TRUTHFUL SAYINGS / UNRELIABLE SOURCES IN THE BIBLE

 It is easy to point out passages in the Bible where some of God's most loyal followers are guilty on one occasion or another of telling lies in order to benefit themselves. The patriarch Jacob is a prime example. A little rarer are those times when usually unreliable witnesses come out with a completely orthodox expression or idea. Below are some of these who come readily to mind, although these may just be the tip of the iceberg.

The Serpent in the Garden – It is appropriate to begin with the Father of Lies. In his conversation with Adam and Eve, he denies God's words to them saying that they would die on the day they ate from the tree. He tells them unconditionally, “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5) They do eat from the tree and, sure enough, Satan's words are confirmed. Not only do they continue to live for many more years, but God Himself in Genesis 3:22 confirms that they now know good and evil as He does.

So in one way, Satan was telling the truth, but it was only a half-truth designed to lure them into sin since (a) they began to die from that point on and (b) their knowledge of good and evil would be quite different from God's experience of it.

Job's Friends

In this long book we encounter three of Job's friends who fail to recognize the truth behind Job's disasters and can only apply conventional wisdom to the situation. That this is inadequate is stated clearly by God in Job 42:7 when He tells Eliphaz that he and his two friends “have not spoken of me what is right.” Despite this condemnation, not everything said by the three of them was totally off-base even if they did often apply it wrongly to the case at hand. As demonstration of that fact, here are some places where their comments find partial or complete confirmation from New Testament sources:

Eliphaz     Job              Parallel NT Passage

                 4:8                Galatians 6:7-9

                4:9                II Thessalonians 2:8

                4:19              I Corinthians 15:47; II Corinthians 5:1-2

                5:9                Luke 13:17

                5:11              Luke 1:52

                5:13              I Corinthians 3:19

                5:17              Hebrews 12:5-11

                5:18              Matthew 11:4-5

                15:15             II Peter 2:4

                15:22            Matthew 26:52

                15:29             Luke 1:53

                22:9              Luke 20:47

                22:15-17      II Peter 2:5

                22:29           Matthew 23:12

Zophar     11:7            I Corinthians 2:9-11

Bildad     18:15          Luke 17:29

Balaam

An even clearer example of this phenomenon is seen in the pagan prophet Balaam who, for a fee, agrees to curse the Israelites on behalf of the Moabite king. God reluctantly allows him to travel to his destination, warning him on the way of who is really in charge, but that does not deter Balaam at all. He is determined to earn his fee.

However, when it comes to actually cursing the Israelites, God turns his words into blessings instead, to the chagrin of both Balaam and the king. Thus, Balaam's various oracles found in Numbers 23-24 are filled with orthodox theology, some of which is actually quoted favorably by NT writers.

In this case, it is quite obvious why we can trust these teachings – they are put into the reluctant prophet's mouth directly by God to serve His purposes.

Jonah

Here is even a more reluctant prophet, an Israelite this time. As you read his story, you will find an interesting mixture of orthodox theology coupled with a complete refusal to face up to the consequences of such theology on his own life.

To explain, Jonah proudly proclaims to the sailors that he worships “the LORD, the God of heaven who made the sea and the dry land.” (1:9) But after witnessing powerfully to God's nature as Creator of all that exists, Jonah paradoxically acts as if he can go somewhere in the land or sea where God has no dominion. And God, in chapter 4 exposes Jonah's hypocrisy even more clearly by contrasting his strange attitude toward a whole city of people and cattle and that toward a vine.

Then in Jonah 2 we have a beautiful prayer of thanksgiving for God's salvation that could well belong in the Psalms. But we are tempted to treat it as just so many empty words in light of the prophet's continued stubborn and hateful attitude at the end of the story.

Finally, we come to Jonah's wonderful confession in 4:2 in which he states: “I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing.” This is actually a common OT confession of faith (cf. Exodus 34:6; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5; Joel 2:13). So what is the problem with this statement? The problem is not that Jonah is ignorant of God's loving character, the problem is that Jonah knows it but personally disagrees with Him and so is going to go his own way. This seems to be a situation akin to Jesus' teaching on the unforgivable sin – clearly seeing God's truth but refusing to accept it for purely selfish reasons.

Satan in the Wilderness

Satan is up to his old tricks again when he attempts to tempt Jesus in the wilderness. All the Synoptic accounts record this event (Mark 1:12-13; Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). Two of the attempts fail when Jesus counters Satan by quoting accurately from OT. But in one case, Satan begins his temptation by quoting Scripture himself. He dares Jesus to jump from the pinnacle of the temple so that angels will save him, as stated in Psalm 91:11-12. Satan does quote the words as written in Psalms, but he totally ignores the context of the passage. Unfortunately, this is a common ploy used by Scripture twisters for the last two millennia to mislead believers. Since this approach can be very subtle at times, it is perhaps the most insidious method by which unscrupulous people can use a reliable source such as the Bible in order to turn into a lie. And I could almost write a long book quoting examples from just the last few years.

The Scribes

Mark 2:7 and its parallel in Luke 5:21 record the reply of the scribes (and Pharisees) to Jesus' pronouncement that the paralytic's sins were forgiven: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” The expected answer to that rhetorical question is “no one.” Although they are perfectly correct in their implied assertion, they draw the wrong conclusion from it – namely, that Jesus was a blasphemer. Instead, their own question should have prompted them to at least consider another logical conclusion – that Jesus was indeed God come down to earth.

The Pharisees

On the last day of the Feast of Booths, discussion ensues among those in the crowd regarding Jesus' origin. Some doubt that Jesus is the expected Messiah since he is to come from Bethlehem rather from Galilee, as predicted in Micah 5:2. And the Pharisees confirm that prophetic truth in order to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah. (John 7:41-42) They knew the truth of the prophecy, but were unaware of the fact that Jesus in fact was born in Bethlehem. Thus, inadvertently they helped to confirm that Jesus was the Messiah.

Caiaphas

Then we come to what is perhaps the most famous of truthful sayings coming from the mouth of an enemy of God. The high priest Caiaphas attempts to justify his decision to have Jesus crucified by appealing to the possibility that He will lead a revolt against Rome which would result in disastrous consequences for the people of Israel. He does so with the words: “It is better for you to have one man die for the people.” (John 11:49-50) Of course, John points out the unintended truth of Caiaphas' statement being the fact that Jesus will indeed die on behalf of the people of Israel as well as others who chose to believe in Him. (vv. 51-52)

Pilate

From historical records, we know that Pontius Pilate was an accomplished politician and schemer. However, it would almost appear that he became convinced that Jesus was who He said He was. I say this because of the words he instructed the soldiers to write on the inscription of Jesus' cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.” (John 19:20-23) That was a completely true statement from a spiritual perspective, but it is highly doubtful that Pilate believed it to be true as either a spiritual or political statement. It appears highly probable that the only reason Pilate had those words written was to embarrass the Jewish authorities who had forced him to carry out the execution. So the truth can be spoken for entirely the wrong reasons.

Jewish Religious Leaders

In Matthew 27:41-42 we are told that the chief priests, scribes and elders viewed Christ on the cross and mocked saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself.” But they ironically spoke the truth since (1) He did save others both physically and spiritually while on earth and (2) the only way in which He could save others for eternity was by pointedly staying on the cross instead of coming down, as He could have done. He was internally constrained to follow God's will right to the end and not to save Himself at that point.

The Possessed Slave Girl

There is an interesting story regarding Paul and his companions while they were in Philippi. They encounter a demon-possessed slave girl who follows them around the city saying, “These men are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation.” That would seem to be good publicity for the apostles who were attempting to do just that very thing. But Paul becomes annoyed and casts out the demon instead. (Acts 16:16-18)

The lesson appears to be that the truth in the mouth of demons can be a disrupting force rather than a valid confession from a reputable source. If the apostles were to accept her testimony, then they would be mingling truth with lying, satanic forces and diluting the gospel message just in order to gain a larger following. Is there a current lesson for Christians here? I will leave that for you to answer.

What do we think about such a phenomenon? Perhaps the saying “All truth is God's truth,” attributed to St. Augustine, covers some of these situations. On the other hand, “Consider the source” should cause us to be cautious about readily swallowing things said by those who obviously are not following God.

"HEAVEN AND EARTH" IN THE BIBLE

These two entities appear in conjunction a number of times in the Bible, so I have attempted to identify most of these passages and categorized them in case you wish to do your own Bible word study. One thing I should point out first is that the term “heaven” and its plural “heavens” have somewhat ambiguous meanings. At times they appear to be the part of the physical universe which is above the earth in the stratosphere, while in other passages it appears to refer to God's dwelling place. You may have to consider the context in each case to determine which is the most likely possibility.

God as Creator

By far the most occurrences of these two words in close proximity are when a person refers to God in the third person as creator of heaven and earth. Some passages use a variation on “created/made,” such as “founded,” “established,” or “formed.” In these cases, the combined term “heaven and earth” is called a merism, a technical term in which two extremes are used to designate everything in between as well. Other terminology referring to the total creation is more specific by adding phrases such as “and all their multitude,” “and the sea and all that is in them,” “and the human spirit,” “and all things visible or invisible,” or “including rulers and powers,” “and springs of water.”

In this category are the following OT and NT passages: 

    Genesis 1:1, 2:1; 2:4 (2x); 14:19,22; Exodus 20:11; 31:17; II Chronicles 2:12; Psalm 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 136:5-6; 146:5-6; Proverbs 3:19; Isaiah 45:18; Zechariah 12:1; Acts 14:15; 17:24; Colossians 1:15-16; Revelation 10:6; 14:7.

In Genesis 24:3 He is described simply as “the God of heaven and earth.”

Closely related to the above passages are those in which a personage addresses God in the first person by identifying him as the creator of heaven and earth. Those doing the praying include King Hezekiah (II Kings 19:15; Isaiah 37:16), Ezra (Nehemiah 9:6), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32:17), Jesus (Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21), and the apostles Peter and John (Acts 4:24).

Lastly we have the negative formulation of the same idea in Jeremiah 10:11 where there is reference to “gods who did not make the heavens and earth” and thus would “perish from the earth and under the heavens.” Further reference to these inferior beings appears along with the phrase “heaven and earth” in I Kings 8:23 and I Corinthians 8:5. Thus, we are strictly enjoined not to worship or make an image of anything created on heaven or earth. (Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 5:8)

God and His Creation

If the above were the only times God was mentioned in relation to His creation, we might be tempted to agree with the view of the Deists (which included many of America's Founding Fathers), namely, that God created the universe and then stepped back and let it go on its own without any further interaction with it. But in addition, we have the following clarifying Scriptures which make it clear that He is active throughout all of Creation's history:

    Deuteronomy 3:24 rhetorically asks God, “What god in heaven and earth can perform mighty acts like you?”

    Moses in Deuteronomy 4:39 reminds the Israelites that they heard God speak from heaven and saw His fire on earth.

    And because He founded heaven and earth, it belongs to Him (Psalm 89:11).

    God is not remote from His creation, but actually fills it, according to Jeremiah 23:24.

    In addition, heaven is pictured as God's throne with the earth His footstool (Isaiah 66:1, quoted in Acts 7:49).

    Jeremiah 33:25 avers that God not only created heaven and earth, but also established their ordinances.

    We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth. (Ezra 5:11)

    In agreement with Deuteronomy 3:24, Daniel 6:27 states that God works his signs in heaven and earth.

    Because God created heaven and earth, all of them belong to Him. (Psalm 102:19)

    God's perfect will is going to be done on earth as it already is in heaven. (Matthew 6:10)

    But Jesus tells us in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 that whatever the church binds or looses on earth will be ratified by God in heaven.

    In Matthew 28:18, Jesus declares that all authority on heaven and earth has been given to him. Obviously, that infers that God the Father has that authority with which to invest him.

    Paul in Ephesians 3:15 makes the interesting statement that every family in heaven and earth takes its name from God.

    Because all creation belongs to God, we are not to swear by heaven or earth. (James 5:12)

Future Fate of the Creation

We are to place no reliance on the permanence of the present heaven and earth, as Jesus teaches in Matthew 6:19-20. The reason for that statement has its foundation in the teachings of the OT prophets and continues into the New Testament. The future historical progression will take place in several stages:

    First comes the trembling and shaking of the heaven and earth prophesied in Isaiah 13:13; Joel 3:16; and Haggai 2:6 (quoted in Hebrews 12:26), accompanied by “portents in heaven and earth” (quoted in Acts 2:19). There will be rejoicing in heaven but woe on earth due to the devil's wrath on it (Revelation 12:12).

    Next will come the time when the heaven and earth wear out and vanish (Isaiah 51:6), flee from God's presence (Revelation 20:11), and pass away (Matthew 5:18; Luke 16:17) since they are reserved for fire (II Peter 3:7).

    Finally, we have in Revelation 21:1 a vision of the time when the old heaven and earth have passed away, only to be replaced by the new heaven and earth. At this point all things in heaven and earth will be gather unto God (Ephesians 1:10), every knee in heaven and earth shall bow down at the name of Jesus (Philippians 2:10), and God will reconcile all things to him in heaven and earth (Colossians 1:20). The establishment of this new heaven and new heaven were predicted in Isaiah 65:17; 66:22 and confirmed in II Peter 3:13.

Anthromorphism

Then there is another set of figurative biblical references in which “heaven and earth” is treated as if it were a living being which can act as a witness (Deuteronomy 4:26;30:19; 31:28), praise God (Psalm 69:34), exult him in song (Isaiah 49:13), rejoice with shouting (Psalm 96:11; Jeremiah 51:48), and hear God's words (Isaiah 1:2).

Between Heaven and Earth

This phrase is a special Hebrew idiom, which according to T.F. Williams and other scholars means “in the air.” It is used to describe the location of Absalom hanging by his hair from a tree (II Samuel 18:9), the armed angel waiting to destroy Jerusalem due to David taking a census of the people (I Chronicles 21:16), Ezekiel as he was lifted by his hair to see Jerusalem in a vision (Ezekiel 8:3), and the basket containing the woman called Wickedness as it flew through the sky (Zechariah 5:9).

Relative Location

The obvious fact that the physical heaven is above the earth appears in a number of different contexts in the Bible. And to repeat, there remains some ambiguity as to whether the physical or spiritual heaven is being referred to in these references.

    Deuteronomy 11:21; Psalm 103:11; and Proverbs 25:3 make use of the physical reality to bring out their points by analogies.

    Movement downward from heaven to earth is expressed in Lamentations 2:1 and Revelation 9:1.

    God enjoys an elevated status in heaven above us, according to Psalm 102:19; Ecclesiastes 5:2; and Luke 2:14. However, He is in both heaven and earth at the same time (Joshua 2:11).

    And then, to add even more confusion to the picture, God is pictured as above both heaven and earth in passages such as Psalm 113:6 and 148:13.

Jesus' Preeminence

Jesus' superiority over all creatures in heaven and earth is shown in Revelation 5:3,13.

The Temple

Then there is one totally false interpretation propagated by full preterists in order to salvage their assertion that Christ has already come again and there will be no future destruction of the physical universe, last judgment, or new heaven and earth. They justify this heretical view by stating that “heaven and earth” was a common Jewish term meaning the Jerusalem Temple. Of course there is no biblical justification for that interpretation, and the one or two extrabiblical sources they cite as evidence can be discounted because they do not actually state that fact and/or come from a much later time period. For more on my own opinion of preterism, see the posts “II Peter 3: Dialogue with a Preterist” and “Critique of The Last Days? by Ron McRay: Preterism.”

Hosea 2:21-22

This obscure passage did not seem to fit into any neat category since I could not really understand what it is trying to say. Here is how the NRSV renders it: “On that day I will answer, says the LORD, I will answer the heavens and they shall answer the earth; and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil, and they shall answer Jezreel.” Here is how several commentators react to these words, which do seem to reflect some sort of progression of actions from the great God in heaven down to a lowly individual.

    “Human faithfulness (or lack thereof) to the LORD has implications for the natural world.” (Mobley)

    And a more complete explanation comes from Dearman, who says that these verses are linked by repetition of the verb answer/respond ('ana) as fruitful relations between Creator and land are described as right responses to each other...Agricultural production requires rain. Thus YHWH answers the heavens, prompting them in turn to respond to the earth...The land responds to what YHWH initiates through the heavens as the agricultural cycle of production gets underway...The last-named response is that of agricultural produce to Jezreel. Like most things dealing with Jezreel, the connection is less clear than we would like.” But one thing is quite clear: the whole cycle portrays the active interaction of God with His creation, unlike the belief of the Deists.

WORD STUDIES IN THE BIBLE: PART 2 (EPHESIANS 1:14)

 In the first post in this series, I discussed (1) how you could find the location in the Bible of a passage which you can at least partially quote and (2) the value of comparing diverse Bible translations or paraphrases in order to get a better idea of what the words in the passage might mean. In the present posting, I would like to show other fairly easy ways to get a better handle on what the original Greek text means.

Greek-English Dictionaries

This would seem to be the most foolproof method to start with, but the situation is not that simple. For example, one standard dictionary is Liddell Scott's Greek-English Lexicon. It contains all the Greek words in alphabetical order along with their definitions. However, (1) the words are arranged according to the order of the Greek alphabet, not the English alphabet; and (2) most of the definitions explain what the word meant in classical Greek writings, not in the biblical koine Greek.

The first drawback can be overcome fairly easily by preparing a cheat sheet listing all the characters in the Greek language in proper order along with their counterparts in English. Thus, it would start with the character for alpha ,α, which is generally transliterated as the letter A. This would be followed by beta, β, standing for B, etc. Below is the whole Greek alphabet in order along with English equivalents. You may wish to simply print off a hard copy for future reference.

The second drawback with a simple dictionary is not so easily overcome since you can't rely on a classical meaning of a word to coincide exactly with what that word meant to the writers of the New Testament. Let's go to our sample passage in question to demonstrate.

One of the key words in Ephesians 1:14 is “glory.” This renders the Greek word doxa (δόξα ). And if you consult Scott's Lexicon for its meaning, you get four possibilities: (1) opinion, (2) sentiment, (3) mere opinion, and (4) vision. Only after these main usages are listed will you come to “glory, splendor,” the real meaning intended in Ephesians 1:14.

A huge improvement over a standard dictionary can be found in one geared particularly for Bible students. The most popular of these is readily available. It is called Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. To begin with, there are two different ways in which you can locate the listing you are looking for. Since it gives all its definitions alphabetically according to the English translation, you don't even need to know the Greek word to access it (at least initially). Turning to G, we find a little over one page devoted to the meaning or meanings of the noun “glory” as it appears in the NT. But you will also see that there are actually two Greek words that are translated that way: doxa and kleos.

We will assume for the minute that you know which of these two Greek words, namely, doxa, appears in Ephesians 1:14 (The next post will deal with the situation in which you don't happen to know). With that in mind, you can read what Vine has to say regarding some of the major places in the NT containing doxa and the particular nuance the word has in each case. And in the middle of his discussion, you will even find a short discussion of its particular meaning in Ephesians – “in Eph. 1:6,12,14, 'the praise of the glory of His grace' and 'the praise of His glory' signify the due acknowledgment of the exhibition of His attributes and ways; in Eph. 1:17, 'the Father of glory' describes Him as the source from all Divine splendor and perfection proceed in their manifestation and to whom they belong.”

Thus, Vine's would appear to be the only source you would need to consult for everything you might want to know, not only regarding the word doxa in general, but also its particular meaning within the context in question (the Book of Ephesians), including the exact verse you are studying.

Let's try out Vine on another word, “inheritance.” Here again we don't need to know the Greek word involved since Vine only gives one that is translated in that manner in the NT, kleronomia. In addition, Ephesians 1:14 is specifically cited in his discussion. Vine notes that there are four ways in which the word is applied: (1) property passed down from father to son on the former's death, (2) a portion of such estate, (3) “the prospective condition and possessions of the believer in the new order of things to be ushered in at the return of Christ,” and (4) “what the believer will be to God in that age.” Definition #3 covers Ephesians 1:14 while #4 applies in Ephesians 1:18, according to Vine.

The meaning of “redemption” is also described in Vine's. According to him, there are two Greek words with that meaning, (1) lutrosis and (2) apolutrosis. The second of these can be seen as a compound word derived from the first in order to strengthen its meaning. Vine says that it literally means, “a releasing, for (i.e., on payment of) a ransom.” The four nuances he gives for the latter word are (1) deliverance from physical torture, (2) “deliverance of the people of God at the Coming of Christ,” (3) forgiveness and justification, redemption as the result of expiation, deliverance from the guilt of sins,” and (4) “the deliverance of the believer from the presence and power of sin and of his body from bondage to corruption, and the Coming...of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Vine cites Ephesians 1:7 under #3 and Ephesians 1:14 under #4.

In this case we are fortunate to have located three key words in Ephesians 1:4 within Vine's Dictionary. But one may not be nearly as lucky with more obscure Greek words which are not included. And another thing to keep in mind is that all of the definitions in this book are the opinion of but one man, even though he may be an enlightened one. One thing that certainly is true is that the use of Vine will get you a lot closer to the extended meaning of a Greek word than you can get by simply comparing various translations with one another. And it is a great resource for finding at least a few other places in the NT where the same word may appear

Finally, for you Bible nerds, there are two extremely valuable word resources available from Zondervan Publishers. These are New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (in 5 volumes) and New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (in 3 volumes). Both have extensive indexes at the end to help you find the entry you want by Bible passage, English translation, and/or original word. The only problem is that you will find more information that you will probably ever need.

Let's consult NIDONTT for some of the same key words we looked at in Vine's Dictionary. Thus, in the subject index under “Redemption,” we are referred to roughly 130 separate entries where that concept is discussed. But rather than giving up at that point, the index helpfully puts in bold the location of the most comprehensive entry for that word. And it is 44 pages long. Also, whereas Vine only listed two Greek words with that meaning, NIDONTT gives us seven possibilities. But I will assume that we had already narrowed it down to the word apolutrosis for Ephesians 1:14.

The first piece of information we get right under the heading is a brief definition of each of the seven words so that we can look at why Paul might have chosen apolutrosis rather than one of the other synonyms. Following this section are separate discussions on the meaning of each word in (a) classical Greek, (b) the Old Testament, as determined by which Hebrew words were translated by a particular Greek equivalent when the Septuagint was prepared slightly before the time of the NT writings, and (c) the appearance of each word in the NT writings.

After wading through page after page of detailed discussion, at last we come to the portion of the discussion relating specifically to apolutrosis. A bit surprisingly, the discussion of this noun and the associated verb is not much longer than that in Vine's. But it does give us some additional information not found there. First, it gives the statistics regarding how many times it is used in the NT (10x) as well as a breakdown of those occurrences into the Gospels, Acts, Pauline letters, etc.

Another tidbit of information we can find here is that compound words, such as this one, were generally preferred in Hellenistic times over the simple root word. From that fact, we should keep in mind that much in the Dictionary's extensive discussion on lutrosis might easily apply as well to apolutrosis since the NT authors may have chosen the latter variation for stylistic reasons only.

The author of the entry, Colin Brown in this case, gives a slant in his discussion not brought up in Vine's. I will not quote it, but basically Brown demonstrates through citing various NT passages that redemption has a present and future aspect, both based on the deliverance brought about by Christ's action on the cross.

At this point I realize that I have gotten the cart before the horse by not discussing first how one knows which Greek words stand behind the English words we are reading. One approach, if you have access to a good concordance, is to use it as described in the next post in this series. Another is to utilize a Greek-English Interlinear New Testament. Just look up the Bible passage of interest and it will place a literal English translation right below the corresponding Greek word in the verse. The only drawback is that the Greek is given using Greek letters instead of the English alphabet. But with the help of the handy alphabetical chart above, you can readily change it into a English transliteration.

MARK 11:25-26

 

                           Downcast (collage, 2009)

The above collage combines images from the episodes in Mark 11:12-24. While it contains seemingly diverse items in it, there is actually a sense of logic connecting the text itself. These verses begin with Jesus cursing a fig tree on the way to Jerusalem followed by his overturning the money-changer's booths in the temple. The next morning, they return by the same road and see that the fig tree has died. So far, these verses constitute what has been known as a “Markan sandwich.” This particular sandwich juxtaposes these two separate incidents in such a way that we see that what happened to the tree is just a foretaste of what will happen to the temple in the not too distant future.

From that point the text moves on to give us an account of Jesus' reply to Peter's amazement upon seeing the tree. Jesus uses the occasion to tell the disciples that they can similarly do great things, such as directing a mountain to be thrown into the sea if they only pray to God without doubting.

That brings us logically to verse 25 where Jesus gives another teaching on prayer, namely, that in prayers concerning one's forgiveness, a person must first forgive anyone with whom he has a problem. Verse 26 concludes the thought by stating the reverse corollary: if you don't forgive them, then God will not forgive you.

I would like to concentrate mainly on those last two verses, which bring up several difficulties. In the first place, similar wording appears between Mark 11:25-26 and Matthew 6:14-15. But whereas Matthew's verses appear just following the Lord's Prayer in the Sermon on the Mount, Mark has placed these words in a completely different setting. In addition, whereas Matthew 6:15 has excellent attestation in the early manuscripts, the same cannot be said for Mark 11:26.

Mark 11:26

Let us deal with the textual problem regarding v. 26 first since it is a little simpler to explain. Almost all modern translations of Mark are in agreement in omitting it entirely. Textual expert Bruce Metzger explains the reason: “Although it might be thought that the sentence was accidentally omitted because of homoeoteleuton, its absence from early witnesses [i.e. manuscripts] that represent all text-types makes it highly probable that the words were inserted by copyists in imitation of Mt 6:15.”

At this point I should explain that homoeoteleuton describes such occasions when a scribe would be writing out a new copy of a popular book and his eyes would skip from one word to the same word on a later line, leaving out a line or two in the transcription. From that point on, other scribes would naturally perpetuate the same accidental error.

In this particular case, such a mistake might easily have occurred since there are a number of similar words and phrases between verses 25 and 26.

There is little controversy as to which textual stance to take. For example, Horsley says in regard to the dubious v. 26, “If original to Mark, it establishes mutual forgiveness (as in the Lord's Prayer, Lk 11:2-4) as the focus of prayer, now that the Temple, the official site for prayer and for obtaining divine forgiveness (see Lev 6.7), stands under God's condemnation.”

In agreement with Metzger are the comments of Marcus, who points out the possibility that “The verse might have dropped out by haplography, since its concluding words are the same as the final words of 11:25.” (Just to make it a little more complicated, it turns out that haplography is just one specific type of the larger category of homeoteleuton.)

And if you compare practically any English translation more recent than the King Jame Version, you will see that they omit verse 26, usually appending a note containing the contents of the dubious verse. In any case, the presence of v. 26 is not needed in order to make sense of Mark's version since it is implied in v. 25, and the thought is also present in both Matthew 6:15 and 18:35.

Mark 11:25

The more controversial issue concerns the source of this verse, whether it is original to Mark in his context or whether Mark has borrowed it from Matthew's account of the Sermon on the Mount. Lane summarizes four reasons against 11:25 being original with Mark:

1. The vocabulary and phraseology are foreign to Mark and “decidedly Matthean in character. (cf. Mt. 5:23; 6:9,14f).”

2. Matthew's seeming reliance on Mark in this section ceases with 11:25, “which may suggest that his copy of Mark actually concluded this section with verse 24.”

3. There is an abrupt transition in thought between verses 24 and 25.

4. Verse 26 is an obvious transfer from Matthew 6:15, which “shows how easily a passage from one Gospel could become attached to the context through catchword association.”

But despite these arguments, Lane counters: “Yet none of these arguments is decisive in itself, and verse 25 actually differs in formulation from Mt. 6:14 to a greater degree than is usual in cases of Synoptic transfer. Verse 25 must be considered as a logion [i.e. saying] in its own right. Its formulation has been influenced by the liturgical language of the Lord's Prayer.”

Spencer elaborates on Lane's comment regarding the differences in wording between Mark 11:25 and Matthew 6:14: “Mark 11:25 reverses the order, placing priority on forgiving others...Forgiveness by God motivates forgiveness of others; and in turn, forgiveness of others authenticates alliance with God. Three different terms denote sinful objects of forgiveness in these texts: opheilema (Mt 6:12), hamartia (Lk 11:4), paraptoma (Mt 6:14-15; Mk 11:25)...forgiveness should not be reduced to a mechanical accounting operation, wiping the record clean. It retains a personal dimension, a reconciling not only of the books but also, more importantly, of the bond between us and everyone indebted [opheilo] to us (Lk 11:4 [cf. Mt 6:13]).”

Other comments regarding the relationship between Matthew and Mark's versions are given below so that you can get some idea of the complexity of the issue:

“The sayings of verses 22-25 were originally independent but were no doubt brought together in the tradition before Mark for catechetical reasons around the catchwords faith (22) and believes or 'has faith' (23), prayer (24), and praying (25). The last clause of verse 25 does not necessarily reflect a knowledge of the Lord's Prayer, but it does reveal the influence of Mt. 6:14, just as verse 26, omitted in most MSS and rightly excluded by RSV, appears to be a slightly revised form of Mt. 6:15.” (H. Anderson)

“The corollary to this saying on prayer [i.e. v. 24] is the saying on forgiveness in v. 25. The clause 'forgive whatever you have against anyone' is certainly an echo of the similar petition in the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:12, Luke 11:3-4) and is wholly in line not only with Matt 5:23-24 but also with the teaching on forgiveness in Paul and the rest of the New Testament. The Greek of 'your Father...may forgive the wrongs you have done' in this verse is verbally identical with Matt 6:14. This is significant, for only here does Mark use your Father (Greek pater humon), and only here too does he use paraptoma for wrongs. There would seem to be a clear case of Markan dependence on his source in Matthew.” (Mann)

At this point it is probably wisest to admit that the relationship between the various Gospel accounts is a complicated one. And we must also keep in mind that it is probable that Jesus taught the same sayings numerous times during his teaching ministry, so it is often a futile exercise to attempt to pin down the direction of borrowing, if any, between the Synoptics. The best course is to look at how verse 25 functions within the context of Mark's account, and this is what many commentators have done in order to come up with the following valuable insights:

“If the connection between verses 20f. and verse 22 is historical, it implies that the source of Jesus' authority is his unbroken relationship with the Father. These sayings on faith and prayer, however, occur in quite scattered contexts in the Synoptic Gospels and may have been uttered on different occasions. In Mark they constitute a summons to faith and to action consistent with that faith.” (Lane)

Lane's words apply to the whole of Mark 11:20-25 as well, as shown in his following comments: “The effect of verses 23-24 and 25 is to suggest that not only faith but also the willingness of the Christian to forgive conditions the efficacy of prayer. The conjunction of these two thoughts in Mark affirms that the right to pray the prayer envisioned in verses 23-24 belongs only to brothers who are mutually reconciled and united in a community of faith.” Matthew 18:35 at the end of the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant says basically the same thing.

“In 11:12-25 Jesus has implicitly challenged priestly authority by symbolically enacting the destruction of the Temple, and he has concluded by proclaiming that forgiveness is available without the Temple on the basis of his own word ('Amen I say to you'). It is no wonder then that in the next passage the offended representatives of that system challenged him to specify the authority by which he presumes to act.” (Marcus)

“Divine fatherhood certainly was a matter of relational intimacy, but it also concerned divine lordship.” (Crump) Among the many NT passages he cites are Matthew 6:12-13 and Mark 11:25 with its parallels in Luke 23:34,46; 24:49.

Crump states that “Mark 11:17,24-25 further expands upon the disciples' role in the kingdom. Jesus accuses the temple leaders of subverting God's intentions that the sanctuary be a house of prayer for all (Mk 11:17). In contrast, Jesus appoints his followers as the new house of prayer, replacing the apostate leadership (Mk 11:18) soon to be destroyed by God (Mk 11:12-17,20-25). The mountain being removed through the disciples' prayers (Mk 11:23) is Mount Zion, now representative of any obstacle that would stand in the way of God's coming kingdom. The community of Jesus' praying followers becomes the new location of the Father's holy presence on earth, as well as the new hub for his kingdom expansion.”

“In Mark's Gospel faith is understood as unconditional reliance on God's absolute and creative power (see Mk 11:23-25; 10:27; also Mk 9:23), especially in his power to intervene actively in his creation to save from peril (particularly in answer to prayer: Mk 9:29, 11:23-25).” (van der Watt and du Toit)

“The new temple, not made with hands (Mk 14:58), takes shape in the community of believers, Jews and Gentiles, who gather for prayer in this house of the Lord (Mk 11:17,24-25).” (Adna)

The group of disciples is “a group of equals modeled on Jesus as servant of all (Mk 10:42-45), and it is a group that forgives (Mk 11:25).” (Reeder)

HEALING THE SYRO-PH0ENICIAN WOMAN'S DAUGHTER (MATTHEW 15:21-28; MARK 7:24-30)

 

                                                 Crumbs (collage, 2009)

This miracle of Jesus is recorded in two of the gospels. There is much we could say concerning it, but I would like to just point out the relation of this narrative to others in the Bible in order to make the point that no passage of Scripture exists in a vacuum. Each one is interrelated in one way or another to the total teachings of the Bible. That is why it is so important to at least be generally aware of the whole counsel of Scripture.

One could feel in light of Beale and Carson's observation that Matthew 15:21-18:14 is “the longest stretch of text in Matthew without any formal quotations of the OT,” that no OT allusions are to be found in this narrative. But that would be an incorrect assumption.

The story begins with Jesus withdrawing to parts of Tyre and Sidon – Gentile territory. It has been suggested that He needed to get away for a while from the crowds that followed him everywhere. Mark's account only has Tyre in the earliest manuscripts and therefore “and Sidon” should be deleted according to Metzger. However, Grassmick disagrees and feels that those words have “excellent early Greek manuscript support.” You will see these conflicting opinions reflected in the various English translations of Mark 7:24.

In either case, the location may be especially pertinent, as Marcus explains: “Elijah performed a miracle for a Gentile woman in the Tyre/Sidon region (1 Kgs 17:8-16, cf. Luke 4:25-26), and this miracle is especially relevant because Jesus and John the Baptist echo the activities of Elijah and Elisha in Mark.”

France notes the same thing but is not as convinced that the parallels are that close: “Some similarities can be traced between the present pericope and Elijah's visit to Zarephath, a village in the territory of Sidon, in 1 Kgs 17:8-24, which also results in the healing of the child of a Gentile woman (and includes some mention of bread). But the links are tenuous, and there is no sign of deliberate verbal allusions beyond the name Sidon itself.”

Mark calls the woman a Greek (i.e. a Gentile) while Matthew more specifically labels her as a “Canaanite.” “Keener points out that two of the women mentioned in the genealogy [of Jesus], Tamar and Rahab, were actually Canaanites, so that a careful reader might find a special resonance in this woman's being described as 'Canaanite.'” (France)

It is appropriate that she is designated that way since, as Barbieri explains, “Centuries earlier that area's inhabitants were called Canaanites (Num. 13:29).” “In calling the woman a 'Canaanite,' “Matthew is deliberately conjuring up distasteful memories of the pagan Tyrians and Sidonians from OT times.” (Beale and Carson) Thus it builds up interest in how Jesus will deal with such a woman's request.

Spencer also comments on the the designation of the woman as a Canaanite: “Compared with Mark, Matthew's narrative uses the anachronistic designation of 'Canaanite woman' (Mt. 15:22), harking back to ancient Israel's Baal-worshiping foes in the promised land. Remarkably, however, this 'Canaanite' honors Jesus as 'Lord' (three times) and 'Son of David,' kneels before him, and beseeches him in a 'shouting,' challenging yet prayerful mode, as in a lament psalm.”

France notes, “The same appeal [to Jesus as 'Son of David'] has been used by the blind men in [Matt.] 9:27.” This title also appears in Matthew 1:1 and 12:23.

At first, Jesus refuses her request that He remove the demon from her daughter since His concern is only with the house of Israel. He follows this up with a simile by stating (in Mark's version), “Let the children first be filled; for it is not appropriate to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs.”

As to the “children” of Jesus' reply, Marcus refers us to texts in which the Jews are identified as the children of God. These passages include Deuteronomy 14:1 and Isaiah 1:2. Lane adds Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 32:6; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1, and Romans 9:5.

“References to dogs in biblical literature are overwhelmingly negative, and when the term is used metaphorically for human beings it is abusive and derogatory (e.g. 1 Sam, 17:43; 2 Sam 16:9; Ps 22:16,20; Prov 26:11; Phil 3:2)...” (France) Similarly, Marcus reminds us, “In Rev 22:15 the 'dog' is an outsider to the community of God's grace, an idolater whose life is based on a lie...” (Marcus)

At this point in the story, many readers are naturally a bit shocked that Jesus would not only deny her request on behalf of her daughter, but in addition compare the woman to a lowly cur. There are two facts that need mentioning in answer to that response. The first point, brought out by many commentators, is that Jesus here does not use the common terminology for dog but instead a different Greek word that could perhaps be better translated as “pet” or “puppy.” Also, subsequent events will show that Jesus is going to eventually accede to her request but wants to test the woman's faith first.

“But even if Mark understands Jesus' words in 7:27 as a test, he also takes them seriously as an outline of salvation history up to his own day. For in Mark's view, which is shared by other early Christian writers, God's children, the Jews, had in the economy of salvation to be 'fed' with the bread of the gospel first before the Gentiles could be nourished by it (cf. Rom 1:16; Acts 13:46...). The dog...though admittedly in a position inferior to that of the children, is still part of the 'household of faith' (cf. Gal 6:10).” (Marcus)

As to why Jesus didn't immediately grant the woman's request, this is not the only time in Scripture where such a delay occurred. Thus, Hendricksen points to OT texts where God had similarly waited before answering someone. These include Genesis 21:1-5 and Psalm 22:2 as well as delays in Mark 5:35; Matthew 9:27-28; and John 6:5-6; 11:6. “The same reasoning should, in all probability, be applied in connection with the Syrophoenician or Canaanite woman. Jesus delayed to heed her request in order to test her faith. Now was it not a very similar manifestation of determined perseverance in the face of opposition ('I will not let thee go except thou bless me,' Gen. 32:26) that changed a 'Jacob' into an 'Israel' (Gen. 32:28)? This woman, then was in that sense a true Israelite!”

So we see that rather than giving up at this point, the woman came right back at Jesus with the argument: “Even the dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their master's table.” Marcus says, “In the OT and later Judaism, as in our pericope [i.e. an extract from a text, especially a passage from the Bible], bright women occasionally overcame male figures in argument. The wise woman of Tekoa in 2 Samuel 14, for example, maneuvers King David into reversing his banishment of Absolom...” We could likewise point to Abigail, David's future wife, who cleverly talked him out of killing her husband at the time, Nabal (cf. I Samuel 25).

In relation to her clever saying, H. Anderson says that “Jesus may have shared the old prophetic view that on God's day when his purpose was finally consummated, the Gentiles too would be brought into the fold (Isa. 19-25; 66:19f; Mic. 4:1f; Zech. 8:20ff). No doubt the Evangelist himself saw in the saying and its sequel an exceptional illustration of the truth that the gospel was intended for all.”

At this point in the narrative, Jesus simply tells the woman that her daughter is healed. France sees this as only one of several correspondences with another healing miracle in the gospel accounts, namely, the healing of the centurion's servant recorded in Matthew 8:5-13. “In both the request for help comes not from the 'patient' but from a concerned superior officer/parent; both suppliants are Gentiles; in each case there is an initial show of reluctance by Jesus as a Jew appealed to by a Gentile; in each case the 'faith' of the suppliant is more highly commended than that of any Jew; and in each case (and only in these two cases in Matthew) the initial reluctance was quickly succeeded by admiration for the person's faith. Here the dialogue is more labored and painful from the woman's point of view, as Jesus apparently 'plays hard to get.” As a result, her eventual triumph is the more emphatic.”

A second parallel example adduced by France is the exorcism in Decapolis (Matthew 8:28-34) which “has also provided a precedent for the present case by showing Jesus as not reluctant to deal with demon-possession in a Gentile context.”

In my own mind, the healing of the demon-possessed girl also has definite affinities with the story in Acts 16:16-18. If you recall, that narrative involved Paul and his companions in Philippi being pestered by a demon-possessed girl. He becomes so annoyed with her constantly shouting out, “These men are servants of the Most High God,” that he charges the demon in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” Note (a) the Gentile setting in each story, (b) the fact that the healing of a possessed girl is featured in both, (c) there appears to be an inordinate delay before the exorcism takes place, (d) the miracle is accomplished by words only, and (e) a correct theological truth is proclaimed loudly in both (identification of Jesus as “Son of God” and Paul and companions as “Servants of the Most High God.”) But to me, the clinching detail is that Paul appears to carry out the healing (which will turn out to have immediate negative consequences for him) only after being exasperated with her hounding him. Compare this with what Matthew records in 15:23 – “And his disciples came and begged him, saying, 'Send her away, for she is crying after us.'”

Frustration may not appear to be an adequate motive in each case to effect an exorcism, but (a) we can probably safely assume that compassion on the two girl's similar plight was one of the reasons they were finally healed and (b) as several commentators have noted, the statement of Paul's followers can alternatively be translated as “Send it (i.e. the demon) out.”

WORD STUDIES IN THE BIBLE: PART 1 (EPHESIANS 1:14)

I must first of all apologize for subjecting you to a somewhat detailed journey through the linguistics of the Bible which may be of little interest to you. Those who really want to get into Bible study in some depth may find it useful, but I am the first to admit that very few Christians have the time, money, or inclination to devote to such studies. For those people, I would encourage you to read through these pages anyway just to give you a small appreciation of what is involved in thoroughly immersing yourself in a personal investigation into the Word rather than relying on your pastor or Sunday school teacher to do it for you.

There are several useful pieces of information to be gleaned from looking into the individual words in the Bible as well as a number of valuable sources available to help you do it. Let's start with the basics.

Locating a Passage of Scripture

Sometimes all you want to do is locate where a particular passage is found. You may dimly remember the words or general thought but have no idea where to actually find it. As an example, I seem to recall that the Bible talks about the Holy Spirit being the down payment for us. From the context alone, I could probably guess that it came from the New Testament rather than the Old Testament. That narrows it down a bit. Also, it doesn't sound like something that would be in the Book of Revelation. Other than that, however, I would not know where exactly to look.

Here is what my old-school approach would be. I would consult an analytical concordance, the most popular of which are Strong's or Young's. You would have to purchase one, download it on your computer or smart phone, or use a free Bible source on the internet such as blueletterbible.org or biblegateway.com. All these concordances are organized alphabetically by the English translation. But the immediate problem you will face is that most of the analytical concordances are keyed to words in the King James Version only.

There have been times when I knew most of the quotation I was searching for, including three or four key words, but I still couldn't find what I wanted in a concordance. And even if I did manage to do it, it might take me up to an hour before I hit on the right passage. For example, “down payment” is not found in Strong's or Young's. On the other hand, a search for “Holy Spirit” in Young's gives rise to other problems. It turns out that the listings are under the KJV wording “Holy Ghost” instead. And there are so many times that the phrase appears (approximately 80) that my concordance doesn't even bother to quote part of each passage so that I can scan through them to see if one fits.

Now if I abandon my old-school approach entirely, I can instead simply do a Google advanced search in which I quote as much of the passage in question as I can remember. When I simply entered “holy spirit is down payment,” the very first hit sent me directly to Ephesians 1:14.

I then looked back to see where my problem using a concordance arose from. In the first place, Young's Concordance is keyed to the archaic KJV word “earnest” in place of “down payment.” Secondly, I might not have been able to find the passage even then since “Holy Spirit” appears in Ephesians 1:13 while “earnest” doesn't show up until the following verse. Thus, the short phrase given in Young's as an aid under Ephesians 1:14 only reads, “which is the earnest of our inheritance.” That says nothing whatsoever concerning the Holy Spirit, so I would probably not even bothered looking it up in the Bible. However, another listing under “earnest” was II Corinthians 5:5, and the accompanying phrase read “given unto us the earnest of the spirit.” That would have led me off in the wrong direction since that wasn't really the specific verse for which I was searching.

Comparing Translations

Let's assume that you have either located the verse(s) in question or that perhaps you knew it already. The easiest place to go from there to get a handle on the various word meanings in the verse is to compare English translations to see what the different linguistic experts have come up with. Again, this can be done using on-line sources or Bible apps that are readily available. One problem with the former is that the free sources may tend to limit their translations to older ones that may be outdated and/or to more obscure renderings. And a problem with some apps is that it becomes awkward at times trying to view more than one or two translations at the same time for easy comparison.

Getting back to old-school solutions, there are fairly inexpensive books (at least for the New Testament) offering three or four side-by-side translations for you to conveniently utilize without having to purchase multiple translations and opening them up alongside one another for study. Whether you go either way, my strong recommendation is to obtain at least one each of the following: (1) the King James Version, (2) a more modern translation in the KJV tradition (such as NASB, RSV, ASV, NRSV, or ESV), (3) a fresh modern translation which doesn't necessarily feel that it needs to adhere closely to the KJV (examples would be NIV, TEV, NEB, Jerusalem Bible, and Anchor Bible) and (4) a paraphrase such as The Message, J.B. Phillips, or The Living Bible.

Apparently, some publishers have the same general approach in mind since I have a very useful volume published by Christianity Today, Inc. containing side-by-side columns with the KJV, RSV, Phillips, and NEB renderings and appropriately titled The New Testament in Four Versions. From that compilation, we get the following translations of Ephesians 1:14:

        “which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.” (KJV)

        “which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” (RSV)

        “and that Spirit is the pledge that we shall enter upon our heritage when God has redeemed what is his own, to his praise and glory.” (NEB)

        “as a guarantee of purchase, until the day when God completes the redemption of what he has paid for as His own, and that will again be to the praise of his glory.” (Phillips)

And for more renderings, we could add:

        “The Spirit is the guarantee that we shall receive what God has promised His people, and this assures us that God will give complete freedom to those who are his. Let us praise his glory!” (TEV)

        “This down payment from God is the first installment on what's coming, a reminder that we'll get everything God has planned for us, a praising and glorious life.” (The Message)

        “the Spirit's seal upon us means that God has already purchased us and that he guarantees to bring us to himself. This is just one more reason for us to praise our glorious God.” (Living Bible)

        “who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession – to the praise of his glory.” (NIV)

        “the pledge of our inheritance which brings freedom for those whom God has taken for his own, to make his glory praised.” (JB)

        “He is the guarantee of what we shall inherit [to vouch] for the liberation of God's own people, to the praise of his glory.” (AB)

And finally, if you are curious, here is a word-for-word literal rendering of that verse from a Greek Interlinear NT based on the wording in the KJV:

    “who is an earnest of the inheritance of us, till [the] redemption of the possession, to [the] praise of the glory of him.”

From all of the above renderings, we can put together a summary of the translations of some key words in the passage:

        earnest = guarantee = guarantee of purchase = down payment = pledge = deposit = first installment

        inheritance = enter upon our heritage = receive = what we will inherit = what's coming

        redemption = liberation = freedom

    purchased possession = possession = what is his own = those who are God's possession = God's own people = His people = those whom God has taken for his own

Of course, that is not the end of the translation differences, which include adding clarifying words which are not in the original Greek, rearranging or shortening the phrases, and altering some of the pronouns and prepositions. One seemingly small example actually has great theological import, namely, changing the pronoun for Holy Spirit from “who” in the Greek to “which” or rewording it so that no pronoun is needed at all. This can have the effect, intended or not, of weakening the idea that the Holy Spirit is a personage in favor of the notion that He is just an impersonal force emanating from God.

A final thing to note in comparing these translations is the way the final phrase is handled differently in some versions. Thus, rather than “to the praise of His glory” or its equivalents, the paraphrases treat it as either a call to praise or a description of the sort of life God has in mind for us.

One final thing to keep in mind in comparing translations: In general, those renderings prepared by single authors (such as The Message, J.B. Phillips, Anchor Bible, and The Living Bible) should probably not be weighed as seriously as those put together by a committee of experts instead.

 

JONAH AND PSALM 139

Several commentators have noted the relationship between these two passages of Scripture, more in terms of the opposite attitudes they reflect rather than correspondences. And in today's rancorous religious and political climate, it is well to note the distinction they teach in the way we should feel regarding those with whom we disagree.

I am reminded of an incident I recently learned about in which a preacher had just finished preaching a sermon on the necessity of forgiving and loving our enemies. One of his parishioners approached him afterward and warned him never again to say such things from the pulpit.

Psalm 139:1-6

Turning first to the psalm in question, the author begins by stating that God has searched his heart and discerned his thoughts. This obviously speaks to God's omniscience. “A major theme of Psalm 139 is 'knowing.' The word yada occurs seven times in the psalm (vv. 1,2,4,6,14,23 [2x]), four times in vv. 1-6...for the beleaguered singer of Psalm 139, that thought is comforting.” (deClaisse-Walford)

On the other hand, that word only appears in the Book of Jonah twice (1:12; 4:2), both times on the lips of Jonah declaring what he knew, not what God did.

Cary says that “it is a very good thing when Jonah is revealed in the inner depths of the boat [cf. Jonah 1:5]. From Jonah's perspective, it is not just some sailors who have found him, but the same LORD from whom he is fleeing. As the psalmist reminds us: 'You search out my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways' (Ps. 139:3). This depth of divine knowledge is for the comfort of the obedient and for the discomfiture of the disobedient, but in both cases for our good.”

The fact that God hems us in (v. 5) is comforting to the Psalmist but not at all to Jonah, who finds God pushing him one way or another as He wills.

Psalm 139:7-12

At this point, the Psalmist changes subjects to extol God's omnipresence in no uncertain terms. Here we see the most direct comparison with the events in the Book of Jonah.

Anderson finds a possible allusion to the story of Jonah in the translation of 'thy Spirit' in v. 7 as 'wind, wrath' instead. “The verse as a whole is a rhetorical question expecting a negative answer. It does not imply that the Psalmist wanted to escape from God (as Jonah tried to do; cf. Jon. 1,:3,10); on the contrary, he seems glad that there is no place in this world where he might find himself beyond God's care (see verse 10). In a way this is also an implicit protestation of innocence; believing what he does, he would have been absolutely foolish to rebel against God, or to try to hide his guilt, had he committed some offense.”

Commenting on Jonah 1:1-3, Allen says, “That Jonah was prepared to entrust himself to an ocean-going boat rather than face up to God's call must have struck the hearers as proof positive of his mad determination. Surely no good can come of this foolhardy venture...In his hasty plans he has reckoned without the Hound of Heaven. It is as the psalmist said [in Psalm 139:7,9].”

Sasson notes that Psalm 139:7-10 “actually refers to four (not two) compass points and, paradoxically, conveys an immobility due to a situation acknowledged as hopeless. Whether fleeing heavenward, or to Sheol (Hades), whether escaping toward the East, or toward the West – the poet acknowledges – there is no escape [from the presence of God].” Contrast Jonah who proposes to “flee from the presence of the LORD,” as mentioned no less than three times in the text (1:3 [2x],10) and stated in slightly different terms in Jonah 4:2.

For two verbal correspondences between the two documents, we can first point to the occurrence of Sheol in Psalm 139:8b (“If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there”) and Jonah 2:2b (“Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice”). Both passages appear to express a belief in the presence of God with the speaker wherever he might be. However, in the case of Jonah there is an obvious caveat when one additionally considers the first part of verse 2:4 – “Then I said, 'I am driven away from your sight.” That seems to indicate that Jonah felt that his location on the bed of the sea (i.e. in Sheol) was outside of God's domain.

One way to resolve the question is to look next at Jonah 2:4 in which he states, “I am driven away from your sight; how shall I look again upon your holy temple. It there are two parallel thoughts being expressed, then Jonah indeed may be picturing God as a national deity who primarily dwelt in the Jerusalem temple.

This point is echoed by Cary, who states, “We might well wonder what Jonah could be thinking. How can anyone flee from God, who is everywhere. The psalmist's prayer is certainly not lost on Jonah: 'You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar.' (Ps. 139:2). But what Jonah and his readers know – they practically feel it in their bones – is that there is more to the presence of the LORD than omnipresence and omniscience. There is a specific place where the God of Israel meets his people, hears their petitions, and judges their cause (1 Kgs. 8:27-40), a place, we could say, of the LORD's presence in person.” Namely the temple in Jerusalem. “His flight is not an attempt to escape divine omnipresence so much as an effort not to heed this word.”

In discussing Jonah 2:6, Cary notes that 'precisely here the LORD reverses the whole direction and movement of Jonah's story by bringing him upward. There is no place where he does not know his own.” Cary at this point quotes “the great biblical confession of divine omnipresence,” namely Psalm 139:7-10.

By the way, the opposite words “up” and “down” are prominent in both passages under consideration, appearing five times in Psalm 139 and ten times in the Book of Jonah.

There is another point brought out by Sasson, who feels that Psalm 139:8-10 talks figuratively about God's two hands hemming him in. The analogy of two hands also appears in a Jonah 4:11 in which God describes the people of Nineveh as not able to distinguish their left hand from the right, an expression explained by Allen as meaning that they are “also as virtual children compared with the Jews. They know no better, for they have not had the spiritual advantages of Israel and so it is necessary to make allowances for them.”

In verse 9, the author says, “If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me...” Even though there is much uncertainty regarding the exact location of Tarshish, Jonah's stated destination in 1:3, one strong contender is a town on the coast of Spain. If so, then this would literally be “the farthest limits of the sea.”

Verses 11-12 of this psalm confess that darkness cannot conceal a person from the presence of God. But that appears to be exactly what Jonah is trying to do by hiding in the dark hold of the ship (Jonah 1:5). And, of course, it will get even darker when he is in the belly of the fish underwater.

Psalm 139:13-18

In these verses we have a hymn to the omnipotence of God as evidenced by the greatest of His creations, mankind. By contrast, God goes to great lengths in 4:6-11 to show Jonah that the only part of creation he appears to be concerned about is the small portion that impacts him directly.

“We could call the gourd [of Jonah 4:10] a 'nightling.' It emerged from the darkness and returned to it, for it was 'made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth' (Ps. 139:15).” (Cary) Thus we see the unity of the most supreme of God's creations with “Jonah's” lowly gourd.

Verse 18 reads, “I awake – I am still with you.” We see an allusion to this verse in Jonah 1:5-6 where the sailors wake the prophet up from his sound sleep to tell him of the disaster than Jonah knows has been caused by God Himself.

Psalm 139:19-22

These are really the only verses in this psalm in which we might be tempted to see a direct parallel between the attitudes of the Psalmist and Jonah. But in reality, there is quite a contrast between the two people.

“The target of the psalmist's enemies appears to be God (vv. 20-21), suggesting that the psalmist is speaking in defense of God and perhaps that the previous verses of the psalm were composed as an 'apology' on behalf of God.” (deClaisse-Walford)

Jonah, on the other hand, when confronted by God in the final chapter of the book is totally unable to explain to Him what is wrong with showing mercy on those human beings who have repented and are certainly worth more in God's eyes than the plant over Jonah's head.

Psalm 139:23-24

Finally, as the other half of the inclusio encapsulating the psalm, verses 23-24 repeat some of the same key words in verses 1-3, but this time in the imperative mood – The Psalmist actually invites God to search his heart again in order to point out any evil that may be in it. Few of us would be so bold to welcome such an examination. Again, as in vv. 1-6, the emphasis is on God's omniscience. This is emphasized by use of the word “know” twice at the end of the psalm. We can contrast this to the two times Jonah uses the same word – both referring not to God's knowledge, but to his own (see Jonah 1:12 and 4:2).

Certainly Jonah is in no mood for God to reveal what He thinks of Jonah's thoughts and actions, even though all the events of that narrative are expressly designed to bring Jonah to his senses. It all comes to a head in the final chapter in which God gently prods Jonah into self examination by asking probing questions, two of which Jonah actually refuses to answer.

In my earlier blog titled “The Prodigal Son: Part 2,” I demonstrated that there is practically an identical literary structure in Jonah 4 and Jesus' parable. I concluded with these words: “Notice that God's behavior in the story of Jonah and the father's attitude in this parable are identical. He shows equal compassion toward those outside and those within the fold and gives each of them time to repent. The parable is not an attack on the Pharisees, and the ending “functions as an invitation for them to change their attitude..' (Snodgrass)  Jesus is not saying that the older brother (Pharisees) has no relationship with God, merely that he should not have a disdainful attitude toward repentant sinners.” We can say the exact same regarding God's method of gently dealing with Jonah.

JOHN 5:1-13

 

                                                   Troubling the Water (collage, 2009)

John 5:1-13 relates one of only three healing miracles found in John's Gospel, none of which appears in the Synoptics. “Wieland discusses six suggested sites and agrees that the identification of the twin pools of St. Anne with Bethesda is 'virtually established.'” (Morris) This is partially due to the mention in the copper scroll of Qumran of 'pools' at Bethesda. This fits well with the double pool excavated there which contained five porticoes as stated in John 5:2.

Morris goes on to say, “Many commentators point out that the identification is apparently ancient, for a Crusader church built over the pool has a mural depicting an angel arising out of the pool.”

Raymond Brown remarks that “the factual details found in the introduction...are very accurate. They betray a knowledge of Jerusalem that militates against a late or non-Palestinian origin of the story.”

F.F. Bruce goes into more detail: “The pool of Bethesda, described in John v. 2, has been located in the north-east quarter of the old city of Jerusalem, the quarter which was called Bezetha, or 'New Town', in the first century AD. In 1888 excavations near St. Anne's Church, in that quarter, revealed the remains of an ancient church building. Beneath this lay a crypt, with its north wall divided into five compartments in imitation of arches; on this wall there could also be distinguished traces of an old fresco representing the angel troubling the water. Clearly those who built this structure believed that it marked the site of the pool of Bethesda. And subsequent excavations below the crypt showed that they were right; a flight of steps was uncovered leading down to a pool with five shallow porticoes [i.e. covered walkways] on its north side, directly underneath the five imitation arches on the north wall of the crypt. “There are few sites in Jerusalem mentioned in the Gospels, which can be identified so confidently.”

This archeological find is one of many reasons that caused even a previously skeptical Bible scholar such as J.A.T. Robinson to state: “In fact it is becoming clear that Mark is much more theological and John much more historical than was previously supposed.”

Verse 3 goes on to state that many ill people lay there. But verses 3b-4 (found in the KJV but not in many modern translations) read: “...waiting for the stirring of the water; for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was made well from whatever disease that person had.”

There is a certain reference to the stirring of the waters in v. 7; however the rest of the material in 3b-4 is not found anywhere else in the story. The reasons for most translators omitting these 1-1/2 verses are enumerated by Metzger:

    1. They are not present in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

    2. More than 20 Greek manuscripts have these words, but they are marked with asterisks to note that they are spurious.

    3. This passage contains seven words found nowhere else in John's Gospel, three of which are found nowhere else in the New Testament.

    4. Those manuscripts which do contain these words vary considerably from one another in exact wording.

Jesus approaches one particular paralytic or lame man lying near the pool and asks him if he really wants to be healed. Rather than answer this question directly, the discouraged man starts by addressing Jesus as kyrie (“lord”). We should note with Witherington and Yamazaki-Ransom that this “should not be counted as having christological weight.” In other words, the man was merely responding to Jesus with a polite title, not one with any theological meaning behind it.

The paralytic (we don't actually know what his malady was) then explains that he isn't able to get into the pool before someone else beats him to it since he has “no man” to help him in. Culpepper sees an “implicit commentary” in the lame's man use of that term in that at the time he in fact has someone right before him who is more than just a man. Culpepper connects this with the fact that a few verses later in the text (v. 18) the Jews seek to kill Jesus for claiming to be equal to God.

So what we are left with for sure regarding this “stirring of the waters” is that the belief at the time was that when the waters were stirred (or “troubled”) for some reason, the first person into the water would be healed of what ailed them. In classical Greek, tarasso (“troubled) means “to shake something out of inertia and throw it into confusion, i.e. to disturb, to upset...to agitate...” (Muller)

Going to the OT equivalent of this Greek word, Cook notes that Pharaoh in Ezekiel 32:2 is compared to a mythical monster “who aspires to rock the cosmos (in the seas, cf. Isa 27.1 and the watery chaos of Ps 46:3; 93.3). Vv 2,13-14 show, however, that in reality he can only stir up a little local trouble, muddying the water with his feet.”

In the case of John 5, we don't know who was supposed to be disturbing the water since we can't rely on the information in the spurious verse 4. However, it may certainly reflect an ancient superstition of the time and would not be unusual in light of Brown's observation: “The Mohammedans of Palestine in modern times have traditions about the jinni of a particular spring.”

And as to the first one getting in the water being healed, Guthrie notes: “Although there is no other evidence to support the view that the waters when disturbed possessed curative properties, it is certainly not impossible that many people believed that they did.”

Two archeological findings at the site help explain the dire situation the paralytic faced. Muller notes that the pool was sixteen meters deep with no shallow end. Thus, a cripple would have had to be carried and held all the time. Additionally, the fact that there were five long porticoes to hold all those waiting to be cured made the paralytic's plight even more hopeless, as Guthrie notes.

“The water in the Bethesda pool was probably disturbed from time to time by an intermittent spring...R.D. Potter points out that there is no spring in this part of Jerusalem, but fragments of pipes have been found in the vicinity. The moving of the water could have been caused by renewal from the pipes.” (Muller)

Similar explanations are given by most commentators. For example:

“From time to time internal pressure caused the water to be agitated.” (Kistemaker)

“In this hilly area the water may have come from underground drainage; some of it, perhaps, from intermittent springs...” (Brown)

But aside from the physical picture that the above paints, the much more important aspect is the theological underpinnings expressed in it. Here are some valuable points gleaned from the literature:

Klink feels that “in John 5:1-15 it is possible to interpret an intentional contrast between the magical waters of healing beside which the lame man hopes for healing and the healing that Jesus offers.” Brown comments, “If the paralytic's malady were not so tragic, one could almost be amused by the man's unimaginative approach to the curative waters.”

Without getting too far into current political issues, I find it fascinating and disgusting that more and more evangelical churches have seemingly given up on turning to God for a solution to the supposed concerted attacks on the church and our Christian values and have turned instead to rabblerousers who stir us up in anger through their largely untrue diatribe. The unfortunate result is that (1) people are leaving churches with pastors who refrain from overt politically motivated rhetoric in favor of ones who often preach more politics than Bible from the pulpits and (2) churches are attracting fewer and fewer new people because of evangelicals' growing reputation for rancor, fear-mongering and hatred of those who do not agree 100% with their detailed agenda. Enough politics and back to theology for all of us, myself included!

Morris brings out another interesting point in considering the fact that this miracle required absolutely no apparent faith in Jesus on the part of the lame man. In fact, he couldn't even identify who He was after the event. “We must feel that, while faith was commonly the prerequisite of healing, it was not absolutely necessary.” The healing was primarily caused by Jesus' compassion for the man's pitiful plight.

Blum remarks that “the Bible nowhere teaches this kind of superstition, a situation which would be a most cruel contest for an ill people.” It is indeed amazing that none of the ill people lining the pool asked themselves what sort of loving God would pit one deserving person against another in the race to be healed. That is why it is so necessary for us to constantly gauge our actions and beliefs against what the Bible teaches rather than looking at what current wisdom is prevailing at the time in which we are living and within the specific group(s) to which we belong.

PAYING THE TEMPLE TAX (MATTHEW 17:24-27)

 

                                 Clarias Macraconthus (collage, 2009)

It is appropriate that this discussion and miracle involving the temple tax should have been recorded only by Matthew, the former tax collector.

Regarding the miraculous aspect of the story, both Kistemaker and Twelftree categorize it as a nature miracle. But I personally feel that “a miracle of knowledge” is a more accurate description. And even Kistemaker says, “He knew with divine knowledge that the fish had a coin in its mouth.”

Matthew 17:24 – When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, “Does your teacher pay the tax?”

“Since Jesus and his followers were constantly itinerating from one preach-point to another, it was difficult for tax agents to make contact with them. But now that they were back in Capernaum once more, it was time for the matter to be dealt with.” (Archer)

“A yearly temple tax of a half shekel (2 denarii), required of every male Israelite over twenty, directly supported the temple operations (Ex 30:11-16; Neh 10:32). This tax appears to have been paid faithfully, even by Diaspora Jews, and it served as a marker of Jewish identity. Rome helped to ensure the Jews' right to send money to Jerusalem despite the local tensions caused by this large outflow of cash.” (J.R. Wagner)

“The half-shekel temple tax was derived from the one-third shekel temple tax of Nehemiah 10:32-33 and was raised to a half-shekel possibly under the influence of the half-shekel atonement price of Exodus 30:11-16 (cf. 2 Chron 24:6).” (Schmidt)

Reid notes, “Though this was the prevailing practice, it was not beyond dispute. 4Q159 [one of the Dead Sea scrolls] maintains that it should be paid only once in a lifetime, probably appealing to its origin as a one-time payment in Exodus 30:13-14, and this opinion may have been shared by Jesus (Mt 17:24-27).” This could possibly help explain Jesus' comment in v. 26.

Cohick notes that “the temple accepted only Tyrian silver coins, which were 92 percent silver, a very expensive coin. This requirement probably was a hardship for poor Jews” as well as necessitating money changers in the temple grounds (cf. Matthew 21:12-13 and parallels). Another problem for some Jews was that these Tyrian coins actually pictured a pagan god on one side.

Matthew 17:25a – He said, “Yes.”

Regarding Peter's words, France states, “We do not know whether Peter's confident 'Yes' sprang from knowledge of Jesus' views on the issue or simply from his assumption that Jesus would do as other patriotic Jews did. And Hendricksen suggests that Peter “may have remembered what Jesus had said regarding the law of God (5:17,18). Also, he may have been present on other occasions when the Lord paid the tax.”

Matthew 17:25b – And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying...

“If he intended to raise the issue with Jesus, he was forestalled by Jesus (through supernatural knowledge, or through having heard the exchange outside?) raising it first with him.” (France)

Matthew 17:25c – “What do you think Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?”

“The analogy of the Roman government taxing aliens heavily would be well understood.” (Nixon)

Matthew 17:26 – And when he said, “From others,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free.”

Wilkins notes, “In several instances the questions and responses that Peter voices to Jesus on behalf of the disciples were issues that still spoke to the church of Matthew's day (e.g. Mt 15:15; 17-24-25; 18:21).”

Schmidt says that “the statement of Jesus that 'the sons [of the king] are free' stresses voluntarism...it is less likely but also possible that by 'sons of the king,' Jesus is referring only to himself (and therefore only to the exemption from the temple tax).”

On the other hand, “Jesus may be employing the language of fictive kinship to indicate that those in the new family formed around...are not obligated to pay the tax...” (Downs) In this, Bietenhard agrees: “The incident implies that the disciples are 'sons of God', and that Jews are in fact 'others.'”

In saying this, “Jesus did not speak openly against imperial taxation (Mk 12:17), but he did suggest to his disciples that the 'sons are free' of temple taxation.” (Oakman)

This brings up the question of the exact meaning of “free” as expressed in the New Testament writings.

“The term eleutheria (freedom') and its cognates in the Gospels is a broad and complex notion that speaks to the dimensions of freedom exhibited by and accessible through Jesus Christ...the adjective eleutheros is used only three times (Mt 17:26; Jn 8:33,36)...” (Klink III)

Blunk states that “eleutheria is never used in the secular sense of political freedom. From this it may be inferred that the recovery of Israel's political freedom no longer played any part in the thinking of the NT writers. Jesus was no political messiah. The NT also dissociates itself from the idea of freedom as power to do with oneself and one's life whatever one wants. eleutheria is to be seen in the light of 'the glorious liberty of the children of God' (Rom. 8:21).”

Matthew 17:27a – “However, not to give offense to them,”

This phrase of Jesus is a very important one to understanding the whole passage, but unfortunately there is more than one way to take it.

For example, France notes that “this is an interesting contrast to other matters of controversy on which Jesus was only too willing to stand up against practices and assumptions which he saw as wrong in principle, and so to incur the hostility of those of a more conventional outlook...But where it is his own personal privilege that is at stake, he has no problem accommodating himself to what is expected of him...” France sees a possible parallel to Jesus being baptized by John in order “to identify with repentant Israel.”

Schmidt says that Jesus “represents a conciliatory position motivated by love for the Jews.”

But here is quite a different slant on the situation: “Derrett claims that Peter could have claimed exemption on the grounds that Jesus and the disciples were fully employed in God's service. The matter would then have been referred to Jerusalem for a ruling...Although Jesus could claim to be not liable to the tax, he was obliged by the Torah to save the collectors from the sin of compelling him to supply the half-shekel...Jesus was concerned for the moral welfare of the collectors, even though he knew that the tax was not due...The earthly king would provide that his servants were not liable to customs duty; but the heavenly king in this case, caring for the souls of the collectors, would provide for the payment of the half-shekel.” (Colin Brown)

Matthew 17:27b – “go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel.”

Jacques Ellul can always be relied on to provide a unique explanation of Scripture. So he states: “The power which imposes the levy is ridiculous, and he thus performs an absurd miracle to show how unimportant the power is. The miracle displays the complete indifference of Jesus to the king, the temple authorities, etc...We find once again the typical attitude of Jesus. He devalues political and religious power. He makes it plain that it is not worth submitting and obeying except in a ridiculous way.”

“A miracle seems to be implied, but it is the only case n the Gospels where a miracle is not made explicit. Various attempts have been made to explain [or explain away] the incident in other ways, but without much success.” (Nixon)

“The fish in question would be the cat-fish clarias lazarera, known to the Greeks as korakinos. It is an omnivorous predator, liking shallow waters scavenging around landing-places. It would be attracted by a bright disc which could easily have stuck in the back of its throat. As a scaleless fish it was prohibited as food by the [levitical] law.” (Brown) You will note that the title of the collage I began with has a slightly different species of fish listed since I relied on another scholarly source to obtain it.

Matthew 17:27c – “take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.”

Kistenmaker remarks, “This miracle was one in which Jesus himself was a partial beneficiary, together with Peter. All the other miracles Jesus performed for the benefit of others.” It is also unique in that the result of Jesus' instructions are not even given, although we can assume that the event ensued as Jesus had predicted.

The temple tax is literally didrachma and the “coin” in v. 27b is a stater, worth two didrachmas. Thus, there is exactly enough for two people's taxes. But I had wondered why there wasn't enough money to pay all of the apostles' taxes. Ellison provides one possible answer: “Since there is no ground for disassociating Peter from the other disciples in the matter of temple-tax, it is hard to resist the conclusion that he was the only member of the Twelve over twenty.” He cites John 20:20-28 as possible confirmation that at least James and John appear to be youths at the time since their mother is still speaking up on their behalf.

Implications to Dating Matthew's Gospel

One final aspect of this story is worth noting – the historical context. Kreitzer explains, “It is sometimes suggested that the Matthean account of the so-called temple tax...reflects the situation of A.D. 70-96, in which the tax was being levied by the Romans for the reconstruction of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus following the Jewish revolt. Such a scenario has radical implications for the dating of the Gospel of Matthew as a whole, shifting the area of conflict...to that of the Matthean community following the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.”

To summarize the above opinion: Perhaps Matthew, writing sometime after the destruction of the temple, fabricated this story, not found in the other three Gospel accounts, in order to give guidance to his audience as to how they should deal with the Roman tax being levied on them at the time.

But for a diametrically opposed viewpoint, Nixon states, “The story would have more point if the Gospel were written before AD 70, but it does not demand an early date for the Gospel.”

This appears to be one of those many similar situations where a scholar's opinion is more determined by his basic theological stance than by any more objective criteria.