NUMERICAL CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

In any listing of contradictions in the Bible, one is sure to run across those where a difference in numbers is involved. These are often stated as being especially egregious since if we can't trust the Bible to even get the numbers correct, how can we trust anything at all that it says. In fact, that sort of reasoning is way off base and only reflects our modern preoccupation with scientific and mathematical truth, things far removed from the more important emphases of the authors of the Bible.

In addition, as I have stated in several earlier posts (“How Old Was Saul When He Became King?”, “Mathematical Objections to the Bible”, “I Samuel 13:1”, “How Many Years of Famine was David Threatened With?”, etc.), in the transmission of the manuscript of the Bible over the years, numerical errors are much more likely to be perpetuated from one scribe to the next than errors involving words since the latter possess much more redundancy.

Thus, to take a hypothetical example in English, what would you with a garbled text that read: “On Sudnay mourning wnt I to store and bot 7 oranges”? Obviously most of us would easily correct the misspellings and strange word order and reconstruct it as, “On Sunday morning I went to the store and bought 7 oranges.” But what if I had another handwritten copy of that same sentence that read, “On Sunday morning I went to the store and bought 17 oranges”? Which version would be correct, 7 or 17? Without any additional information such as knowledge of how many people would be eating oranges, it is impossible to tell which scribe made a mistake, or perhaps both did.

In addition, Fouts explains, “In most of the cases of differing numbers the disagreements can be resolved by textual analysis...It is because of problems such as these that the veracity of the accounts sometimes have been called into question. Instead of seeking to understand the numbers as figures of speech or as symbolic, some have derided the passages as unhistorical folktales, thereby claiming to invalidate the historical accuracy of the text...others have sought to understand the processes by which these numbers arose, thereby seeking both to maintain the historical credibility of the texts and to understand the original significance of the numbers themselves.”

With that brief background, here are four “contradictions” I found on an internet site called wardoons:

How many people did David's chief kill? II Samuel 23:8 says 800 while I Chronicles 11:11 says 300.

Girdlestone says, “The readings in this verse evidently varied before the time of the LXX [Greek Septuagint] and there is no means of accounting for them.” However, he then makes the telling comment that the numbers eight and three are interchanged in other passages as well. The reason might well be that the two Hebrew words look somewhat the same as well as sounding somewhat alike (shemonah and sheloshah, respectively). Thus, it might be quite easy for a scribe working alone to confuse the appearance of the two words. Or, alternatively, if two scribes were working together with one reading out loud from an original while the other produced a copy, the similarity in sounds could have also easily led to an error.

Williamson goes elsewhere in the Old Testament to determine which version is likely to be correct: “2 Sam. 23:8 has 'eight hundred', which is undoubtedly original since Ishbaal's exploit surpassed that of Abishai's (vv. 20-21 [of I Chron. 11]). Rudolph suggests that v. 20 was used to correct the unintelligible 2 Sam. 23:8 in connection with 'his spear,' and that this opened the way for the smaller number which immediately follows there [in v. 3] to be accidentally substituted here.”
How many horsemen did David capture from the King of Zoliah: 1,700 (2 Samuel 8:4) or 7,000 (I Chronicles 18:4)?

The Septuagint happens to agree with Chronicles at this point. Therefore Davies says, “It may be that the '1,700 horsemen/charioteers' of v. 4 should read '1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen/charioteers' as in LXX and the parallel in 1 Chron 18:4.”

McCarter: “I assume that MT [the Hebrew text] lost rkb wsb't 'lp by haplography [accidental elision] and that the present text arose from an imperfect attempt to correct the damage.”

Tsumura takes a slightly different approach in saying “the combination of 1,000 chariots and 7,000 charioteers seems rather unbalanced. The view of Ap-Thomas that the original figures were 1,000 chariots, 700 cavalrymen, and 20,000 foot soldiers sounds more reasonable [than McCarter's view]. It may be, however, that the term parasim, which can mean either '(military) horses' or 'horsemen' (see Hab. 1:8) and is parallel here with the foot soldiers, and refers to a horse and rider as a pair. On the other hand, the Hebrew term harekeb, which is literally 'the chariot,' here clearly means chariot horses since most were hamstrung.”

Thus, there are several chains of reasoning one can use in order to work backward to determine which version is more likely to be original.

How many work supervisors did Solomon appoint: 3,600 (II Chronicles 2:2) or 3,300 (I Kings 5:16)?

I must admit that my first reactions to this problem were, “Who cares, and what possible difference does it make?” But responsible Bible commentators go to the trouble to take each problem like this one seriously. Thus, we have the two representative responses given below.

Williamson: “This verse [II Chronicles 2:2] is repeated from v. 18 below. It is usually thought to have been added here as a preparation for the reference in v. 7 to the 'skilled workers'. Since this latter, however, clearly refers back to I Chr. 22:15, the present verse has to be regarded as secondary.” Then concerning v. 18 referred to above, Williamson points out the discrepancy in numbers with I Kings 5:16 and states that “it may well be this latter figure that is confused.” He refers the reader to a fuller discussion in a work by Gooding on the subject.

Michaelis alternatively explains the discrepancy as due to different methods of classifying the foremen. Thus, Chronicles distinguishes those from Canaan from the Israelite overseers. But Kings distinguishes the higher from the lower overseers. Thus Solomon had 3,300 lower level overseers and 550 upper level supervisors, of whom 20 were Israelites and 300 Canaanites.

How many baths were in the facility: 2,000 (I Kings 7:26) or greater than 3,000 (II Chronicles 4:5)?

From the way this question was worded, I am not convinced that the internet critic really understands the passage at all. He seems to treat a “bath” as a place to bathe in rather than what it really meant at the time – a Hebrew unit of liquid measure. So at most, we are talking about a difference in the volume of water held by one particular ceremonial basin, not the number of individual bathing places in the building.

The second point involves the word “greater than” or “over.” in the II Chronicles passage. Modern translations such as NRSV, JB, NEB, and AB delete this Hebrew word since it does not have strong textual support in the early manuscripts.

That still leaves us with a problem concerning the liquid capacity of the giant basin. G.H. Jones indicates that the volume of a “bath” appears to have varied during biblical times from as low as 22 liters to as high as 45 liters. This was determined by measuring the capacity of labeled jars found at different sites in the Holy Land.

And Howard points out, “The description [in the Bible] is not easy to follow...The variation in capacity from I Kings may be due to different shapes being envisaged.” Thus, another approach has been taken by C.C.Wylie, who demonstrated that the figure in Kings is a calculation based on the assumption that the large “sea” being described is hemispherical in shape. Alternatively, the volume given in Chronicles appears to have assumed that the large “sea” was cylindrical. Both figures then were calculated from the dimensions given in the biblical text rather than the volume being measured directly.

TODAY, TOMORROW OR DAILY IN THE BIBLE

Such designations of times appear hundreds of times in the Bible, usually in a mundane application. But a few such passages, discussed below, are of special interest.

Exodus 8:9-10

I find this to be the most intriguing conversation in the whole section on the plagues of Egypt. Moses lets Pharaoh chose when he would like the frogs to be removed from the land, and Pharaoh replies, “Tomorrow.” As Durham understatedly says, “Why Pharaoh specified 'tomorrow' instead of 'right now' is unclear. It cannot be that Pharaoh was 'hoping' the frogs would leave by themselves within that period (Knight) or that 'tomorrow' was 'the earliest possible time' (Cassuto). Perhaps the specification of such a time is intended to show Pharaoh's skepticism.”

 Since I have run into my share of “pharaohs” in school and at work, I think I have another explanation. At one point in time, our company president was one who had been promoted way past his level of competence. So he compensated for that lack by throwing his weight around and humiliating his employees whenever he had a chance. One time I was giving him a presentation of our lab research and I noted that he began fidgeting and looking at his watch since it was way past lunch time. To give him a break, I suggested that I cut my presentation short. At that suggestion, he suddenly came to life and said in no uncertain terms: “I WANT TO HEAR EVERY BIT OF YOUR TALK.”

Knowing him well from previous unpleasant encounters, I realized that he sensed a weakness in me and was not about to get me off so easily. So I went through the whole talk while he squirmed even more and realized that all he had accomplished was to delay his lunch even more.

I personally think that Pharaoh realized full well that a group of slaves and their god had outmaneuvered and overpowered him. However, he wasn't going to go down without somehow reasserting his power, so when Moses gave him the chance to choose his own timing for the miracle, he was casually replying in essence that there was absolutely no hurry regarding the removal of what was after all only a minor nuisance to him and his people, but how about tomorrow? So Pharaoh condemned himself and his people to one more day of misery just in order to save face.

Exodus 16:19-20

The second interesting example also comes from the book of Exodus, this time in the context of God sending manna every day for the people to gather in and eat. In order to “prove the people,” the manna spoiled if not eaten on the same day, except for the day before Sabbath when it lasted for two days before going bad. “The fact that it bred worms every day except the sabbath was to prove that trust for each day's needs and obedience regarding the sabbath would be rewarded.” (H.R. Jones)

Similarly, Cole says, “'That I may prove them' is presumably either to do with the need for daily dependence on God for food, or with the command not to gather food on the sabbath day.”

Lamentations 3:22-23a

NRSV translates the Hebrew as follows: “The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases, his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning.” And Dobbs-Allsopp comments: “Steadfast love, mercies, faithfulness, the LORD's covenant loyalties, as in the divine promises to David (2 Sam 7:15; I Kings 8:23; Ps 89:2-4).”

The Living Bible offers this translation: “His lovingkindness begins afresh every day.”

And the Jerusalem Bible commentary on this verse reads, “The favors of Yahweh are not all past; his kindnesses are not exhausted; every morning they are renewed.” Because this is true, there is no need for the believer to worry about tomorrow, as we will see in the New Testament.

Matthew 5:24

In this passage, Jesus counsels his followers to make sure that there is no friction between them and anyone else before laying their gifts on the altar. France says, “It puts in the form of a vivid practical example the principle which Paul lays down in Eph 4:26: 'Do not let the sun go down on your anger.'” There are some actions which must be done at once and not put off until a more convenient time.

Matthew 6:11 // Luke 11:3

These are the familiar words found in the Lord's Prayer: “Give us this day our daily bread.” Hendricksen asks, “What did Jesus mean by 'daily'?...As I see it , a good argument can be made in favor of: a. 'Give us this day our bread for (or: belonging to) the current day (the day in being),' and of b. 'Give us this day our needful bread,' that is, 'our bread necessary for existence'...In any case we must make sure that our interpretation does not run counter to the teaching of Jesus in this very chapter (verses 31-34), the warning against worry about food...Whatever is necessary to sustain physical life is meant.”

Matthew 6:34

That brings us up to this conclusion to Jesus' teaching here: “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”

Hill states that “the point is that anxiety about food, drink and clothes is pagan, as well as being an affront to God, who will not overlook the legitimate needs of his people...a man's individual loyalty and obedience to God shows his purposeful desire to make the divine will and reign (already present in Jesus) his real objective. If this is man's dominant concern, then all other necessary requirements will be satisfied in the generosity of God.”

Luke 9:23

“What are our crosses to be borne? Luke alone has the modifier 'daily' (v. 23) which shifts the emphasis from martyrdom to sacrificial living. A way of life that could be called cross bearing would have to be a life one had 'taken up'; that is, it would be voluntarily chosen..., even though...other difficulties are sometimes called 'crosses we have to bear'...A way of life that could be called cross bearing would have to involve denial of self in the service of God...We are not speaking of a death wish here but obedience to the reign of God.” (Craddock)

Acts 17:11

We learn here that the Bereans studied the Scriptures every day to see if Paul's words were true. Stott says, “Luke obviously admires their enthusiasm for Paul's preaching, together with their industry and unprejudiced openness in studying the Scriptures. They combined receptivity with critical questioning...What is impressive is that neither speaker nor hearers used Scripture in a superficial, unintelligent or proof-texting way.”

I attended a church for some time which prided itself on its diligent study of the Bible, but I am afraid that they mainly read it through the prism of a detailed statement of necessary doctrines to which the congregation, or at least the leadership, adhered. Therefore they were always on the lookout for any ideas which might conceivably cast doubts on their prior interpretation. The Bereans appear to have been much more open-minded in their approach, wanting to know the truth of God at all cost rather than just a confirmation of their prior ideas.

Hebrews 3:13

Buchanan: “They should exhort 'every day' to be sure that there was no sin among any of the brothers. This was the same kind of advice offered in Matt 18:15-17. The urgency of the situation was emphasized on the basis of the word 'today' quoted from the Psalm [95:7]. The time was short. They were obliged to act properly while they still had the chance not utilized by their fathers.”

“Let them be vigilant therefore, and encourage one another while might and main lasted to be steadfast in their faith, during the present time of probation. While this time lasts, each succeeding day's a fresh 'To-day' in which they may heed the psalmist's warning to hear the voice of God and render Him heart obedience.” (Bruce)

DID JOSHUA'S TROOPS CONQUER JERUSALEM? (JOSHUA 10:23,40 vs. 15:63)

In Joshua 10:23, the king of Jerusalem is killed by the Israelites and in v. 40 of that chapter it states that they conquered all the Canaanite land mentioned in the previous verses until there was no breath of life left. But as one Bible critic on the internet states, “If that is so, why are they still not able to oust the Jebusites from Jerusalem in Joshua 15:63?”

I must say at the beginning that one must be very dubious regarding any supposed contradictions found within the same book of the Bible. For them to have persisted for centuries without being taken out or rewritten by subsequent editors is inconceivable and also throws grave doubts regarding the collective intelligence of the myriad of believers over that time period who were apparently too dense to catch on to the contradiction.

With that said, the issue here is certainly a good one to delve into further, and scholars have offered several approaches to resolving the differences between these passages in Joshua, and some of these approaches are overlapping.

Textual Point

Butler notes that the Greek Septuagint lacks the word 'all' in 10:40 “which has been added by tradition [to the Hebrew text] to underline the completeness of the conquest.”

Hyperbolic Language

One possible reason why modern readers sometimes have trouble properly understanding the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is that they don't comprehend some of the literary commonalities used in those days which appear to be untruths in our eyes. Thus, Younger characterizes the summary statement in Joshua 10:40 in the following words: “This typical ancient Near Eastern war account was hyperbole to emphasize the success of Israel and its God.” Ortiz similarly attaches the same term, hyperbole, to verses 40-41.

Qualifications to Joshua 10:40

Various caveats have been mentioned by scholars against taking this verse at its literal face value.

For one thing, it is interesting that the account of the deaths of the kings, including the king of Jerusalem, is followed by a detailed list of the Canaanite areas and specific cities which were destroyed. However, Jerusalem itself is not found in that listing. Thus, the summary statement of conquest in v. 40 may possibly be taken to apply only to the many specific regions conquered, as numerous as they are, but not to the entirety of the enemy territory, some of which remained to be taken at a later date.

That is the general approach of Mabie, who adds that “it should be pointed out that the Israelites return to the camp at Gilgal (Josh 10:43), illustrating the reality that battles might be won over various cities without those cities being subsequently occupied by the Israelites.” This would open the door for devastated cities (including Jerusalem?) to be subsequently reoccupied later by scattered Canaanites such as the Jebusites.

The above scenario would fit well with Lilley's observation: “It is interesting that the Jebusites are not linked to Jerusalem at this stage [i.e. Joshua 11:3].” And on Joshua 15:63, he states, “The Jebusite connection with Jerusalem reflects the [later] times of the judges; see Jg. 19:10f, 2 Sam 5:6...”

Blair says, “There is...no ground for doubting that Joshua did launch a series of devastating attacks of key Canaanite strongholds, that these attacks demoralized the Canaanites and gave the Israelites a firm foothold, though the land was not entirely subdued at this time; later passages (e.g. 11:13; 13:2-13; 15:68) show clearly that much remained to be done.” For that reason, Blair feels that the statement in Joshua 15:63 “has to be qualified as in v. 20: 'the remnant which remained of them had entered into fortified cities; the only survivors were those who managed to make their escape.”

A Theological Reading

Another point is often missed by modern readers, such as our critic here. That is that all historical accounts, whether ancient or recent, are written with something in mind in addition to merely conveying dry factual matter. These authors all have a philosophical or theological thesis that they wish to demonstrate using history. Thus, we read the following opinions by other commentators on Joshua:

    Williamson says that “the book of Joshua...presents the reader with a compressed account, foreshortening a lengthy process into a single event in the interest of demonstrating the might and the goodness of God in providing his people with land...without denying that it has historical material within it, we should read it in this theological light rather than as a historical source pure and simple.”

    And Woudstra comments on Joshua 10:40 as follows: “As appears from other parts of the book (11:22; 13:2-3; 15:63), the conquest of this territory and of the cities in it was not final in all respects. Nevertheless the author of this section is at pains to draw a provisional conclusion which indicates that enough had been accomplished to pause and reflect on the very substantial progress that had been made toward subjugation of the land.”

HOW WAS CHRIST RAISED ROM THE DEAD?

 

The subject of Christ's resurrection is obviously of vital importance to the writers of the New Testament, appearing in over 80 passages, evenly divided between those which employ the word “resurrection” and those who use synonyms translated by the verb “to raise.”

 In terms of Greek nomenclature, Coenen says that egeiro ['raise up'], especially in the pass[ive] is used predominantly for what happened at Easter, i.e. the wakening of the Crucified to life, while anhistemi ['rise, arise'] and anastasis ['resurrection'] refer more especially to the recall to life of people during the earthly ministry of Jesus and to the eschatological and universal resurrection...the action of God on and through Christ is expressed by egeiro, while anhistemi expresses, as it were, that which happens in the realm of human experience.”

And Wanamaker states, “The apostle [Paul] normally employs egeirein (37 times) for the resurrection, whether Christ's or his followers. This verb is almost always found with an indication that it was God who raised Jesus and will raise his followers.”

There are plenty of prophecies given ahead of time concerning the coming resurrection and a lot more reflection afterward about the fact that it did happen, but virtually no details are given regarding the actual resurrection itself and “how” it was accomplished. One specific question in that regard is whether Christ rose from the dead by his own power or was raised by God the Father.

If one's only exposure to that question came from the old Easter hymn “He Arose,” then one would clearly think that Christ did it all on his own in order to emerge triumphant over death. But there are a number of places in the Bible indicating that is not the whole story. Thus, I would like to briefly canvass some of the key scriptures relating to the question.

And in a rather strange way I am reminded of the example of Pharaoh when confronted by the plagues of Egypt (Exodus 7-10) since there appear to be places where he hardens his own heart, others where God does the hardening, and yet others which are neutral and only state that Pharaoh's heart was hardened. We have the same sort of ambiguity here regarding the active party in Christ's resurrection.

God raised Jesus from the dead

First we have a number of NT passages in which this statement is taught in no uncertain terms:

Acts 2:24 – “But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it...:

Acts 2:27,31 – For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption...He foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ...”

Acts 3:26 – “God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you...”

Acts 4:10b – “...by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead...”

Acts 10:39b-40 – “They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest.”

Acts 13:32-34 – “And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus.”

Romans 4:24-25 – “It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.”

Romans 8:11 – “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also...”

Romans 10:9 – “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

I Corinthians 6:14 – “And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.”

I Corinthians 15:15 – “...we testified of God that he raised Christ...”

In fact, Strachan makes the blanket statement: “In the New Testament Jesus is never represented as rising again by His own power.” But is that really true?

Jesus was or will be raised

In this category of passages, the passive is used to indicate someone else acting on Christ to bring about the resurrection. However, that agent is not actually named.

Without quoting these verses, they include: Matthew 14:2,28; 17:9; 20:19; 26:32; 28:6-7; Mark 8:31; 17:9 10:34; 14:28; I Corinthians 15:20; and I Peter 3:18. Here is how commentators respond to these passages:

Pannenberg states that “the raising up of Jesus implies a confirmation by God himself of his pre-Easter appearances that the pre-Easter Jesus remained dependent on this confirmation...”

Colin Brown: “In raising Jesus, God was active by the Spirit of holiness (Rom 1:4).”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “The most frequently used image [for resurrection] is supplied by the word raised (approximately three dozen references), accentuating two aspects of Christ's resurrection – its dynamic nature and the idea that power came from a source beyond Christ himself...As a mighty act of God it evokes memories of the exodus, the biblical archetype of God's powerful saving acts.”

Knoppers points out that “the passive 'was raised' is a divine passive denoting an act of God...Jesus was raised by God as the first and determinative instance of the resurrection of the elect people of God and the renewal of the whole cosmos (I Cor. 15:20,23).”

R.E. Brown: “It was the sovereign action of God glorifying Jesus of Nazareth.”

N. Clark says that “the Empty Tomb stands as the massive sign that the eschatological deed of God is not outside this world of time and space or in despair of it, but has laid hold on it, penetrated deep into it, shattered it, and began its transformation.”

“Through an act of God, the dead and buried Lord had been awakened to life again...The resurrection of Jesus thus became the sign of God's triumph over the power of sin and death.” (Coenen)

The agent of the resurrection is not specified or is ambiguous

Matthew 27:63-64 – “...the impostor said when he was still alive, 'After three days, I will rise again.' Therefore...his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, 'He has been raised from the dead.'”

This is an unusual passage in that it appears to equate the verb forms “rise” and “be raised.”

John 3:14 – “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up.”

Superficially, this appears to refer to the resurrection, but all commentators agree that it refers to Jesus' crucifixion instead.

Romans 6:4 – “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father; we too might walk in newness of life”

“Already the apostle had represented the Father as the active agent in Christ's resurrection (4:24,25). But here we have a unique expression. It is possible that 'the glory' refers to the glory in which Christ was raised from the dead. But it is more in accord with usage to think of the glory through which Christ was raised. The glory is the majesty of God, the sum of his perfections.” (Murray)

Romans 8:34b – “...Jesus Christ who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God...”

“Egertheis ['having been raised'] is aorist passive and may thus reflect upon the action of the Father in raising up Jesus (cf 4:25; 6:4; 8:11). But the rising of Jesus from the dead may be in view and thus be coordinate with 'apothanon ['having died'] and 'entugchanei ['supplicates'].” (Murray)

Romans 14:9 – “For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.”'

Murray: “The aorist is adapted to express his becoming alive from the dead. It is inceptive aorist. Most frequently the resurrection of Christ is represented as the action of God the Father. This instance could be taken as referring to the action of Jesus himself after the analogy of John 2:19; 10:17,18. But it is more likely that there is no reflection on agency. The thought is focused on the fact of his having lived again.”

I Thessalonians 4:14 – “For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.”

However, Wanamaker translates it as “Jesus died and was raised,” indicating that God did the raising.

I Peter 1:3a – “Blessed be the God and Father...By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...”

“The perspective is first toward the past event of God's act in raising 'our Lord Jesus Christ' from the dead (1:3)...” (Boring)

As Coenen concludes: “The resurrection of Jesus is not described only with God as subject and Jesus as object; the vb. may be taken intrans. in the middle voice with Jesus as subject, i.e. 'he arose from the dead' (e.g. Rom. 6:4,9; 8:34, and especially in the Synoptics, Mk. 14:28; 16:6; Matt. 27:63). This change in usage shows that while the resurrecting power always issued from God, it belongs to the Son also, who is of one being with the Father.”

Jesus will raise himself from the dead

John 2:19 – “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Because of the ambiguity regarding the form of the original saying and whether it referred to the Jerusalem Temple, Christ's physical body, or the church body, I could find no commentator willing to go out on a limb and state categorically that Christ was expressing the fact that He had the power to raise himself from the dead.

John 10:17b-18 – “...because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”

“It is undoubtedly the case that the New Testament prefers to speak of God as raising up Jesus, but Jesus several times predicted that he would rise...We ought not to put any opposition between the Father and Son in this manner, nor should we doubt that the habitual New Testament expression is that the Father raised the Son. But we should not overlook the fact that there is also a strand of New Testament teaching which says that the Son 'rose'. The present passage fits in with this strand.”

II Timothy 1:10 – “...which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel...” (Hoskyns)

Mitchell refers the reader to I Corinthians 5:26,54-57 for an explanation of the phrase “abolished death.' Those passages specifically state that God raised up Jesus.

Towner says, “Elsewhere in the New Testament, his death is distinguished from his resurrection as the event that canceled the power of death...this bringing to light of life from death occurred in Christ's experience of resurrection.” This appears to indicate that Towner feels this passage is neutral regarding the actual agent of the resurrection.

And on the other end of the spectrum is Knight, who states, “The combination of 'brought to light' with the prepositional phrase 'through the gospel' joins the once-for-all historical redemptive deed of Jesus (his life, death, and resurrection) with the message about it and one's response (implied) to it.”

Revelation 1:18 – “I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.”

Mounce: “The emphasis is not on the resurrection but on the reality of Christ's continuing life.”

Ford: “Because he is the Living One, Christ has full power over the resurrection. He passed through death at a definite moment of history, but he lives forever. Hence he has the keys of death and Sheol...”

Bruce says that “since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.”

Revelation 3:21 – “He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.”

Morris: “Christ overcame by the way of the cross and this act sets the pattern for His followers.”

Bruce: “Their [i.e. 'those who stood by with Him in His trials'] conquest, like His, is won by way of suffering and death.”

Conclusion – Perhaps the best tack here is to follow the lead of Hoskyns, quoted above, and remember that Christ and God are One in a manner which we have trouble comprehending. Therefore we should be cautious about drawing any hard-and-fast distinctions between the actions of the two.

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS INVOLVING REPENTANCE

I recently came across the website faithrethink which contained two sets of conflicting Old Testament passages, both involving the concept of repentance.

Jonah and Nahum

One “contradiction” found on this site reads simply, “Jonah says God loves the Assyrians, Nahum says God hates them.” Actually neither one of these contentions can be found in these prophetic books.

However, it is true that both these short books have been often set alongside one another since they both deal with the actions and fate of the Assyrians and their capital city of Nineveh.

For example, Mobley says, “The book [i.e. Nahum] and its sentiments toward Nineveh are often contrasted with those in the book of Jonah (contrast Nah 3.11 with Jon 4.11; Nah 1.2-3 with Jon 4.1-2).”

However, the two books are actually not that far apart in attitude and teaching. For example, both quote the same doctrinal statement: “The Lord is slow to anger” (Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3). In addition, God's initial feelings toward Nineveh (“their wickedness has come up before me” – Jonah 1:2) is identical with the way the Assyrians are described in Nahum 1:11 (“From you one has gone out who plots evil against the LORD, one who counsels wickedness”); Nahum 3:19 (“For who has ever escaped your endless cruelty?”); etc.

One could possibly make the point that Nahum's anger is directed more toward the ruthless leadership of Assyria while the concern shown by God in Jonah is more for “the helplessly ignorant inhabitants of Nineveh,” in Leith's words (see Jonah 4:11). But a close reading of both books fails to support such a distinction. And the same is true of any attempts to say that Jonah is concerned only with the capital city while Nahum is dealing with the whole nation of Assyria instead.

Another potential approach is to deny that the book of Jonah reflects any historical event at all, but is really a humorous parable of sorts designed solely to expose the rabidly and hatefully nationalistic attitude some of the Jews exhibited toward all outsiders. But even if that were true, it would not eliminate any of the sentiments expressed in the book.

The best solution is simply to go back to the statement Jonah makes in 4:2, which stresses both God's wrath and his forgiveness toward those who repent. And Nineveh certainly does repent, from the king himself right down to (a bit hyperbolically) the cattle. The problem is that the second chance God gave the nation after their repentance apparently did not last since the later book of Nahum describes His judgment coming upon them at last.

As Phillip Cary says that “it is possible to emphasize justice and wrath, especially when thinking of Nineveh. The prophet Nahum is the most prominent example...Hence it is with gladness that the book of Nahum opens by speaking of the wrath of God [Nahum 1:2-3]...Even here we have both sides: the LORD is slow to anger but does not let the guilty get off with impunity. Yet the direction is not toward a mercy that remembers justice, but rather toward a justice that is slow to anger but once kindled will not forbear to take vengeance for the good of all who have suffered from the cruelty of that 'city of blood' (3:1). Jonah would like to preach the same glad tidings of wrath as Nahum, but under the circumstances he can't. Nahum, prophesying a century or more after Jonah, does get the last word on Nineveh, as the LORD indeed destroys it forever...But Jonah is faced with a Nineveh that lives, at least for a while, under the mercy and abundant lovingkindness of the LORD, still slow to anger.”

II Kings 21 vs. II Chronicles 33

These parallel passages both deal with the reign of King Manasseh. My critical source on the internet sees a definite contradiction between the two accounts:

“2 K 21 says Manasseh was an evil king in every way, which is why all of Judah was sent into the Babylonian exile. In contrast, 2 Chron 33 says that only Manasseh was exiled to Babylon and recounts his total repentance (not in 2 K).”

The first thing to point out is that II Kings 21:1-9 and II Chronicles 33:1-9 read practically word-for-word the same, indicating that both accounts are relying for the most part on the identical tradition. Therefore any differences we detect later in the chapters between the two accounts are likely to be purposeful on the part of the respective authors in order to emphasize or de-emphasize a particular theological point. And since the Kings account was almost surely the earliest, any changes in wording or emphasis are also likely to be due to the author of Chronicles.

The two parallel passages begin to depart from one another starting with v. 10 of each. Chronicles merely states in one verse that both Manasseh and the people refused to listen to God. That very same information is found in verses 10-15 of II Chronicles, but given in more detail. One interesting omission on the part of II Chronicles is that whereas Kings states God's word came to Manasseh via the prophets, Chronicles says God spoke directly to the king. This is quite in keeping with the Chronicler's overall emphasis on the official Jewish leadership (king and priesthood), downplaying considerably the role of the independent prophets given more prominence in Samuel-Kings.

Williamson also sees strong signs of the preoccupations of the Chronicler in the account of Manasseh's Babylonian “exile.” “In the present commentary, several examples have been suggested of the Chronicler taking up a relatively local or trivial incident and magnifying it by way of his own ideological presuppositions into an account of major and significant proportions. It would thus not be surprising if he had followed the same method here.” Thus, he feels that the so-called exile of the king was in fact nothing more nor less than the temporary summoning of Manasseh to Babylon to explain some of his dubious political actions, after which he was dismissed and allow to return to Judah. Jacob Myers provides the same explanation. If they are correct, then it provides a good reason why the author of Kings did not even bother to mention the incident.

And as to Manasseh's repentance, not mentioned in Kings, House says, “Oppression by Assyria initiates prayer and contrition on Manasseh's part, which leads to release from his immediate problem and a removal of idols he has erected. These reforms are portrayed as limited and short-lived, however, so the results of his reign remain the same. His support of idolatry leads to corruption that Josiah will have to combat later, a point the Chronicler makes clear in the survey of Josiah's life (cf. Chr 34:1-35:27). In both histories [i.e. Kings and Chronicles] then, Manasseh's long period of rule is portrayed as an ultimately damaging era in Israel's history at a moment when such leadership could not be afforded.”

So returning to the basic issue as our critic states it: Why does Kings say that Judah will be exiled but not mention Manasseh's “exile” while Chronicles mentions Manasseh's “exile” but not say anything regarding Judah's exile? The answer is rather simple. In the first place, commentators are in agreement that Manesseh was not exiled at all. At most it was a case of summoning him to Babylon in order to chew him out and then send him back with his promise to act more loyally to Assyria in the future. Historians note that this scenario was quite in keeping with the way the Assyrians dealt with their vassal kings. Manasseh's temporary absence from Israel was hardly an important enough event for the author of Kings to even mention.

Secondly, there was no particular need for the Chronicler to mention the prophecy of Judah's exile, which after all would not take place for another 100 years, by which time the Babylonians had kicked out the Assyrians. It is not considered to be any sort of contradiction at all for two historians to stress different aspects of the same events, and that is what we have in this case. And the same principle applies in comparing the four Gospel accounts of Jesus' life with one another.

Commentators are, of course, quite free to speculate as to the reasons behind the selective nature of both OT accounts. Thus, many liberal commentators have a great deal of trouble getting their mind around the concept of future events being prophesied accurately. For that reason, some of them deny that exile is even hinted at in Kings, and others feel that verses 10-15 of II Kings must not have been added to the original narrative until the later period of Babylonian Exile.

Also, it seems obvious that the Chronicler goes out of his way to paint a more rosy history of Israel and her kings. So he grasps at the fact that Manasseh at least temporarily and partially repented of his evil deeds. This was perhaps also done in an attempt to explain the theological problem of why God would have left him in power (albeit as an Assyrian vassal for much of his reign) for so many years.

Or we could go with Howard's explanation that “The Chronicler may have used the episode [of Manasseh's temporary exile and return] as a allegory of Israel in exile. Because of its sin it had been taken to Babylon but now it has returned to the land.”

And for those who feel that both books were written much later than the events themselves (and we really don't know exactly when that occurred), there is another perspective. Thus, Pratt writes, “These variations are not contradictory; they simply resulted from the different purposes of each writer. The writer of Kings wrote during the exile and focused on Manasseh's sin to explain why Judah had been taken to Babylon...The Chronicler wrote after the return from exile to demonstrate the importance of repentance and prayer for the full restoration of the post-exilic community...The similarities between this series of events and the post-exilic experience are striking. The Israelites had sinned against God, gone to Babylon, sought the favor of God, returned to the land, and were in the process of restoring worship and rebuilding the city of Jerusalem. Why did the Chronicler present Manasseh's reign in this manner? To encourage his readers in their efforts. Their exile had been God's response to sin; their deliverance had been an act of grace based on their repentance. If the wicked King Manasseh demonstrated his repentance by establishing the cult and city, how much more must they do the same?”

QUESTIONS IN LAMENTATIONS

  

                               Lamentations (1999)

The five chapters of this poetic book contain a number of questions, which is understandable considering the overall subject of the fall of Jerusalem with which the author is preoccupied. But the first question is: How many questions are there? This might sound like a silly question, but in the Hebrew language it is not always clear whether the author is making a statement or asking a question. For example, in comparing six modern English translations of the book, I found:

    eleven questions in the Jerusalem Bible; twelve in the Anchor Bible; fourteen each in NIV, RSV, and NRSV; and sixteen in NEB. Eliminating the outliers, one arrives at 15 questions, given below along with some explanatory comments:

Lamentations 1

verse 12a – Is it of no concern to you who pass by?

verse 12b – Is there any agony like mine?

“In Lamentations 1:12 the poetry goes to first person, and Jerusalem laments her suffering herself. Jerusalem blames God for making her desolate, for handing her over to those whom she cannot stand and sapping her strength.” (Branch) As Boda says, “The detachment of the first half [of Lam. 1] is soon lost in the second half as Lamentations 1:12-14 shifts to the first-person voice...”

“The appeal to uninvolved onlookers for a sympathetic appraisal occurs again at Job 21:9; Lam. 2:15; cf. Mt. 27:39.” (Osborne)

“Now not only the casual passer-by (v. 12), but all nations (v. 19) and, lastly, the Lord Himself (v. 20), are asked to ponder, with sympathetic understanding, the grievous affliction which has been thus placed upon her. The words in this verse have long been associated with our Lord in His passion. Although Christ depreciated sympathy for Himself (cf. 23:28), He identified Himself so closely with human sin and its consequences (cf. 2 Cor 5:21) that, as the prophetic words suggest, He would have us consider the significance of that identification.” (Stephens-Hodge)

The first question strikes a particular chord with me and reminds me of an event some decades ago. A friend and I were just driving back home to California during college break when we heard over the radio of a freak flood which had just taken place only a mile from the town we lived. There was a small dam on the top of a hill which had broken, unleashing all its water in a matter of minutes on all the houses directly below it.

At our first opportunity, we parked near the top of the site and walked down the hill to view most houses literally torn in two; one in-ground swimming pool still intact but standing completely above ground like a large cement wall; and even a VW hanging from what was left of a second story.

As we and other sight-seers walked down what was left of the road, one of the homeowners yelled at us to please have a heart and leave all of them alone in their grief. I would only hope that the passers-by in Lamentations 1:12 felt as guilty and ashamed as we did at that moment.

Finally, there is the rather fanciful feminist interpretation of verses 12-13 given by O'Connor, who pictures it as the image of a battered wife who has been beaten by Yahweh but blames herself. In this way, the text is said to justify spousal abuse.

Lamentations 2

verse 12 – Where are the corn and wine?

This question differs from all the others in the book in that it comes from small children pleading with their mother to feed them. See the comment on verse 20b below for comparison.

verse 13a – What can I say or compare you to?

verse 13b – To what can I liken you to comfort you?

verse 13c – Who can heal you?

Provan discusses at some length the options for translation and interpretation of this verse before stating that it “is usually interpreted as meaning that the poet is searching for an historical analogy to Zion's downfall. If such could be found, then she might find comfort in knowing that her plight was not unique, and perhaps in being aware that destruction was often not the end of the story.” See 1:12b in this regard.

He proposes a chiastic way to picture the structure of 13a-b:

        1. What can I say (of comfort)

                2. or compare you to?

                2'. To what can I liken you

        1'. to comfort you?
verse 20a – Lord, to whom have you done this?

Koptak: “Although there are other laments in the book spoken by a single male exile (Lam 3), it is Daughter Zion who turns lament into accusation, asking God, 'Whom have you ever treated like this?'”

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery notes that a “virgin daughter is considered vulnerable, and any violation of her is a calamity.”

“In the first poem Daughter Zion asked on-lookers this searching question [1:12b]...In this second poem Daughter Zion addresses this to God directly: 'Whom have you ever treated like this?' (Lam 2:20).” (Boda)

verse 20b – Must women eat their children?

This possibility is unfortunately not entirely hypothetical. The sad example of II Kings 6:28-29 demonstrates that this was the extreme measure resorted to by some during times of siege and famine. Other OT passages dealing with the subject of cannibalism include Leviticus 26:29; Lamentations 4:10; and Ezekiel 5:10. So the question of the children in Lamentations 2:12 is really ironic in a horrible way since the very children desperate for food may actually themselves serve as food for their parents.

verse 20c – Shall priests be slain in the sanctuary?

“Also revolting to ordinary human religious feeling is the idea that men of God should be killed right in the sanctuary where they ministered.” (Hillers)

Lamentations 3

verse 36 – Does the Lord not see it?

Oswalt detects a shift in tone at 3:24: “Alongside the continuing lament there is a new emphasis on the positive characteristics of the Lord: his moral rectitude, which will mean that the enemies cannot continue in their ruthlessness forever (Lam 3:36,64)...”

“The translation does the Lord not see it? is conjectural. The words echo the claim expressed elsewhere: 'The LORD does not see' (Ezek 8:12; 9:9; Ps 94:7).” (Dobbs-Allsopp) There appear to be two different ways in which this verse is translated: “Does the Lord not see it?” (JB, TEV, AB, NIV, NRSV) and “The Lord does not approve it” (NEB, RSV).

verse 37 – Who can have done it if the Lord had not ordained it?

verse 38 – Is it not from Him that good and bad come?

We should keep in mind that “bad” or “evil” in this context does not mean moral evil at all, but tribulation instead.

Hillers explains, “While this is true, as it must be since God is the creator..., yet suffering, pain, and evil are not his final intention. He does not act like a tyrant, mistreating prisoners and denying men justice.”

“The narrator has been right...to insist that the suffering which he and his fellows have been enduring comes from God. He has been right, too, to express hope; for what God gives, he can take away.” (Provan)

verse 39 – Why should anyone complain about his sins being punished?

Boda says, “In light of [God's] grace, the poet encourages the people to wait...and be silent...Such actions describe the posture of passively accepting the discipline of God but also awaiting God's deliverance. This all leads to a presentation of the justice of God in Lamentations 3:33-38...in light of this, there is no room for complaint when being punished for one's sins (Lam 3:39).”

Lamentations 4

none – In this chapter there are no questions or addresses to God at all, just a straightforward description of the plight of Jerusalem and the recognition that she has deserved the destruction with which God had visited her. It is only in the last few verses that attention turns instead to Edom with a warning to her that she will soon suffer a similar fate at God's hands.

Lamentations 5

verse 20a – Why have you forgotten us?

verse 20b – Why have you forsaken us?

Boda states that “the questions of Lamentation 5:20...imply that the endurance of the predicament is God's responsibility.” And Dobbs-Allsopp points the reader to Psalm 22:1; 44:24: 74:19.

Belcher says, “The book ends with a 'why' question addressed to God, a plea for God to restore the people, and a reminder of the cause of suffering (Lam 5:20-22). The questions in the lament psalms and Lamentations are not arrogant, challenging questions but rather are questions that arise out of a covenant relationship with God. Not only do they call on God to be faithful to his covenant promises, but also they are a way to express the deep anguish of soul in the midst of suffering.”

Osborne notes that “vv. 20-22 constitute a microcosm of the entire book; hope sandwiched between despair gleams all the brighter.”

TWO ADDITIONAL NEW TESTAMENT CONTRADICTIONS

I am again on the lookout for some new objections to the Bible to surface on the internet and am never disappointed in my search, as far-fetched as some of these objections are. Here are two that I haven't run across before.

Was John the Baptist the Elijah to come? Matthew 11:14, 17:10-13 says yes while John 1:19-21 says no.

Here is how several commentators resolve this apparent problem:

Borchert says, “One problem...that troubles some readers of the Bible arises when they compare the Baptizer's rejection of being Elijah here with what seems to be the opposite in Mark and Matthew. But one has to understand the narrative purpose in each of the Gospels before one draws hasty conclusions. The concern of the other Gospels is to indicate that prophecy has been fulfilled and that the expected forerunner of the Messiah had come..Accordingly, God's timetable for Jesus was right on schedule, and readers could have complete confidence in God...In this Gospel [i.e. John's] the purpose is a little different. The political calculators were at work, and John the Baptist would have nothing to do with their ambitions. He would not be moved by the forces that controlled them...Instead, this witness had been sent...by God (1:6). The point should be obvious. To understand the focus of each Gospel is therefore crucial to understanding the use of statements in each Gospel.”

Morris: “His [John the Baptist's] denial puzzles many, for Jesus explicitly asserted that John was 'Elijah, that is to come' (Matt. 11:14). This is one of the passages which seem to show that this Gospel was written in independence of the Synoptics. It is not in contradiction of them, but had John had their statement before him he would scarcely have left his own account in just this form. The solution to the difficulty is probably that there was a sense in which John was Elijah and a sense in which he was not.”

For example, John was not the literal reincarnation of Elijah (or at least he was not aware that he was) in the sense his questioners meant. However, he certainly filled the expected role of the prophesied forerunner of the Messiah.

Moule: “We have to ask by whom the identification is made, and by whom refused. The Synoptics represent Jesus as identifying, or comparing, the Baptist with Elijah, while John represents the Baptist as rejecting the identification when it is offered him by his interviewers. Now these two, so far from being incompatible, are psychologically complementary. The Baptist humbly rejects the exalted title, but Jesus, on the contrary, bestows it on him. Why should the two not both be correct?”

Raymond Brown: “John the Baptist's repudiation of the role of Elijah in John does present a different picture from that of Mark and Matthew...How do we solve such diverse views about the relationship of John the Baptist in the Elijah expectation?” Brown first rejects the early view of Gregory the Great, i.e. “in person John the Baptist was not Elijah (John), but he exercised toward Jesus the function of Elijah by preparing his way (Mark, Matthew).” Instead he prefers J.A.T. Robinson's thesis that John's account is more historically accurate (John himself did not feel he was Elijah) while the later accounts of Matthew and Mark reflect the view of early Christian theology. Of course, all that depends on the rarely adopted and highly controversial view that John's Gospel was the first to be written.

I would personally go with the ideas of Moule, Morris, and Borchert on this issue.

The Book of Hebrews (9:27) says we die and face judgment while John in Revelation states that there is a gate that never closes. (Rev. 21:25)

The author of this objection doesn't really spell out the exact nature of the supposed contradiction here. But reading between the lines, it appears that his argument goes something like this: “Hebrews states that after we die it will be too late to repent and turn toward God since the judgment will immediately follow. However, Revelation says that the gate leading into heaven (or the heavenly Jerusalem) is always open to those who wish to enter.”

If that is indeed the gist of this “contradiction,” then there are several things we can say in regard to these two verses:

First, I agree the Hebrews passage strongly indicates that individual judgment will be based on our earthly life only and not any subsequent repentance on our part after death. And this holds whether that judgment occurs immediately after death or some time afterward.

As Ellingworth says, “Meta...touto leaves entirely open the question of whether or not the judgment immediately follows death.”

And, Stibbs writes, “For all men live and die once, and according to the deeds done in that one lifetime their eternal judgment is settled (v. 27; cf. Rev. 20:12,13).”

Similarly, Shogren states, “For after we depart from the world, we can no longer make confession nor any longer repent.”

If those points are agreed upon, then it only remains to look at Revelation 21:25 in its overall context to see if the same or different teaching appears there.

Although one certainly cannot always interpret the Book of Revelation as presenting events in a strictly chronological order, it is universally agreed that the last three chapters all occur as the culmination of earthly history as we know it and describe events of the very final eschatological days. And so we are presented with the following facts:

    Revelation 20:12 – First we have a picture of the last judgment talked about in Hebrews 9:27.

    Revelation 20:15 – As a result of that judgment, the unsaved are thrown into the lake of fire, where they will live out an eternity separated from God.

    Revelation 21:8 confirms that these damned will be kept in that lake of fire, also called the second death.

    Revelation 21:25 – This key verse in question next describes the gates into the heavenly city as always open. This is in stark contrast to the earthly cities of biblical times, whose gates were guarded during the daytime and closed shut at night to protect the city from enemies. Such precautions are obviously no longer needed at all since God's enemies have already been disposed of in the lake of fire.

    Revelation 21:27 – And in case anyone has missed the point made earlier, the author reiterates that those whose names were not in the Lamb's book of life will not be entering the city. That is obvious since they are firmly bound in the lake of fire. 

Thus, we have a perfectly consistent picture painted first briefly in Hebrews and then in more detail in Revelation.

QUESTIONS IN GALATIANS

This letter of Paul is unusual in that he advances his arguments to that church in the form of a series of questions, generally rhetorical ones. There is even a pattern of sorts associated with these twenty queries in that (a) they often appear in pairs and (b) they form a roughly symmetrical organization overall.

                                                 Figure 1: Questions in Galatians

A. Am I seeking the favor of men or God? Am I still trying to please men? (1:10)

    B. Why have you not listened to the gospel? (2:14)

        C. Is Christ a servant of sin? Certainly not! (2:17)

            D. Who has bewitched you? (3:1)

                E. Did you receive the Spirit by works or faith? (3:2)

                    F. Are you so foolish? (3:3a)

                E. Starting with the Spirit, are you ending with the flesh? (3:3b)

                    F. Did you experience so much for nothing? (3:4)

                E. Does God give you the Spirit by works or belief? (3:5)

        C. Why the law? Is the law against the promises of God? Certainly not! (3:19,21)

            D. How can you turn back? How can you want to be enslaved? (4:9)

A. What has become of your goodwill to me? Have I become your enemy? (4:15-16)

    B. Do you not hear the law? (4:21)

        C. What does it say? The child of promise will inherit. (4:30ff)

            D. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? (5:7)

A. Why am I still being persecuted? (5:11)

“A” Units

You can see from the above composition that from the first “A” Unit to the second one forms a wholly symmetrical literary structure followed by a recap of units B-D and a return to the major question that began the book. Paul seeks to find out why he himself has been rejected by the Galatian churches.

“B” Units

A related, and even more important, question that Paul asks here is why first Peter and then the Galatians have rejected God's own word. Interestingly, this is posed to Peter in terms of ignoring the Gospel and to the church in terms of doing the same regarding the Old Testament writings.

“C” Units

The first two units labeled “C” ask a purely hypothetical question, which Paul proceeds to deny in no uncertain terms. Then the final “C” unit picks up on the key word “promise” which is found in the second parallel passage.

“D” Units

The first and last of these three questions directed pointedly to the church members turn from the “why” questions in the B units and zeroes in on the “who.” The answer is obviously the Judaizers within the church who were trying to steer the new Gentile believers back to reliance on the OT legal requirements such as circumcision.

The next two types of questions form the heart of the overall symmetrical structure and are heavily theologically loaded.

“E” Units

These ring all the changes on competing concepts such as Spirit vs. flesh and faith vs. works. The second of these questions introduces “the flesh” into the equation and so could be considered the real center of the whole opening chiastic (i.e. exhibiting mirror-image symmetry) structure.

“F” Units

Alternating with the above theological ideas are Paul's direct questions to the Galatians asking them whether they really understand what they are turning to and away from by their decisions.

If you attempt to compare the organization of Figure 1 with that derived in a totally way and defended in the post “Galatians: Introduction to Literary Structure,” you will find virtually no overlap between the two. This demonstrates what is even more obvious in the Book of Revelation, namely, that the books of the Bible are so carefully constructed that it is possible to view them equally well from several completely different angles.

 

REVELATION 21:1

One of the most puzzling statements in an already puzzling book is found in this verse, which describes the New Earth in which “the sea was no more.” Hoekema, for example, states, “There is a difference of opinion on the question of whether the words 'and the sea was no more' should be understood literally or figuratively.” But he fails to point out that even those (majority of scholars) who treat it as figurative do not always agree with one another although they all recognize that the sea must represent something undesirable. . Below are some of the comments that have been made regarding the meaning of this verse. You will note that the figurative explanations really all tend to meld into one another and do not differ in any appreciable degree.

Literal Interpretation

It is generally the dispensationalists who hold to this opinion, and they usually do not even attempt to explain why the sea should be absent in the New Earth. Walvoord states, “In contrast with the present earth which has most of its surface covered by water, no large body of water will be on the new earth...No landmarks whatever are given concerning the new earth, and nothing is known of its characteristics, vegetation, color, or form.” And elsewhere he only comments, “The physical characteristics of it [the New Earth] differ widely from the present earth...”

Forces of Chaos

By contrast, the more liberal writers tend to stress the influences that the the myths of neighboring cultures had on biblical writings. Thus, McGinn states, “The apocalyptic authors used the ancient Near Eastern combat myth, which saw the formation of the world as the result of the victory of the divine warrior over the monsters of the watery chaos, to give meaning to present and future events.”

Ellul: “This mention is curious, simply because, though it was not the power of chaos, it had been its image: even that must disappear from the new creation.”

Symbol of What is Feared

“The Hebrews displayed little interest in, or enthusiasm for, the sea. Probably their fear of the ocean stemmed from the ancient Semitic belief that the deep personified the power that fought against the deity.” (Thomson)

C. John Collins first takes issue with those who treat the sea as an opponent of God: “There is no indication that the 'deep' [in Genesis 1:1] is any kind of opponent to God; indeed, in the rest of the Bible it does his bidding and praises him (compare Gen. 7:11; 8:2; 49:25; Pss. 33:7; 104:6; 135:6; 148:7; Prov. 3:20; 8:28). And since God names the darkness (Gen. 1:5), there is no reason to believe that it opposes his will, either. Waltke appeals to texts such as Rev. 21:1,25, where the new heavens and new earth will have no sea or night...” Collins then turns to what he believes is a better explanation, i.e. “that the seer used these symbols for what fallen man fears rather than as comments on the moral status of sea and night in themselves.”

Separation and Insubordination

“The sea was to the Jews a symbol of separation (not, as to the Greeks, a means of communication); moreover, throughout the Bible it symbolizes restless insubordination (cf. Job 38:8-11; Ps. 89:9; Isa. 57:20), and in Rev. 13:1 it casts up the system which incarnates hostility to God and His people. Naturally, then, there is no room for it in the new creation.” (Bruce)
Barrier to Peace

Hoekema states that “the sea in the rest of the Bible, particularly in the book of Revelation (cf. 13:1; 17:15), often stands for that which threatens the harmony of the universe, the absence of the sea from the new earth means the absence of whatever would interfere with that harmony.”

Satan

Mabie offers the opinion that “the likely relationship between Leviathan [Psalm 104:24-30] and the creatures of the book of Revelation should be noted. These creatures – a 'great red dragon having seven heads' that 'spews water like a river from its mouth' (Rev 12:3,15) and a beast from the sea having 'seven heads' (Rev 13:1 [cf. Rev 17:3]) – function as the personification of rebellion against divine order (i.e. chaos) and as such provide an ideal image for Satan (cf. Rev 12:9; 20:2) in the unfolding of an overarching eschatological schema.”

Turbulence and Unrest

“The sea [is] the primeval force of turbulence and unrest (Gen 1.2; Ps 29.3,10).” (Ruiz)

Evil

Beasley-Murray: “The assertion that the sea is no more has in mind the current personification of the sea as the quintessence of evil; whatever else is meant here, therefore, the main sentiment is the exclusion of evil from the new order of life.”

“The final doom of the dragon, the beast and the false prophet is to be cast alive into the lake of burning sulphur...The sea, the domain of the beast, will finally be destroyed as well – not merely pushed back but dried up (Rev 21:1).” (Beagley)

“The new creation is more than just a restoration of the original creation. In it there will be 'no longer any sea' (Rev 21:1), whereas in the first creation the 'sea,' the primeval source of evil (cf. Rev 13:1), remained as the potential threat to the cosmos (Gen 1:2; 7:11).” (Kim)

And the footnote to this verse in the Jerusalem Bible reads: “The sea symbolises evil because it was the home of the dragon, cf. Jb 7:12+; it will vanish as it did at the Exodus, but this time for ever, before the triumphant advance of the new Israel, cf. Is 51:9-10; Ps 74:13,14; Jb 26:12-13; Is 27:1.”

Demonic Force

Bocher says that “the sea threatens life (e.g. that of a seafarer, Acts 28:4; 2 Cor 11:26) and so belongs on the side of the demonic and that which opposes God. The Revelation of John, in particular, extends traditions of Jewish apocalyptic, in its conception of the sea as a personal power (Rev. 7:2f) which will be overcome in the last days so that it...must surrender its dead (Rev. 20:13) and finally possess no more right to existence (Rev. 21:1).”

Conclusion

Beale feels that the “use here probably summarizes how all these various nuances of 'sea' throughout the book relate to the new creation...While all these meanings of 'sea' are in mind here, the allusion to Isaiah 65 and the immediate context [in conjunction with the absence of mourning and death in 21:4] suggest a focus on the sea as representing the threat of tribulation for God's people, which will no longer exist in the eternal state.”

WHAT IS MISSING IN HEAVEN?

The Littlest Angel by Charles Tazewell is a very popular and sentimental children's book sometimes read on Christmas since it involves a young angel in heaven presenting the Christ child with his precious box filled with “treasures” he had collected while on earth. The box seems like a rather humble offering, but God transforms it into the Star of Bethlehem.

I know that it is only a children's book, but it is usually read to them by adults, who might very well take its portrayal of eternal life with God as really representing what the Bible has to say. The whole premise is based on the faulty idea that those who die turn into angels. That idea appears absolutely nowhere in Scripture, which almost always contrasts angels with human beings, dead or alive. In fact, I believe that the only place in which they are actually compared to one another is in Luke 20:34-35 where Jesus says that those in heaven will not marry or be given in marriage, in commonality with the angels.

But the problems only begin with that point. First we must ignore the fact that what is apparently being pictured in the book is apparently some sort of waiting place, certainly not the new heaven and new earth of Revelation. That distinction is probably overlooked even by those adults reading the book. I do know that even Mark Twain made fun of such a concept of lifeless and joyless eternal existence floating among the clouds while strumming on a harp.

In fact, the heaven pictured by Tazewell would be sheer hell to most people since it is defined not by the few things which are there (lots of clouds, dreary required periods of choir practice and mandatory prayers), but almost exclusively by what is missing. The littlest angel has no friends with whom to play, no streams or mountains or meadows or pets or toys. He isn't even blessed with a decent singing voice. And the only colors in his heaven appear to be gold and perhaps blue. In fact, this angel's fondest wish is to have his little box restored to him containing his reminders of the good times he used to have on earth. And the author even states that Jesus Himself will regret having to leave earth to return to heaven.

In stark contrast, let us turn to the biblical image found in the Revelation 21-22 for a true picture, albeit one presented using images, of the New Jerusalem, the ultimate dwelling place for the chosen. Some critics have zeroed in on the sparseness of details we are given, other than the obvious profusion of gold and precious jewels everywhere, in order to satirize our promised eternal dwelling as a place about as boring as the picture that Tazewell paints.

But what if instead we concentrate on what is lacking in the biblical “heaven” of the last two chapters of the final book of the Bible. If we do, we will see that our life in God's very presence will not include:

    any crying or mourning (Rev. 21:4)

    any death (Rev. 21:4)

    any persistent and unrepentant wrongdoers (21:8,27; 22:15)

    any buildings within which to worship since God and the Lamb are its temple (21:22)

    any moon or sun since the light will be the light of God and the Lamb (21:23; 22:5)

    any night (21:25; 22:5)

    any illness (22:2)

    anything cursed (22:3)

Getting back to The Littlest Angel, note that its imagery is based on the mistaken notion of confusing the “heavens” that we see in the atmosphere and God's present dwelling place in Heaven (also sometimes known as the third heaven or the seventh heaven) and God's eventual place on a renewed earth, as pictured in Revelation. So rather than starting with nothing but clouds and blue sky and then adding a few minor amenities, as Tazewell does, instead we would be much closer to the truth if we started with all the glories of physical earth as we now know it (minus all forms of evil, both material and spiritual) and picturing the heavenly glories that will be added to it when the New Jerusalem descends to earth.

The only hitch that I personally see to such an approach is in having to admit that Revelation 21:1 states that the sea will be no more. I am not alone, I am sure, in enjoying the beach very much. Thus, this does seem like a giant step backward from our present existence. But if we treat the sea as an image of chaotic forces, as do most commentators, then even that makes sense.

"MOONSTRUCK" IN THE BIBLE (PSALM 121:6; MATTHEW 4:24; 17:15)

 The Old Testament contains this interesting promise:

    “The sun shall not strike you by day, nor the moon by night.” (Psalm 121:6)

Technically speaking, this is called an example of incomplete parallelism in which the second line echoes the form and general idea of the first line with, however, the absence of the verb and object, which are understood. Thus, we have:

    The sun shall not strike you by day, nor

    the moon          (strike you) by night.

There are several ways in which this verse can be interpreted:

Literary

You can see in this verse the pairing of opposites in “sun and moon” as well as in “day and night.” Often when this occurs in biblical writings, it is to be understood as a merism, a figure of speech in which the listing of opposite elements includes everything in between as well. Thus, the intended meaning might simply be that God will watch over you all the time. This is the interpretation found in a recent commentary by Nancy de Claisse-Walford.

Similarly, M'Caw and Motyer state, “The Keeper of Israel (v. 4) is 'your keeper,' shading from the sun and moon alike,' i.e. from all adversaries at all times, day and night.”

The Lord's protection “avails against the known and the unknown; perils of day and night; the most overpowering of forces and the most insidious.” (D. Kidner)

Ancient Superstition

But the above explanation is probably not complete in itself because it seemingly fails to draw an adequate parallel between the real danger of sunstroke in the first line (assuming that is what it is being referred to) and some sort of implied danger due to exposure to the moon in the second line. So here is where other commentators chime in.

Anderson says that “sunstroke was a real danger to travelers, and it was common in the ancient Near East (cf. 2 K. 4:19; Jon. 4:8; Jdt. 8:2f.). Equally frightening was the so-called 'moonstroke', and even our word 'lunatic' bears witness to this belief. Certain illnesses (such as epilepsy, fever) were frequently ascribed to the baneful influence of the moon. The parallelism between the sun and the moon is meant to be complementary (as in Jos. 10:12); Yahweh cares for his people both day and night.”

“God offers shade in the Middle Eastern sun; 'moon' is used as a formal poetic parallel to sun although according to some ancient views, exposure to the moon was also harmful (cf. Mt 17:15).” (Kselman)

“The moon has often in man's history been feared for its effect upon the mind and nervous system: cf. The word 'lunacy'. In Mt. 4:21; 17:15 'epileptic' is literally 'moonstruck'.” (L.C. Allen)

“Superstitious people may have believed that the moon had power to harm the person (cf. the English lunatic) but a believer in God needed not fear because the Lord watched over his own (Ps 121:5-6).” (Massouh and Verhoef)

Alter notes that the word 'shade' in v. 5 “is immediately literalized in the next line as a protection against sunstroke and moonstroke (the latter perhaps referring to madness supposedly caused by exposure to the moon). The point of the poem is that the Lord is quite literally a guardian or watchman who never sleeps.”

Medical

Derek Kidner states: “On the effects of 'the moon' on certain people, little is understood; but some kinds of mental disturbances vary with its phases. Not all popular belief on the subject is unfounded.” The following summary of an article put out by Cleveland Healthcare elaborates on that statement.

Preliminary medical research seems to indicate that the moon may have an impact on people with certain types of bipolar disorder. In a limited study (17 patients) by David Avery, he found that his patients cycled rapidly between states of depression and mania, with these cycles synchronized to the lunar cycle. Though the exact mechanism that causes this is unknown, it is believed that those quick changes in mood may be due to a disruption to their circadian rhythm and their sleep-wake cycle due to increased moonlight. Further work by Thomas Wehr seemed to confirm this study, but felt that the cause of the effect may more likely be due to changes in the gravitational pull of the moon. However, later studies have failed so far to duplicate these results.

Turning next to the New Testament, Matthew in 4:24 contains a list of those suffering from various diseases and physical conditions cured by Jesus, including demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics. The Greek word usually translated as “epileptics” (“lunaticks” in the King James Version) is seleniazomai, which literally translated means “moonstruck.”

The reason for the modern feeling that “moonstruck” is more related to epilepsy than to madness comes solely from the only other place in the NT where that same word appears, Matthew 17:15. The symptoms of the man in that case are more completely described in the parallel passage in Mark 9:14-29 and they closely match the description of epilepsy.

Not all commentaries, however, agree with that assessment. For example, France says that “we should note that in the ancient world, which was well acquainted with epilepsy, seleniazomai was not used at this time to mean epilepsy as such...J.M. Ross is more cautious, since 'if we translate it as epileptic we are probably narrowing down the meaning of the original and failing to make the classification clear' though his offered alternative, moonstruck, is even more open to misunderstanding. My translation 'subject to fits' attempts to avoid inappropriate medical precision.” NIV similarly translates it as “has seizures.”

But to confuse the issue even more, Dentan associates the Matthew passage with that in Psalms, concluding, “To be epileptic was attributed to the baleful influences of the moon, a demonic force (compare Ps. 121.6).”

But that “demonic force” cannot be the same sort of demon that Christ exorcized from the man in the Synoptic Gospels unless one wishes to feel that He was casting out the man in the moon. And we are certain that Mark ascribed the son's condition to demon possession.

Hill simply states that the “description of the boy's illness [in Mark's account] gives way to the medical diagnosis 'he is a lunatic' (seleniazetai); cf. 4:24. Epileptic fits were associated with the changes of the moon.” I have issue with two of Hill's statements. First, as mentioned above, “lunatic” is rejected as a valid English translation by most Greek scholars. Secondly, he fails to give any evidence showing that epilepsy and the phases of the moon were ever associated together.

Two more important points need to be made regarding this miraculous healing by Jesus. The first concerns the issue of etymology. Hendricksen wisely says, “The word which, in line with many translators and commentators, I have rendered epileptics, is in etymology [i.e. the subject of word origins] connected with the moon. Accordingly, some prefer the rendering 'moon-struck persons' or 'lunatics.' However, 17:15, where the same word is used and the affliction is graphically described, would seem to make it clear that the reference is to those who suffered from seizures; hence, epileptics. Though word derivation is important, it should not prevail over detailed description of an illness.” We could point to many words in current English which have quite a different meaning from that in the days where they were first coined. A pertinent example would be the use of “lunatic” or “loony,” both derived from the Latin word for moon, luna.

Therefore, the mere fact of a New Testament author such as Matthew using a word such as seleniazetai should not be used to demonstrate that he was mistakenly convinced that exposure to the moon caused or affected epilepsy.

Another caveat involves the supposed contradiction between scientific and spiritual explanations for medical phenomena. Colin Brown notes that several scholars “argue that a diagnosis of epilepsy in the story of Mark 9:14-27, Luke 9:37-43, and Matt. 17:14-18 does not automatically exclude demon possession as the cause. Epilepsy covers an ill-defined group of disorders characterized by fits or seizures. The case in question may have been an instance of idiopathic epilepsy for which modern medicine knows no cure and for which the cause may have been a spiritual malady.”

In the same vein, John Richards explains, “Had the lad in the Gospel suffered from symptomatic epilepsy our Lord could only have cured him by an act of healing rather than exorcism, just as he healed the man with an impediment in his speech (Mark 7:32-7) and a blind man (Mark 8:22-5) by the laying-on of hands, but a dumb and blind demoniac by exorcism (Matthew 12:2ff.).”

The difficulty in determining the difference between a medical and demonic cause is shown by the last two examples above. The same symptom (blindness) was apparently due to a medical cause in the first instance and caused by demonic influence in the second one. Personally, I feel the safest course today is to seek medical advice and assume, in light of passages such as Luke 10:17-18, that the days of widespread demon possession are no longer with us. Certainly I would not counsel anyone to eschew doctors in favor of relying entirely on faith healing.