine, and Simeon and Levi proved deceitful when they massacred a group of helpless men of Shechem. That left the next oldest, Judah, to carry on the line that would eventually lead to the birth of the Messiah.

Finally, when Jacob goes to bless the two sons of Joseph, he inexplicably gives the preferred blessing to the younger one over Joseph's protests. Under God's obvious guidance, Jacob replies, “I know; he [Manasseh] shall also be great. But his younger brother [Ephraim] shall become greater than he is, and his offspring shall form many nations.”

History Books

These narratives are filled with stories of God vindicating righteous underdogs (whether it is an individual or the nation of Israel) in the presence of her enemies. Most of us would probably immediately think of the battle between David and Goliath.

Poetry and Wisdom Books

The Wisdom Books especially are, for the most part, bound up with earthly concerns in the here and now. Also, here the contrast is generally between the wise and the foolish; the rich & powerful vs. those of lowly status; and the sinful vs. the righteous, with each respective group getting their just reward of punishment in this life.

I do not have the space to go through all the examples present in the Psalms. But here are two randomly chosen samples:

    Psalm 136:23 “It is he who remembered us while we were in a lowly condition.” This is actually quite similar to Mary's words later on (see below).

    Psalm 138:6 “Even though the LORD is high and mighty, he has regard for the lowly. By contrast, he sees the haughty only from far away.”

Concerning the Wisdom Literature, we have to keep in mind that since for the most part the Jews had not yet been given a full revelation of the possibility of an afterlife, they felt that all of God's mercy and justice had to take place during one's lifetime. Thus, we get generalities such as this one in Proverbs 29:23 – “A person's pride will lead to his humiliation but the person who is low in spirit will obtain honor.”

Unfortunately, many “wise” teachers then made two additional mistakes in exegesis by (1) assuming that these proverbial statements could be applied to each and every situation and (2) feeling that one could reverse the teaching to show that if an individual was being humiliated, it must have been due to his or her pride. This is exactly what Job's friends do, as seen below:

    Zophar: This friend is fairly direct in accusing Job directly of some sort of hidden sin that has brought God's wrath down on him. So in Job 11:13-19 he strongly counsels Job to put his sin far away so that God will automatically begin to bless him again. “Surely then you will lift up your face without blemish.” “ You will forget your misery.” “Many will entreat your favor, etc, etc.”

    Eliphaz: Job 15 represents this friend's take on Job's situation. He starts with a proverbial generality in v. 20: “The wicked writhe in pain all their days.” Then in vv. 28-29 he makes a pointed allusion to the destruction of Job's house and possessions by saying, “They will live in...houses destined to become heaps of ruins; they will not be rich, and their wealth will not endure.”

    Bildad: In Job 18, Job is subjected to a long harangue beginning with the words “Surely the light of the wicked is put out and the flame of their fire does not shine.” And to make sure that Job realizes that Bildad is talking about him, he adds in v. 13: “By disease their skin is consumed,” an unmistakable reference to Job's skin condition.

Prophets

There are often three discrete sections within each book of prophecy:

    1. an enumeration of Israel's sins which have led to her political downfall,

    2. oracles revealing that the enemy nations will be judged severely by God for their sins and will meet their doom, and

    3. promises given to Israel that God will eventually restore her fortunes.

Note that #2 and #3 are equivalent, respectively, to “the first shall be last” and “the last shall be first.”

In terms of the high being brought low, it is informative that 36 times in the prophecy books, the prophet begins addressing individuals or groups with the words “Woe to....” And 17 of these instances are found in Isaiah alone. But a good representative example of this principle is seen in Ezekiel 28 addressed to the Prince of Tyre who begins by saying to himself “I am a god” (v. 2) but ends up coming “to a dreadful end” (v. 19).

Ezekiel 21:26 also represents a good, early example of the reversal principle. Concerning Zedekiah, the prophet says, “Thus says the Lord God, take off his turban and crown; things shall not remain as they now are. Exalt that which is low and bring down that which is high.” Similarly, an oracle against Judah teaches that “The haughtiness of people will be made humble and everyone's pride made low.” (Isaiah 2:17).

A final example from the prophets, and probably the most important for Christians, is found in Isaiah 53. This famous chapter contains a description of the Suffering Servant who was despised and afflicted and not felt to be worthy of consideration. And yet he will be counted as one of the great and strong (v. 12).

Gospels

Of course, the title quotation comes from Jesus whose teachings echo this principle, applied almost exclusively to eschatological reversals. The full phrase appears in Matthew 19:27-30 as Jesus' response to Peter's question as to what those who had left everything would get in return. He was told that they “will receive 100-fold and will inherit eternal life.” It next is used in Matthew 20:1-16 at the end of the Parable of the Laborers in the Field. The first ones to begin work (the Jews?) will receive no more or less than those who are signed on much later in the day (Gentiles?). Some have questioned whether the final “first and last” saying really fits the context of that parable.

There are, however, many variations on this theme found within the Gospel accounts:

Matthew 6: The key word “reward” appears again and again in this chapter. And it is used to highlight the fact that the hypocritical Pharisees will get no further reward in heaven since they have already received all they are going to get while on earth. By contrast, the lowly believers will receive a considerable heavenly reward.

Matthew 11:11: “Truly I tell you, among mortals no one has risen greater than John the Baptist, but the least one in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

Matthew 18:1-14: The disciples want to know who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. He answers that “whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest.” The same sort of encounter occurs in Mark 9:33-35 in which Jesus tells them, “Whoever wants to be first must be the last of all and servant of all.”

Then there is the story is found in Matthew 19:13-14 where the children are brought to Jesus so that he might pray over them. When the disciples object, Jesus replies, “Let the little children come to me. Do not prevent them from coming, for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.” We are so used to this story that we don't realize the shock these words might have been to his audience since at the time children, in terms of status within a family, ranked below the household servants.

Another variation is found in Matthew 21:31 where Jesus tells the chief priests and elders: “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and prostitutes are going into God's kingdom ahead of you.” This same sort of reversal is taught in Luke 13:22-30 at the end of Jesus comment on those who will knock on the owner's door and ask to be invited in. His reply will be, “I do not know where you came from...go away from me, you evildoers.” By contrast, people from all over the world will be invited in.

But the largest concentration of this principle in Matthew's account is found in the list of Beatitudes given in chapter 5, where it is only the “last will be first” group that is highlighted:

    The poor in spirit will inhabit the kingdom of heaven.

    Those who mourn will be comforted.

    Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will be filled.

    The merciful will receive mercy.

    The pure in heart will see God.

    The peacemakers will be called the children of God.

    Those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake will inherit the kingdom of heaven.

    Those who are reviled and persecuted on My behalf will have a great reward in heaven.

In marked contrast to these beatitudes, are those given in Luke 6, probably describing a different sermon by Christ:

    The poor will inherit the kingdom of God.

    The hungry will be filled.

    Those who weep will laugh.

Note that these are variations of the first three of Matthew's beatitudes. But then, Jesus follows those blessings with three balancing curses demonstrating that “the first shall be last.”

    The rich will receive no more rewards in the afterlife.

    Those who are now full will be hungry.

    Those who now laugh will cry.

Toward the beginning of Luke's Gospel is Mary's Magnificat, which sounds the same theme:

    “He has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant (Luke 1:48a)...He has brought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly (Luke 1:52).”

Acts

This book illustrates the principle most powerfully in relationship to the reception of the Word moving away from the world of the Chosen People to that of the despised Gentiles.

Epistles

It is hard to capsulize in a few words the various ways this reversal theme plays itself out in the variety of NT letters that have been left for our edification. So I will just highlight three passages by Paul which illustrate both (1) the difference between God's values and those of the world and (2) and how many of His choices have the effect of demonstrating His utter sovereignty over affairs of the world.

I Corinthians 1:26-28 “Consider your own calling, brothers: not many were wise according to the flesh, or powerful, or of the nobility. But God chose what is foolish in the eyes of the world in order to shame the so-called wise. He chose the weak to shame the strong.”

I Corinthians 15:7-9 “Then he [Jesus] appeared to James and then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared to me. For I am the least of the apostles, really unfit to carry the name, because I had persecuted God's church.”

I Timothy 1:15-16 “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. But it was for that reason I received God's mercy so that in me as the chief, Jesus Christ might...[make] me an example to others who would come in belief to him for eternal life.”

I do not think that Paul was exhibiting any false modesty in these last two passages. He really was the last apostle chosen, and it would seem to be a particularly strange choice to make if it were up to us. And yet, of all the apostles one would have to say that the example he set and the words he left for us demonstrate that he was the greatest of the apostles in terms of his witness.

As he often did in his letter, James echoes the ideas of his half-brother Jesus, including the theme of divine reversal in regard to earthly riches:

James 1:9-10 “Let the believer who is of little regard be raised up, and the worldly rich be brought down, because the rich will disappear like a wildflower in the heat.”

James 2:5b “Hasn't God chosen the worldly poor to be rich in faith and to be inheritors of the kingdom He has promised to those who love Him?”

James5:1-3a “Come now, you rich, cry and await the miseries that are coming to you. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be used as evidence against you.”

Revelation

This final book completes the picture with its vivid imagery illustrating the principle that even if evil seem to have the upper hand at times, there will eventually come a time of reckoning when it will be overthrown by God; the righteous will go to their everlasting reward while unbelievers will be consigned to everlasting darkness. The message in this book goes far beyond the rest of the Bible in portraying the “first” as not just rich and powerful individuals and nations, but actual cosmic forces in league with Satan. There may be controversies regarding who or what the dragon, the various beasts, and Babylon represent, but a wide consensus of evangelical scholars would probably agree that they comprise forces such as political power, religious leadership, and economic and military domination.

But each one of them is destroyed in the reverse order in which they are first presented in Revelation (see my post “Book of Revelation: Introduction to the Literary Structure”). And the last to be destroyed is the first to appear in the Bible: the power of death.

 

ECCLESIASTES: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Ecclesiastes 7:27-29 How do you explain that this biblical passage is so highly unflattering to women in general?

This is one of three OT passages Wenham (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 287) has identified as being possibly denigrating toward women. It reads: “This is what I found, says the Teacher...adding one thing to another to find the sum, which my mind has sought repeatedly, but I have not found. One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found. See, this alone I found, that God made human beings straightforward, but they have devised many schemes.” (NRSV) (I like a paraphrase of the last part of this passage that I heard somewhere: “We are no better than God made us, and some of us are a great deal worse.”) 

This is a notoriously hard verse to understand, especially concerning what exactly the Teacher's search was for. The NRSV Study Bible says that it was wisdom whereas many translations add the word “upright” or “respectable” before “man” and “woman” even though it is not in the Hebrew text. Here are some comments from scholars regarding this passage:

    Tremper Longman (The Book of Ecclesiastes): “For those concerned that a biblical book appears to support the views of a misogynist, it must also be remembered that the views of Qohelet are not the teachings of the book of Ecclesiastes any more than the speeches of the three friends constitute the normative teachings of the book of Job...His comments are full of tensions, and thus I have characterized him as a confused wise man whose voice is not to be identified with the teachings of the canonical book.”

    C.-L. Seow (Ecclesiastes) marshals linguistic evidence supporting the idea that the last half of v. 28 was an intrusion by another author, or may have been a case of Qoheleth quoting a traditional saying. Or it may simply be a poetic way of stating that he has found virtually no one who corresponds to what he has been looking for, whatever that may happen to be.

    Gordis (in Reflecting with Solomon, p. 298) says, “he finds men only one-tenth of one percent better than women!”

    Goldberg (Reflecting, p. 318) asks, “Where was the Teacher looking? If he was searching among his harem..., it is doubtful that he would find a woman as she ought to be among the pagan women who had turned his heart from God.”

Ecclesiastes 10:2 I know that Solomon was not making a political statement, but I'm curious about the verse that reads, "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." In biblical terms, what do "right" and "left" mean?

You bring up a very good point – When you run into an idiom or figure of speech in the Bible that is similar to one we use today, you shouldn't assume that the Biblical authors understood it in the same manner.

In most ancient cultures, “right” was associated with skill, approval, correctness and good fortune; whereas “left” indicated awkwardness, disapproval, error and bad fortune. (The International Bible Commentary, p. 699) However, The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (p. 499-500) notes that in the vast majority of references in the Bible to right and left there is no suggestion that one direction or the other is to be preferred. But there are a few places where “left” indicates the less desirable alternative. There is Genesis 48:13-14 in which Jacob puts his right hand on Ephraim, indicating that he will receive a greater blessing than the older brother Manasseh, on whom he has placed his left hand. Also, Jesus' division of the goats on the left and the sheep on the right clearly indicates preference for the latter group (Matthew 25:33,41-46).

Tremper Longman (The Book of Ecclesiastes, p. 240) suggests that going to the right means going in the direction of power and strength, citing as examples the Genesis passage above and Isaiah 41:10 (“I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my victorious right hand.”).

The general image in Ecclesiastes 10:2 stems from the common picture of one's life as a journey along a path (see the closely related verse 3). Several passages of this sort picture a path of life that is not to be deviated from, either to the left or the right (for example, Deuteronomy 5:32). However, the imagery in Ecclesiastes 10:2 is of a road that suddenly forks. One can go either way, but which is the correct way? The context indicates that to go right is obviously a wiser move than heading left on a foolish path.

As a “lefty” myself, I should probably be offended with the occasional derogatory use of “left” in the Bible. But I can console myself with the fact that left-handed people are sometimes pointed to as positive examples. There is the left-handed judge (and part-time assassin) Ehud in the Judges 3; the 700 left-handed soldiers in Judges 20:16 who were especially adept at slinging stones; and the ambidextrous soldiers in I Chronicles 12:2. Apparently God can even use us “lefties” on occasion to do His will.

 

I CORINTHIANS 8: TRANSLATION PROBLEMS

The problems associated with properly translating New Testament texts are somewhat different from those encountered in the Old Testament. On the one hand, most of the key manuscripts we have are in only in one language; there are much fewer obscure words to deal with; and we possess many more ancient manuscripts to compare with one another. On the other hands, the Greek words themselves often have multiple nuances of meaning to them, and one must determine from the context which meaning to use.

Another problem area is that the NT manuscripts were produced, for the most part, by untrained scribes who often made numerous accidental copying errors. The approach taken in producing the text used for the KJV was to count the number of manuscripts reading a certain way and go with the reading that the majority of them had, thus “the Majority Text.” The tack taken by most modern translators, however, has been to weigh the earlier manuscripts much more heavily than the later productions since these earlier documents were less likely to have accumulated errors and purposeful additions or deletions over the years of copying and recopying. I have chosen I Corinthians 8 to illustrate some of these issues.

I Corinthians 8:1 “A few of the earlier interpreters suggested that oidamen (“we know”) should read oida men. But this is an unnecessary expedient.” (Fee)

The Greek has simply “the idol offerings,” but “meats” is clearly intended, according to Orr and Walther. They are also among the several commentators who note that the absence of the article “the” before “knowledge” generalizes this usage, i.e. it is not just knowledge about idols that is in mind.

I Corinthians 8:2-3 There is a fair amount of uncertainty as to the original Greek text of these verses. As an example, the NIV follows the majority of early manuscripts to read:

“Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God.”

But here is how all the earliest Egyptian manuscripts as well as a quotation from the early Church Father Clement read:

“If anyone thinks he has arrived at knowledge, he does not yet know as he ought to know; but if anyone loves, this one truly knows (or is known).”

Other translations go with this reading. As Fee says, “The latter reading fits the context so perfectly that it is either the Pauline original or else the work of an editorial genius.” Fee also explains the ambiguity concerning the last word given in this verse – It depends on whither the verb form for “know,” egnosta, is taken as being passive (is known) or middle (has come to know for oneself).

I Corinthians 8:2 Two translations for the Greek word dokei are possible: “thinks” or “appears to.” “The difference is insignificant but the translation 'thinks' is nevertheless to be preferred since the second half of the verse shows that Paul in the first half introduces the man who thinks he knows.” (Grosheide)

“It may not be possible [in Romans 8:26] to determine whether katho dei should be rendered 'as we ought' or 'as is meet'. I Cor. 8:2 would suggest the former.” (Murray) But the alternative translation is also possible.

There is a major controversy as to whether the small word ti (“anything/something”) was in the original text. Bruce Metzger states that the United Bible Societies felt that its absence in some manuscripts was “either a deliberate omission, made in order to sharpen Paul's statement, or as an accidental oversight.”

On the other hand, Orr and Walther in preparing their Anchor Bible translation went with the one NT papyrus that leaves out that pronoun, stating that ti was probably a scribal addition. Gordon Fee agrees with that assessment. Orr and Walther also say that the literal phrase “has not yet come to know” is in a verb form that “defies the translator.”

I Corinthians 8:3 There is a question regarding whether “God” was originally present in the text or added later. In either case, “God was the intended object of the verb, and there is very slim manuscript evidence for omitting it.”

I Corinthians 8:4 “There is no God” in Greek becomes in some manuscripts “There is no other God,” in line with Exodus 20:3 – probably a later textual addition. (Fee)

The RSV uses quotation marks in this verse since it “appears to introduce more quotations from the Corinthian inquiry.” (Marsh) Keep in mind that there were very few examples of punctuation marks in the ancient Greek manuscripts. Thus, this sort of issue can occasionally cause some ambiguity as to who is speaking or being quoted.

I Corinthians 8:5 Grosheide notes there are two possible translations: 'for if there might be those, who (continually) are called gods' or 'for if there might be so-called gods.' But whichever option one goes with, “The meaning remains the same.”

I Corinthians 8:6 This verse reads, “But for us there is one God the Father from whom are all things (ex hou ta panta), and we are for him (eis auton).” This final phrase is generally taken to mean “we live/exist for him.” But Painter expresses the opinion that since “the first preposition ex relates to source/origin, it is likely that the eis refers to the goal. We come from God and we go to God.” In addition, Bartels says, “We should not take v.6 as consisting of two parallel statements simply joined by kai (and). Rather we must interpret kai as meaning: just in the way and with the reality in which we have one Lord Jesus Christ.”

Notice that the controversies above both relate to the proper translation of seemingly insignificant words such as “for” and “and” which can have multiple meanings depending on the context.

I Corinthians 8:7 The Greek of the first part of this verse reads literally “this knowledge is not in all.” Marsh explains, “There is a difference between knowing theoretically and having that knowledge in one as an activating reality.”

Fee takes issue with the NIV translation “as having been sacrificed” since no tense is implied in the Greek word.

There are three mentions of a 'weak conscience' in this chapter (vv. 7,10,12). “The translation and meaning of Gk. syneidesis remains controversial. Does it mean 'conscience' or (more probably) 'self-awareness'?” (Thiselton)

I Corinthians 8:8-9 Gordon Fee calls these verses “as puzzling as they are abrupt.”

I Corinthians 8:8 This is another case where it is not quite certain which words belong to Paul and which ones he is quoting from the Corinthians. Grosheide feels it is the latter.

I Corinthians 8:10 The main issue in translation here relates to the meaning of eidolothyta. Fee says that it “does not refer primarily to marketplace food [which was previously offered to idols], but to the eating of sacrificial food at the cultic meals in the pagan temples.” Contrary to this view is that of C.A. Kennedy who argues that the word refers to memorial meals for the dead.

In addition, a number of manuscript lack the word se (“you”) in this verse. But Metzger states, “Copyists are more likely to have omitted the pronoun, thus generalizing the apostle's statement, than to have inserted it.” This is the sort of general reasoning that translators use when deciding between two textual options that both have good manuscript support.

I Corinthians 8:11 “There is the question of the meaning of 'destroyed;' is it an internal falling apart or the loss of salvation?” He opts for the latter since the first idea “is altogether too modern; and elsewhere in Paul this word invariably refers to eternal ruin.”

I Corinthians 8:12 The word typto (“wounding”) is literally to beat or strike, but figuratively as in this verse “it means to be responsible for the wounds that such a person has received.” (Fee)

One early Egyptian papyrus as well as a quotation from Clement have left out the word asthenous “as either an accident in transcription or a deliberate modification, introduced to prevent the reader from assuming that wounding a brother's conscience is allowable except when it is 'weak'.” (Metzger)

One word of warning in conclusion: I purposely chose this chapter as an example of an unusually difficult one to translate. Do not come to the conclusion that there is the same amount of uncertainty in the rest of the NT. And even in the above cases, you will note that none of these issues has any impact on a Christian doctrine.

 

PSALM 28

This is definitely a psalm of mixed genre with diverse elements of pleas to God for help, thanksgiving, praise, and cursing. This may be one of the reasons that there is no real consensus as to the way this psalm is organized. For example, M'Caw and Motyer see two basic parts to the psalm: vv. 1-5 (plea) and vv. 6-8 (confident praise). “Both parts of the poem have a personal and a corporate section.” In contrast, Jacobson divides it into an appeal for help (vv. 1-4), an oracle of salvation (v. 5), and a song of thanksgiving (vv. 6-9). He recognizes both individual (vv. 6-7) and corporate (vv. 8-9) aspects of the second half of the psalm but not in the first half. And NRSV divides it into four stanzas: verses 1-2; 3-5; 6-7; and 8-9.

My own structural analysis yields the following results:

    A. Plea for God to listen (vv.1-2)

        B. Concerning the wicked (vv. 3-5)

    A'. Thanksgiving for God having responded (vv. 6-7)

        B'. Concerning God's people (vv. 8-9)

Thus, there is a purposeful contrast going from A to A' and from B to B'.

Psalm 28:1-3 “The place to which the dead go is generally portrayed as a dark pit, a place to which the wicked go prematurely as a consequence of their evil deeds.” (S. Meier)

Psalm 28:1 “The expressed fear that God might be deaf and silent does not arise from any lack of faith, but rather indicates that self-depreciating reverence, which is our only proper attitude towards God, and also our recognition that His and our sense of timing may not coincide...” (M'Caw and Motyer)

“The 'silence of God' refers to his seeing inactivity on behalf of his people.” (Oswalt)

David calls God “my rock” nine times in the Psalms.

Psalm 28:2 “Prayers were directed to the heavenly palace (Ps 18:6), the innermost sanctuary (debir) and the chamber of God (Ps 28:2).” (Phua)

“Usually the posture in prayer was to kneel before the Lord...The kneeling was accompanied either by spreading out or lifting up of the hands.” (Verhoef)

“David is confident in Yahweh's mercy and grace and knows that only God can repair their damaged relationship.” (Rata)

“Several times the psalmist cries out to God to hear his or her prayer (e.g. Ps 27:7; 28:2), and correspondingly we have the cry of affirmation that the Lord has heard his/her voice (e.g. Ps 6:9; 18:7; 28:6).” (Martens)

Psalm 28:3 There are also a number of places in Proverbs where rea' (“neighbor”) is used “in ethical contexts referring to proper and improper treatment of one's fellow (Prov 3:29; 14:20,21; 16:29; 21:10; 22:11).” (Hess) And of course the concept also appears in the context of Jesus' Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Psalm 28:4-5 These are among those verses edited out of the current Roman Catholic liturgy. As Holladay says, “parts of the Psalms that did not seem offensive to reciters who only half understood them in Latin are now to be omitted when the reciters hear what they really mean in their language.” He adds, “It is difficult to say whether it is legitimate for Christians to wish for commensurate hurt on their enemies, whether that hurt be exercised by the psalmist empowered by God or by God alone. Jesus' words in Matt. 5:38-39 would seem to exclude the possibility.”

Psalm 28:4 “Jesus' reference to judgment by works (Matthew 16:27b) echoes the teaching of numerous Old Testament texts (see esp. Ps. 28:4; 62:12; Prov. 24:12) (Blomberg)

“The fair judgments of God (28:4) is a principle rehearsed also in 2 Tim. 4:14, Rom. 2:6, and Rev. 2:23.” (Marshall)

Psalm 28:5 “Not to note or not to see God's actions is a sign of deep spiritual darkness.” (Dreytza) This is also seen in Isaiah 5:12.

Psalm 28:6 “The statement 'Blessed be the Lord' does not occur elsewhere as an anticipated thanksgiving, and the statements associated with the thanksgiving are so confident that it is difficult to regard them merely as anticipated.” (Clifford)

Psalm 28:7-8 Brueggermann explains that “the two nominal derivatives of the verb 'zz (“be strong”) define Yahweh as a powerful ally (Ps 28:7) or as an excellent defensive position (Ps 28:8).”

Phua explains, “the word refuge (ma'oz) is associated with a fortress/stronghold and indicates either a natural or any constructed place of shelter and protection.”

Psalm 28:7 Koptak: “Representative parts of the body can stand for human thoughts, feelings, and actions. The psalms speak of the steadfast heart that leaps for joy.” Psalm 51:7 provides another example of this. But the expression “the heart trusts” only appears again in Psalm 112:7.

Moberly's words are also worth quoting: “It is striking that the language of trust is frequently joined with language of confidence in God's vindication or deliverance...The Psalms do not specify the form in which the deliverance should take place...But they are all clear about the theological connection between trust and deliverance.”

Grisanti notes, “In the Psalter Yahweh's character provides the ground for jubilation 4x.” The other occasions are 68:5; 96:12; and 149:5.”

The Hebrew word for song denotes a song of thanksgiving here; in the heading of Psalm 18; and in Psalm 69:31. (L.C. Allen)

Psalm 28:8 Holladay points out that within the psalms, the only third-person mentions of a king appear in this verse, 61:6-7, and 63:11.

“Outside of the Torah anointing refers to the ritual used to consecrate a king. Nearly all these references are associated with the king's role as protector and vanquisher of Israel's enemies.” (Longman)

In discussing Acts 2:31, Marshall states that “by the time the psalms were collected and effectively canonized, the references in them were understood, where appropriate, as messianic.” One such passage was Ps. 28:8.

Other places where there is a request for God to be near include Psalms 42:2-3; 63:1,8; and 73:23-28.

Psalm 28:9 “God saves as the shepherd who will guide his people through life.” (S. McKnight)

Although “God is represented as committed to doing good to or blessing his elect people...this does not lead the Old Testament writers to take such benevolence for granted, and it is a constant prayer on their lips that God act in accordance with his revealed character.” (J. Davies)

Many OT passages speak of God's people as His flock besides this verse. And then in the NT we have verses such as Luke 12:32 and John 10:1.