GENESIS 32:22-32 -- JACOB'S WRESTLING MATCH

 

                           Night Wrestling (10'' x 10'' collage)

                                              Literary Structure of Genesis 32:22-31

    A. Jacob passes over Jabbok at night (32:22-24a)

            B. Jacob wrestles with a man (32:24b-25)

                    C. Jacob asks for blessing (32:26)

                            D. Man: “What is your name?” (32:27a)

                                    E. Answer: “Jacob” (32:27b)

                                            F. “You will be called Israel” (32:28)

                            D'. Jacob: “What is your name?” (32:29a)

                                    E'. No answer is given (32:29b)

                    C'. Jacob is blessed (32:29c)

            B'. Jacob: “I have seen God face to face” (32:30)

    A'. Jacob passes over Penuel at daybreak (32:31)

Most commentators have a great deal of trouble dealing adequately with this episode in the life of the patriarch Jacob, as you can see from the following quotes:

    “Considered by some the most strange and perplexing narrative in the entire OT is an ancient, complicated, mysterious and enigmatic passage that preserves multiple meanings.” (Wakely)

    Motyer calls it a “profound and mysterious story.”

    “Every man holds that this text is one of the most obscure in the Old Testament.” (Luther)

    “Gen 22-32 is a strange and mysterious narrative.” (Foulkes)

Of the many questions this story elicits in the reader, I will just briefly consider a few of the most important ones below. As you will note, not all scholars are in agreement in their answers.

Is this an historical account?

Whereas the majority of conservative scholars are firm in their belief that this should be considered as an episode that really happened in the life of Jacob, others are more suspicious:

    Gunkel dismissed the whole story as “the after-effect of an ancient goblin tale or Israelite tradition.”

    Hawk explained that Barthes “showed that the episode appropriates the elements of a story common in folklore (the hero's quest) but combines the elements of the pattern in surprising ways.”

    Josephus provided one of the earliest attempts to erase the historical context from this narrative. He felt it was merely the account of a dream. There is one thing to say in favor of this interpretation. Jacob's earlier dream of the ladder to heaven with angels ascending and descending occurred in the same geographical vicinity as he was leaving the Promised Land. Thus, this account as Jacob re-entered that land might be seen as a companion piece.

    The Jewish philosopher Philo viewed it as an allegory of the soul's fight against a person's sins.

    St. Jerome treated the story as an account of a long prayer Jacob made to God.

    Wakely states that “this feature of disappearing before sunrise is one of several motifs the story has in common with myth and folklore.”

Who is the mysterious wrestler?

Here the main possibilities are narrowed down to only a handful:

Westermann is practically alone in proposing that this mysterious personage is a hostile river god or demon, for evidence pointing to the similarity in sound between the Hebrew word for “struggled” and the River Jabbok. But as Wenham notes, it is also a play on words with “Jacob” and so may have nothing at all to do with the name of the river.

Then there is the interpretation given in early Jewish literature that the angel of Esau, named Samael, was the night wrestler.

Or more generally, another possibility is that Jacob was wrestling with an angel, since that is the view given in Hosea 12:3-4. Concerning that prophetic passage, Davies gives the following opinion: “Hosea plays down Jacob's victory by saying that it was only a victory over an angel, not God himself, who remained supreme. The fact that the word used in v. 3 (and in Gen. 32:28) for God can also mean 'a god', i.e. a lesser heavenly being than the supreme God, provided an opening for such a reinterpretation of the tradition.”

Chisholm: “The narrator, assuming Jacob's initial perspective, identifies God as 'a man', but by the story's end Jacob was certain he had encountered God 'face to face'. However, a later tradition suggests Jacob wrestled with an angel (Hos. 12:4); the relationship between the two traditions is complex.” In another writing, Chisholm adds, “Perhaps Jacob's words in Gen 48:15-16, where he appears to refer to God as an 'angel,' influenced the tradition expressed in Hosea.”

Foulkes: “Jacob...wrestles with a 'man,' but his struggle in the darkness proves to be with one more than human. The Hebrew elohim most frequently means God, but the interpretation of Hos 12:4 is possible, 'He struggled with the angel.' Yet, in effect it could be said to Jacob, 'You have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.”

Why does he want to leave before daybreak?

One possibility may have occurred to readers who are familiar with the Dracula story, namely that the wrestler will be destroyed if exposed to sunlight. Aside from that farfetched notion, Kline is representative of many scholars who say, “The angel's desire to depart before daylight expressed God's concern lest Jacob perish through beholding His face unobscured by the darkness.”

What does he mean by saying that Jacob has wrestled with God and men?

The Message leaves out the reference to “men” entirely and paraphrases the verse as “you've wrestled with God and you've come through.”

Living Bible reads, “It is Israel – one who has power with God. Because you have been strong with God, you shall prevail with men.” That rendering puts off Jacob's struggles with men to some future time.

Wong suggests that the original consonantal text can be said to read, “Because you are right with God, with men you will prevail [see the Living Bible paraphrase above].” This would fit the subsequent passage where Jacob and Esau are tentatively reconciled, but hardly in the context of the wrestling match. Wong further proposed that the standard Hebrew text added particular vowels in order to make the text purposely derogatory of the patriarch Israel in order to speak against the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Wong's scenario is unlikely and has no real proof.

“Men”

Carr reflects the opinions of most scholars in feeling that the “men” refer to Esau and Laban. I personally believe that it more specifically points back to the time in the womb when Jacob grabbed Esau's heel.

God

It should be noted that the name Yahweh appears nowhere in the text, just the generic term elohim. Therefore, NRSV is justified in giving the alternative reading, “with divine and human beings.” However, Ellul expresses the opinion: “He is not just the omnipotent God doing as he wills in heaven and earth. He stoops to man's loftiness. As he wrestled with Jacob at the ford of Jabbok, so he wrestled as an equal with Jonah.”

An Angel

“It was the captain of the Lord's hosts (cf. vv. 1f and Jos. 5:13f.; Ho. 12:3)...The divine Adversary was also the electing-saving Lord who strengthened Jacob with grace to wrestle on against Himself lest he be overcome and condemned! So by persistence in believing supplication Jacob emerged from the ordeal with a blessing.” (Kline)

“The angel who wrestled with Jacob (Hos 12:4) was recognized to be God (Gen 32:30). The angel-of-the-Lord theophanies are linked with major statements in redemptive history, including the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.” (Rooker)

Pre-incarnate Christ

Kaiser relies on Hosea 12:3-4, noting the parallelism between God and the angel there. He concludes: “It thus appears that the 'man' or 'angel' with whom Jacob wrestled was Jesus himself, in a temporary incarnate form prior to his permanent enfleshment when he would come to earth as a human baby. This is consistent with other places in the Old Testament where the 'angel of the Lord' can be identified as the second person of the Trinity.”

Note that in a way there is no need to definitively chose between the above divine possibilities since they are very closely related with one another as divine to one extent or another.

What is the overall significance of this event?

As you read through the following comments, I will not be surprised if you come to the same conclusion that I had, namely, that the majority of these scholars appear to some extent to be spouting out a lot of theological jargon to hide the fact that they are just as confused with the story as I happen to be.

Stubbs says “it indicates that the final goal of the relationship between God and Israel is that Israel and God can be intimately present to one another; to be 'uncovered' in a reversal of the fall, to see one another 'face to face.' The goal is for humanity, represented by Israel, to be able to stand in God's presence without shame, to be reconciled with God as Jacob and Esau were.”

Patterson: “In doing so Jacob learned that a person gains the victory in life only when he or she strives to receive divine blessing, a truth represented in the change of Jacob's name to Israel.”

“Jacob was given the final lesson that broke down his self-will and convinced him that God's blessing was not something to be seized but to be accepted as a gift of grace.” (Peake) Note how this interpretation appears to be the exact opposite of the lesson Stubbs gets out of the story.

Knight: “The new orientation that Jacob had then received was the sign that the objectionable, self-centered Jacob...was still beloved of God. The 'new' Jacob had therefore become known as 'Israel', because as a forgiven man he had now become a new personality.”

“His encounter with the angel taught Jacob that the ultimate struggle for blessing must be with God and not humans.” (McKeown)

Motyer says that “the story in Genesis 32:22-32 is prototypical; that is, it reveals the underlying dynamic of Israel's relationship with Yahweh so as to set a pattern for the nation's whole history...The encounter with Esau is the climax of God's fourteen year strategy to turn Jacob the schemer into someone after whom God himself can be named (32:9; cf. Exod. 3:15)...But he cannot have it so long as he remains 'Jacob', who wangles blessings by subterfuge. And he cannot have it so long as he regards God as there simply to serve his agenda, deliverance from Esau. He needs to realize that he is there to serve God, not vice versa.”

Kline: “Before entering the land of inheritance, he must undergo an experience that sealed him as a man of faith and pointed him by a mysterious sign to the ultimate source of saving blessing.”

“srh occurs only 3x in the OT, all in reference to Jacob's wrestling with the divine being in Gen 22 (Hos 12:4-5 refers to this tradition, using srh twice). The primary occurrence is in Gen 32:29...The purpose of the text is to make a theological claim about God's transformation of Jacob, the former trickster.” (Bracke)

“The surprise ending of reconciliation [between Jacob and Esau] (Gen 33:4) is anticipated by Jacob's 'wrestling' in Genesis 32:24-32, when Jacob's name is changed by God to signal a transition from a relationship of deceit to one that God had restored...From a theological perspective, conflict with God, and the necessity of ultimately submitting to him, is part of the human condition and integral to the gospel.” (Knauth)

“In this way, the community of Israel, as descendants of this god-wrestler, is depicted as a group that successfully strives with God and humans.” (Carr)

The footnote in the Jerusalem Bible states that “the patriarch holds fast to God and forces from him a blessing; henceforth all who bear Israel's name will have a claim on God. It is not surprising that this dramatic scene later served as an image of the spiritual combat and of the value of persevering prayer (St. Jerome, Origen).”

Another final problem I have with most of the above comments in this last section is that they act as if Jacob was a totally changed, and better, person after this encounter. However, within a few verses he will baldly lie to Esau by telling him that he will go with him when he had no intention to do so but headed off in another direction instead. He was just as devious as ever, and it wasn't until a number of years later that some sort of real reconciliation between the two brothers occurred.

In that respect, I somewhat agree with Hamilton, who proposed that the duplicate renaming of Jacob to Israel mentioned in Genesis 35:10 is to be taken as follows: “This is not to be explained as a clumsy doublet. Rather, the reference to the name change before Jacob is reconciled with Esau and after he is reconciled with Esau suggests that Jacob did not fully become Israel until after he was reconciled with his estranged brother.” But a full reconciliation did not really occur until Genesis 35:29, and even after that, the names Jacob and Israel continue to both be used right up to the time of Jacob's death (see Genesis 50:24).

THE NUMBER "NINE" IN THE BIBLE

It is well known that certain numbers in the Bible may have more than a literal meaning attached to them:

    One: the unity of God

    Two: a quorum

    Three: the Trinity

    Four: creation

    Five: a common measurement based on the digits of one hand

    Six: an incomplete number falling short of perfection

    Seven: perfection or completion

    Eight: a new beginning

    Ten: another complete number

Notice how the number nine is prominent by its absence. And while it is not commonly encountered in the Bible, I would propose that, as one short of the perfect number 10, it may also stand for something not completed or imperfect just as 6 (one less that the perfect number 7) does elsewhere. Below is a quick review of the places in the Old and New Testaments where “nine” appears in a possibly symbolic context. Since most of these appear in historical settings, I realize that it may be stretching a point to look for anything deeper than a literal meaning in these passages.

Genesis 14:9

“Gen 14 is a unique chapter, which has occasioned a vast amount of discussion...Theologically, it is not easy to see the purpose and function of the story.” (D.F. Payne)

However, from a literary point of view, Hamilton notes: “The key chapter in Genesis for the institution of the covenant with Abraham are chs. 15-17. But standing on both sides of this crucial pericope are events involving Lot in unpleasant situations.”

The chapter contains several battles between alliances of kings, culminating in the capture of Lot, who must be rescued by Abraham. Verse 9 tabulates the battle as 'four kings against five,' which Wenham says “is typical of royal campaign records (cf. Josh 12:24; 2 Sam 23:39).” However, the form of those two cited passages is nothing like that in Gen. 14:9.

Perhaps, I might propose, we are to see that this battle is not at all conclusive since the two numbers add up to the “incomplete” number nine. The really conclusive encounter comes when Abraham and his men free Lot in the following verses.

Genesis 17:1

Wenham: “This most significant episode in the Abraham cycle begins rather dully with a note about his age, 'When Abraham was ninety-nine.' Yet this remark is important for it puts the momentous promises that constitute the centerpiece of this episode in context and makes it possible for us to appreciate how amazing they are.”

Thus, Abram was 99 years old when God made a covenant with him, his name was changed to Abraham, he was circumcised (17:24) and begat the promised son. Besides being a historical fact, we might say that his life up to that point was incomplete (one short of the perfect number 100) until these important events took place.

The Book of Job

The bulk of this book is comprised of Job's replies to the arguments of his 3+1 friends, presented in three cycles. Interestingly, the first three interrogators give only give eight speeches between them, the third round petering out with no comments from Zophar. That is followed in the book by an extended argument by the young Elihu, who only first appears in chapter 32. The fact that these nine speeches are all off-base and incomplete in their knowledge of God's ways is then underscored by the appearance of God himself who in the tenth speech sets Job straight.

Nehemiah 6:4-5

This is another passage in which 4 and 5 appear in close conjunction with one another. It reads: “They [Nehemiah's enemies] sent to me four times in this way, and I answered them in the same manner. In the same way Sanballat for the fifth time sent his servant to me with an open letter in his hand.” This recounts various unsuccessful attempts to stop Nehemiah from his task of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem in one way or another. The fact that they could not complete their schemes is symbolically underlined by the 4 + 5 formulation, one short of the perfect number 10.

Interestingly, the Greek Septuagint translation of this verse omits both of these numbers, perhaps feeling that they served no particular purpose.

Nehemiah 11:1

A different usage of “nine” appears here in the description of how the city of Jerusalem was repopulated. Fensham explains that “the leaders already lived in Jerusalem and that measures for the other people were being taken...Lots were cast to select one out of every ten persons to live in Jerusalem...The people regarded their selection by the sacred lot as the will of God, and were thus satisfied and glad to do his bidding. For this positive attitude they were praised by the rest of the people...It was for them a privilege to live so close to the temple where the special presence of the Lord was felt...The remaining nine were to stay in the rural cities or towns in order to maintain farming activities.”

We will see this same special honor for one out of ten in the NT story of the healing of the lepers, cited below.

In discussing the significance of the number, Jenson says, “Nine appears rarely, although as one less than ten it is significant in the nine-tenths of Neh. 11:1.” Unfortunately, he fails to spell out precisely what that significance is.

Isaiah 17:6

In the oracle concerning Damascus, God tells the prophet there will be a day when “the glory of Jacob [i.e. the Northern Kingdom] will be brought low...And it shall be as when reapers gather standing grain...gleanings will be left in it, as when an olive tree is beaten – two or three berries in the top of the highest bough, four or five on the branches of a fruit tree.”

Oswalt comments: “The prophet uses three figures of speech [in vv. 4-6] to describe what will remain to Israel (and Syria)...In each of these ways...the prophet says that only bits and pieces will be left to Damascus and Ephraim when God has done his work.”

The way the passages goes from two-three to four-five is reminiscent of Amos 1-2, which contains eight oracles of doom having the same format: “Thus says the LORD: For three transgressions of [name of country], and for four, I will not revoke the punishment.” The x,x+1 formula has been explained in various ways, one of which in Amos is to indicate that the destruction will be complete (3 + 4 = 7). If the same sort of reasoning is used in the case of Isaiah 17:6, then we might say that the Northern Kingdom's destruction will not be complete since 4 + 5 only equals 9, not 10.

Matthew 18:12-13 // Luke 15:1-10

Only Matthew's Gospel has the parable of the one missing sheep out of the 100 in the flock. Luke, however, additionally contains the somewhat parallel story of the one missing coin out of 10. The number 99 is prominently mentioned in both gospels, but the number 9 has to be deduced in the story of the woman's coins.

The biggest issue in understanding the missing sheep parable, according to most scholars, revolves around the seemingly larger value the shepherd places on the one sheep in relation to the 99. Thus, Fitzmyer responds, “Joy over ninety-nine who have no need of repentance cannot be compared with the divine joy over a penitent!” And Blomberg states, “The theme of greater joy over the captured stray may seem incongruous but only to those whose hearts are hardened like that of the prodigal son's brother (Luke 15:25-32).”

France says that this joy “emphasizes God's pastoral care: it is caused by the recovery, rather than by any superiority of the sheep itself.” By contrast, the early Gnostic writing, Gospel of Thomas (#107), tried to explain the “problem” by stating that the missing sheep was bigger than the other 99 and thus of special importance.

Strangely, the Gnostic writing called The Gospel of Truth (AD 140-180) comes the closest to agreeing with my own feeling regarding the Parable of the Lost Sheep, even if it is expressed in a rather cryptic manner. Verses 31-32 of that document say that the 99 are held in the left hand, but when the missing one is found, all 100 are transferred to the right hand. The import of this mystic language appears to be that the 99 are incomplete without the missing one, falling short of the “perfect” or “complete” number 100.

Thus, as Kistemaker puts it, both parables have “a definite evangelistic thread...The fervor Jesus displayed in associating with the so-called 'sinners' of his day must glow in every member of the church, radiating the warmth of evangelistic zeal...” I have been in all too many congregations who felt completely self-satisfied just as they were and fought any attempts to “waste” the resources of the church in efforts to reach the lost.

Matthew 27:45 // Mark 15:33-34 // Luke 23:44-46

The time of Jesus' death according to these three sources occurred around the ninth hour, which is equivalent to 3 PM. Most scholars feel that the significance of that time lies in the fact that this was one of the regular times in which sacrifices were offered in the Temple along with prayers to God (cf. Exodus 29:39; Leviticus 6:20; and Josephus' Antiquities 14.65.) This background certainly fits in with Jesus making his final prayer to God followed soon after by his sacrificial death on our behalf. In addition, Raymond Brown, for one, notes that the time indication is pertinent in highlighting the unusual darkness that spread across the land. He quotes a number of OT passages in which such a darkening seems to have been predicted much earlier.

But there may additionally be significance in the number “nine” in regard to the events taking place. For this possibility, see my comments on the passages in Acts below.

Mark 10:21

This is probably the most subtle allusion to “nine” in the whole Bible. The rich young ruler comes to Jesus and recounts all the commandments he has followed faithfully from his youth. But Jesus says to him, “Sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” The man goes away sorrowing since he loves his possessions. Jesus has pinpointed the one lack in this man's life. He had not really followed all ten commandments, but only nine since he coveted all of his possessions and was unwilling to share them with anyone else.

Luke 17:17

In this miracle story, ten lepers are healed by Jesus but only one returns to thank Him. This account differs in its use of “nine” in a slightly different way than that number functioned in His matching parables discussed above. In those former cases, the emphasis was on the necessity of the lost one to be restored in order that perfection be reached. But in this case, the emphasis of the number nine is on the incomplete nature of the healed, but ungrateful, lepers.

“The contrast of nine with one further expresses the pathos, for the nine were presumably Jews, members of the house of Israel. Obedient enough to carry out Jesus' injunction to present themselves to the priests, they were cured – physically; but their failure to react responsibly (in not glorifying God and thanking Jesus) reveals that they have missed the greatest moment of their lives.” (Fitzmyer)

And Ellis adds, “The ungrateful 'nine' exemplify the general attitude of the Jewish people toward Jesus' mission.”

Acts 3:1

At the ninth hour of prayer, Peter and John were entering the temple when they encountered a lame man asking for alms. Instead, Peter heals him of his infirmity.

Acts 10:3,30

In this somewhat related episode, a godly gentile named Cornelius, known for his alms-giving, is praying at the ninth hour when an angel comes to tell him that his prayers and alms have been noticed by God, and that he needs to contact Peter. Peter comes to Cornelius' house and converts him and other gentile God-fearers.

It may be a bit of a stretch, but I see a common pattern between these two stories in Acts and the account of Jesus' death. All three occurred at the ninth hour in the context of prayers to God, and in each case what was imperfect at the time (less than the perfection of 10) becomes perfect. That applies to the despair of the cross leading directly to resurrection, the lame man being healed, and the first group of gentiles responding positively to the message of eternal salvation.

"THE FOUNDATION(S) OF THE EARTH" IN THE BIBLE

This common (approximately 20 times) phrase appears throughout the Bible, where it is often used as a marker of time. Thus, we have at least four places in the Old Testament where the laying of the foundations of the earth is said to occur soon after the stretching out of the heavens (Isaiah 51:13,16; Jeremiah 31:37; Zechariah 12:1), obvious references to the early verses of Genesis 1. This was said to have occurred “in the beginning” (Hebrews 1:10) or “long ago” (Psalm 102:25).

Then we run into some slightly contradictory passages concerning the durability of this foundation. Psalm 104:5 states that it “shall never be shaken,” and Micah 6:2 alludes to the “enduring foundations of the earth.” But then the Psalmist turns around and states that the foundations trembled and shook when God became angry (Psalm 18:7; 82:5). In addition, we read in II Samuel 22:16 that “the foundations of the world were laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD.” Of course, those particular passages are not meant to be read literally and are obviously hyperbolic.

But the most intriguing passages in this regard are those which talk about things that happened before, during, and after the setting of the earth's foundation.

    Proverbs 8:29 reads as follows: “When he [i.e. God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I [i.e. Wisdom] was beside him, like a master worker.”

    Then the author of Hebrews begins in 9:26 quoting from Psalm 95:11 – “I swore they shall not enter my rest” and adds “for his works were finished at the foundation of the world.”

Next are those verses that talk about things happening “since (or beginning with) the foundation of the world.” Luke 11:50 mentions “the blood of prophets shed since the foundation of the world” beginning with Abel. In a similar mode, Hebrews 9:26 (felt by a number of scholars to have been written by Luke also) compares the one-time sacrifice for sin by Christ on the cross with the yearly sacrifice brought by the high priest for the sins of the people. He shows the superiority of Christ's sacrifice by saying that otherwise “he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world.”

The most mysterious references, however, are to things which actually happened before the foundation of the earth.

    John 17:24 says that God loved Christ before the foundation of the world.

    Ladd points to the many places in the NT where the pre-existence of Christ is taught, most prominently in the poetic prologue to John's Gospel. Ladd references Proverbs 8:29 above in order to point to the similarities between Wisdom and the Word (Logos). He concludes by citing two apocryphal texts: “However, wisdom is never called the word of God, even though she came forth from the mouth of the Most High (Sir. 24:3) and wisdom is placed in parallelism to the word in the Wisdom of Solomon (9:1-2).”

    Ephesians 1:4-5 – “...he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. He destined us for adoption...”

    Marcus Barth discusses this passage in some depth, starting with the statement: “There are six distinctive reasons why Ephesians cannot be considered the charter for the eternal predestination of one part of mankind for bliss, the other for hell, and a seventh reason which by itself is decisive.” I will hardly do justice to Barth's reasoning here, but his statement rests on factors such as the following:

        a. There is a general adoring, rather than calculating or speculative, tone to the passage.

        b. The election of men is not an impersonal issue for God but a strictly personal one.

        c. The author is dependent on Old Testament statements about election.

        d. This election is not a hidden mystery.

        e. This election is concerned with historical deeds by men in time.

        f. Election is “not a pillow to sleep on, but a stronghold in times of temptation and trials.”

        g. Finally, “The formula 'in Christ' denotes the concentration, summation, revelation, and execution of God's own decision in one person, that is, the Messiah upon whom the Jews had set their hope (1:12).”

The last category of such references is to things that happened “from the foundation of the world.” To my naïve mind, there doesn't seem to be much difference here between “since” and “from” the foundation of the world. And in actuality, the Greek word translated by those two prepositions is exactly the same, 'apo. Here is how some commentators weigh in on these particular passages:

    Isaiah 40:21 – “Have you not known? Have you not heard?...Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?”

    Oswalt notes that 'from' (min) is missing in the final line but understood to be carried over from the previous line. “Although the prophet does not specify which beginning he means, the following colon seems to make clear that it is the beginning of all things; foundations of the earth refers to the beginnings of the earth and envisions a time when the world was not. What he is saying is that careful thought about the origins of the world must point to a creator beyond the cosmos itself.”

    Matthew 13:35 – “This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, 'I will open my mouth in parables. I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.'” This approximately renders Psalm 78:2, which however ends with “from of old” instead.

    “Matthew's rendering of Psalm78:2 reinforces the hidden nature of mystery to outsiders or to those who lack 'eyes to see' and 'ears to hear.'They are simply unable to grasp unveiled revelation. The quotation also corresponds to the temporary hiddenness of the mystery. God has, in eternity past ('since the foundation of the world'), planned that the kingdom ought to be introduced in an inaugurated stage and not only consummated form, though he did not divulge it clearly until the coming of Jesus.” (Beale and Gladd)

    Matthew 25:34 – “Then the King will say to those at his right hand. 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

    France explains, “This new status is not an afterthought but the culmination of God's purpose from them 'since the foundation of the world.'... As with other such apparently deterministic language in the NT, it is possible to read 'for you' here in either a more general or a more personal sense. Traditional Calvinism has favored the more rigorous, personal interpretation which concludes that the identity of the individuals who will enjoy these blessings is already decreed before they are born. Others have understood the 'you' to refer to the class of the saved as a whole: God has prepared this kingship for those who will prove to be worthy of it, but who those people will be remains to be discovered on the basis of their response to the gospel and to the will of God.”

    Revelation 13:8; 17:8 – These seemingly parallel passages talk about “those whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the Lamb's book of life” being condemned at the Last Judgment. The interpretation of 13:8 is the most problematic due to the uncertainty of how to interpret the Greek. This can best be shown first by considering how various English interpretations deal with the phrase “from the foundation of the world,” that is, whether they connect it with the writing of the names or with the Lamb being slain.

        1. Associating the phrase with “written” are RSV, TEV, NRSV, NEB, and The Message.

        2. Associating it with “slain” are KJV and J.B. Phillips

        3. NIV opts for “slain” but gives “written” as an alternative possibility.

        4. NASB chooses a preferred association with “written” but alternatively says that it may refer to “slain” instead.

        5. The Living Bible similarly prefers “written” but attaches a footnote mentioning “slain” with the added comment: “That is, regarded as slain in the eternal plan and knowledge of God.” This comment, with others below, seems to adequately answer Walvoord's objection that Jesus “was not crucified when the world was created.” Below are some additional scholarly comments concerning these passages in Revelation.

    Morris takes the phrase to modify 'slain' rather than 'written,' saying: “It is in the capacity of the slain Lamb that Christ brings salvation. Either way God's eternal power is in view and is contrasted with the fleeting might of the powers of evil.”

    Mounce: “The problem in the immediate verse is not the meaning of the phrase but its place in the sentence. Was it the writing of believers' names or the death of the Lamb which dates from the foundation of the world. The RSV and many of the newer translations follow the first alternative.The faithful are guarded by their election...This is said to have taken place at the foundation of the world...It is better in this case to follow the order of the Greek syntax and read, 'the Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world.' That is, the death of Christ was a redemptive sacrifice decreed in the counsels of eternity.”

    Bruce opts for the phrase to be read in conjunction with “written,” not “slain.” He cites as support Revelation 3:5; 17:8; and 20:12,15.

    Beasley-Murray: “The reference of the words from the foundation of the world is uncertain: they can be linked with the slaying of the Lamb...or with the writing of the saint's names in the book of life...Both are equally true; for the former cf. 1 Pet. 1:19,20, for the latter Eph. 1:4. The difficulty is settled for most by an appeal to [Rev.] 17:8, where almost identical language is used, connecting the phrase with the writing in the book [of life]. Nevertheless the word order is decidedly against this interpretation, unless it were true that the book [of Revelation] as we have it is a translation from John's original writing [supposedly in Aramaic].”

    Walvoord says that “the words 'from the Creation of the world' seem...to relate to the time in eternity past when the names were written in the book of life...13:8 probably means simply that those who are saved had their names written in the book of life in eternity past in anticipation of the death of Christ on the cross for them and that they will never be erased [cf. Revelation 3:5 and 22:19].”

    Beale: “The last phrase, “from the foundation of the world,” might explain the death of Christ was decreed before time began...Or it might affirm a decree of reprobation that took place before creation: ...The former translation is viable because the statement about the Lamb's death is immediately followed by the precreation temporal expression. And it is unlikely that the concluding temporal clause goes with 'written,' since twelve words separate them...But 13:8 may refer to the same decree as 17:8...But if that is the case here in 13:8, why is the temporal phrase separated from the clause it modifies? It is so that a further description may be given to 'the book of life.' 'Of the Lamb who was slain' is a genitive of possession, or it could also identify the Lamb as the source of the 'life' associated with the 'book' (the genitive functions likewise in 21:27).”

Beale's final words on the subject serve as a good way to end this discussion: “This conclusion stands regardless of how the syntactical problem is solved. Because the book of life is unreservedly ascribed to Christ, the salvation of all, implicitly including OT saints, is represented as depending on the one redemptive act of Christ.”

REVELATION 2:10 -- "TEN DAYS"

There are many intriguing questions involving the Book of Revelation that have kept scholars over the centuries busy trying to decipher, with seemingly no end in sight. As a simple example, consider the above verse addressed to the church in Smyrna, which reads (in the NRSV) “Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Beware, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison so that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have affliction. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.” I want to concentrate on just one detail here, the time of “ten days.”

Translation

We are first based with a translation problem. For one thing, Robertson, in opposition to almost all other scholars, feels it should be rendered “within ten days.” Despite that minority opinion, most modern English translations read basically the same as the NRSV above.

Interpreting Numbers Such as Ten

Next to determine is whether the number is to be taken literally, as a round number, symbolically, or rhetorically. It is interesting to note that fundamentalist commentators tend to shy away from attempting to identify when exactly those ten days occurred and generally say nothing whatsoever regarding the number. As to the mainstream scholars, whether conservative or liberal, the following opinions have been offered:

Jenson points to the usage of ten as a round number (Genesis 31:7,41; Numbers 14:22) and “as a literary structuring principle (Genesis 5; Exodus 7-11)”. It may also imply “a note of completeness,” as in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13.

Hemer: “Care must be taken not to attribute theological significance to the use of particular numbers where it is arguable that no such significance was intended. Many cases are better treated as literal or rhetorical or as round-number approximations where these explanations seem natural and sufficient. Thus the particular frequency of multiples of five and ten is in the part a natural consequence of the use of decimal reckoning.” Although Hemer's point is well taken in general, we must remember that we are in the world of apocalyptic literature here in Revelation where almost every detail has a figurative or symbolic significance.

Thus, Hawthorne states, “Not only was ten a favorite round number that could be greater or less according to the circumstances (Gen. 31:7), but seemingly it was also a sacred number...' ten' is also prominent in apocalyptic symbolism (Dan., Rev.)...” In a similar vein, Beale says, “Possibly the 'ten days' is literal, but more likely it is figurative for a period of trial.”

Mounce divides the majority view concerning this time period into two types when he says, “Opinions vary about the time intended. Most view the ten days as a round number indicating a short period of time..., but others hold it to be a prolonged but definitely limited period...The latter interpretation is more in keeping with the seriousness of the impending crisis.”

Hemer echoes that opinion: “The 'ten days' of Rev. 2:10 are usually said to denote a typically short, or alternatively a typically prolonged but limited, period of tribulation.” Those two views are reflected in the quotes below.

“She has before her apparently no future, only testing, suffering, prison (ten days, signifying a long, indeterminate duration).” (Ellul)

“This tribulation would last 'ten days,' that is, a definite, full, but brief period. The fact that the trial is but for a 'short season' is often urged as a motive for endurance, Is. 26:50; 54:8; Matt. 24:22; II Cor. 4:13; I Pet. 1:6.” (Hendricksen) Of course, the actual phrase 'ten days' does not appear in any of those cited passages.

“Such distress is to extend for ten days, i.e. a short period. It is sometimes held to be identical with the 'great tribulation' of 7:14, but it seems more likely that a local persecution is in mind.” (Hendricksen) In that regard, Bruce says that this time period refers to “a prolonged but not unlimited time period. Well-known episodes in the history of the Smyranean church are the martyrdom of Polycarp (A.D. 156) and that of Pinius (A.D. 250).” Beale even adds that Polycarp, the early bishop [as of A.D. 115] may have actually read this letter and taken comfort from it.

“The number ten may well point to the completion of their suffering. Cf. D.T. Niles, 'It is only for a limited time that you will have to endure, even though the endurance will be tested to the limit.' It certainly points to something more than three and a half days, which is John's usual expression for a trial of limited duration. Yet even ten has its limit. Not Satan but God has the last word in this matter.”

Parallel Passages

I find just as enlightening those commentators who point to other passages within or outside Scripture as possible parallels or precursors to Revelation 2:10:

Beale and McDonough: “The mention that the saints in Smyrna 'will have ten days of tribulation' is an allusion to Dan. 1:12-15, where the 'testing' of Daniel and his three friends for 'ten days' is mentioned three times. The emphasis is on a fixed, limited period of suffering that those in Smyrna must endure in a similar manner to Daniel and his friends as they underwent trial and were tempted.”

Ford: “The imprisonment is to last for ten days. This may simply imply 'a short period,' but it may have an indirect reference to such texts as Dan 1:12-14 where Daniel and his companions are 'tested' with a vegetarian diet for ten days and Gen 24:55 where Rebekah's family ask that she remain with them ten days...Smyrna is bidden to be faithful unto death. Perhaps here again there is an allusion to her history, for Cicero calls her 'the most faithful of our allies.' She is bidden to show the same loyalty on the spiritual level as she did on the political.” Thus, as Hendricksen says, “The faithfulness and loyalty of the Smyrnians became proverbial.”

Hartman and DiLella, writing on Daniel 1:12-14, state: “The period of ten days for a spiritual trial is a common motif in the literature of the time (cf. Rev 2:10; Jubilees 19:9; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Joseph 2:7...).”

Beale also cites Genesis 24:55; 31:7,41; the plagues in Exodus; Numbers 14:22; and Job 19:2-3.

But not all scholars are convinced that the above passages form adequate parallels to or the same explanations for Revelation 2:10:

Wenham points out the translation problem with Genesis 24:55, for example. This verse reads literally 'days or ten.' Despite this ambiguity in interpretation, 'ten days' is the translation of NRSV, NIV, JB, NEB, etc.

Hemer is dubious in regard to the Daniel reference: “The phrase ['ten days'] is commonly referred back to Dan. 1:12 ff. But it is not clear whether this allusion would have been readily perceived in Smyrna unless mediated through some more specific tradition, for the imagery of the letters is often concrete and pointed. No firm solution, however, can be offered on these lines.” However, he points to one other possibility in a widely regarded writing of the time period, the Sibylline Oracle 4:45-87. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find that passage in order to compare it with Revelation 2:10.

In addition, Goldingay writes concerning Daniel 1 that “ten is not a symbolic number, nor is ten days a common period for a trial (against Bentzen; Rev. 2:10 is surely dependent on Dan 1). Ten is merely a standard round number...and ten days simply suggests a period short enough not to arouse suspicion yet long enough for effects to be seen (cf. Gen 24:55).”

I would add that ten days on a vegetarian diet is hardly on the same scale of tribulation as that facing Smyrna.

Seow says regarding Job 19:2-3: “Ten times [is] not to be taken literally. The expression means numerous times.” Also note that the phrase “ten days” is missing here, a rather damning criticism that also holds for the other passages proposed above as helping to illuminate Revelation 2:10. These include Genesis 31:7,41; Exodus 7-11; 34:28; Numbers 14:22; Deuteronomy 4:13; Job 19:2-3; Jubilees 19:9; and Testament of Joseph 2:7.

A Modest Proposal

Since the above critiques leave us with no sure-fire prior references to give us guidance on what the church at Smyrna would have made of the warning of “ten days,” I feel justified in adding my own possibility. You may have noticed that all of the suggested parallels above come from either the Old Testament or extrabiblical writings of the general time period as Revelation. Missing from the list is the one passage in the New Testament which contains the key phrase “ten days,” namely Acts 25:6.

That passage relates that Paul was in Roman captivity waiting for 8-10 days for the return of Festus from Jerusalem where the hostile Jews were trying to convince him to hand Paul over to them for judgment.

Although there remains uncertainly regarding the exact dates of the writing of Acts and Revelation, there is every possibility that Acts was written first and circulated throughout the Christian world before John wrote his apocalyptic book. F.F. Bruce is typical of most responsible conservative scholars in pointing to the time somewhat before A.D. 64 for the composition of Acts. By contrast, the dates given for John's Apocalypse range closer to A.D. 90-110. That would have given plenty of time for Acts to have been copied and widely distributed to Christians throughout the ancient world before Revelation was written.

The second thing to note is that unlike the supposed OT parallels to Revelation 2:10 which those at Smyrna might not have been that familiar with, they would have been extremely interested in reading about Paul's encounters with official and unofficial opposition close to their own neck of the woods. That is especially true since those in Smyrna were most probably converted, at least indirectly, through Paul's ministry trips to Asia Minor, perhaps by way of the fledgling Ephesian believers.

And there are other factors aligning Acts 25 with the letter to Smyrna in Revelation 2:

    In both cases, Christians are, or are predicted to be, in Roman captivity.

    In both cases, the Jewish opposition has taken the opportunity to slander the believers.

    In both cases, Christians must endure tribulation for ten days before their fate is decided.

    In both cases, the possibility of martyrdom is mentioned.

As the admonition to remain “faithful” is given in Revelation, so that same word is a favorite of Paul, who utilizes it 25 times in his writings.

In regard to the point just mentioned, II Timothy 4:7-8 is of special interest: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.” Compare this to the similar promise to those in Smyrna that they will receive “the crown of life” if they are “faithful unto death.” (Revelation 2:10)

HOW MANY PEOPLE RETURNED FROM THE EXILE?

One internet site critical of the biblical accounts poses the following contradictions between statements made in Ezra and Nehemiah:

    “The number in the assembly was said to be 42,360 in Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 but the         individual numbers add up to 29,818 in Ezra and 31,089 in Nehemiah.”

So we are really faced with two problems here rather than just one. First is the issue concerning the fact that in each case the sum of the numbers earlier in chapter do not match up with the grand total. Secondly, we must deal with the fact that added-up numbers in Nehemiah do not give the same total as those in Ezra. We must admit that this appears to be, for once, a valid criticism of the biblical record. Thus,

    Cundall says, “It is not easy to account for the discrepancies.”

    Clines states, “Attempts at harmonization are unconvincing.”

    Myers: “No one has yet come up with a fully satisfactory explanation of the purpose of the list, of the place where it stood originally, or of the discrepancies between the two recensions.”

    Fensham: “The total in v. 64 [of Ezra 2] leaves us with an insoluble problem.”

But before throwing up our hands and giving up, I should also mention that a number of reputable Bible commentators feel that this is so minor an issue that they don't even bother pointing out the differences between the two passages. And others try to put the discrepancies into perspective with the following comments:

    “Despite some minor differences in names and numbers (about 8 percent of the total), it is quite clear that the list in Ezra 2 is identical with the list in Nehemiah 7.” (Yamauchi)

    “The view that the list is fictitious is no longer accepted by scholars.” (Fensham)

    And Cundall notes, “It is interesting to observe that no attempt at harmonization been made [between these two accounts].” If it were such a serious sin as our critic would have us believe, one would have expected that at least one or two scribes over the centuries would have tried to correct such an obvious contradiction.

Finally, we have the remarks from some of those who try to explain the differences we observe. Whether any of these completely satisfy our curiosity regarding this issue (and it is certainly not a matter to destroy anyone's faith), I will leave that up to you:

    Fensham starts with the most obvious scenario: “The divergencies in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah occur mainly in proper names and in numerical information. Such discrepancies might have been due to textual corruption.” As I have explained in several other posts, it is notoriously difficult to recover original information such as numbers and proper names once an accidental mistake in copying by scribes has occurred due to the principle of their low redundancy compared to that of words.

Fensham continues by saying, “H.L. Allrick has shown how the numerals in the Hebrew script could have been misinterpreted by later copyists...In the case of Nehemiah it is mentioned that the list is drawn up from 'the book of genealogy' (Neh. 7:5). This document might have been the original for both authors.”

He then offers another possibility only to refute it: “Some have proposed that women and children are left out of the totals of the families [referring to the 29,818 people mentioned in Ezra 2], but this leaves us with 12,542 women and children, much too low a figure. This total of 42,360, however, occurs also in Neh. 7 and must be regarded as correct. Somehow through textual corruption or by the omission of certain families, this discrepancy happened.”

I guess it is possible to propose that for one reason or another many of the women and young children either decided to forego the arduous journey back to Israel or were prevented from doing so by the Persian authorities, but that is probably only grasping at straws.

    Clines, on the other hand, points to another proposed solution: “By emending three figures (in Ezra 2:12, 16, 31) J. Bewer arrived at a total of 32,360 for which 42,360 would be a simple scribal error involving only one digit.”

Then there are the historical explanations for the various discrepancies. Myers states, regarding the numbers in Ezra, “It may be that the whole summary pertains to the situation aro    und 520 rather than 538 and thus would include the people of Judah who joined the golah [exiles] and the cumulative numbers of all who returned between the above-noted dates.”

    Williamson says, “The initial group, apparently lad by Sheshbazzar, returned around 537 BCE (the total figure, some 50,000 according to Ezra 2:64-65 and Neh 7:66-67, probably reflects various stages of return between the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, and arguably, includes some who had remained in the land).”

    Yamauchi agrees: “The list in Ezra is ostensibly the list of those who returned in response to the decree of Cyrus. But the large total numbers...have inclined most scholars to regard this as a cumulative total of the returnees. Ezra 8:1-20 records additional exiles who returned with Ezra.”

    “Others have suggested that later scribes were less meticulous in their copying of the Writings, the third section of the Hebrew Canon [which includes Ezra-Nehemiah]. Allied to this there is the possibility that the list of those who returned in 538 BC was modified and expanded to include others who returned subsequently, and even some who, though they had never been in exile,were fully in sympathy with the returned exiles. Seven [such] groups may be distinguished...The same total is given in Nehemiah and 1 Esdras [as in Ezra] but in none of the three do the constituent parts add up to this, indicating errors in interpreting numbers or in transmission.”

The same critical source follows this quandary with one dealing with the verses immediately following the above:

“How many singers accompanied the assembly? Ezra 2:65 says 200 while Nehemiah 7:67 says 245.”

Most of the comments above relating to the great difficulty in accurately copying numbers compared with words applies here as well. But in addition, there are at least two other factors applying to this particular situation. In the first place, it has been often noted that many of the numbers cited in the Old Testament historical books are obviously round numbers, not precise ones. We tend to follow the same practice today without anyone calling us liars for using such a type of shorthand. So Ezra may have merely rounded down the actual number of 245 to 200.

But there is another possibility in this particular case. Some manuscripts of Nehemiah 7:68 are missing the first half of the verse, reading “They had 736 horses, 245 mules.” Thus, Hulst in speaking for the United Bible Societies chooses to omit this sentence due to poor textual support while some modern translations such as RSV and NRSV have decided to include it. Obviously, at this point in the text either (a) an early scribe committed an accidental error in transcribing the copy he had and omitted that sentence or (b) a copyist using private information purposely added this tidbit.

Whichever scenario is the correct one, what struck me was the fact that the number of mules given in some manuscripts and the number of singers in the Nehemiah account was identical – 245. Therefore we are faced with the strong possibility that a scribe's eyes accidentally skipped over a line in the manuscript he was copying and attached “245” to the number of singers, taken from the number of mules in the following verse. This sort of error is so common that textual scholars have even given it a technical name, haplography.

WHEN DOES PERSONHOOD BEGIN?

The question of when true personhood begins is a complicated one, and I have to admit from the start that I do not really have any hard-and-fast answers to give or any preconceived (forgive the pun) position to defend. Nevertheless, I recently was asked to respond to a paper written by a knowledgeable Christian (whom I will only refer to as “the author”) who felt that the Bible supports the position that true human existence does not start at conception, but at some later point in the development of the fetus in the womb. The rather piecemeal discussion below addresses passages cited in that paper, basically arranged according to their appearance in the Bible.

Genesis 1:27: The author of that paper rightly discounts the first appearance of all physical features in the womb as having anything to say regarding the point at which a fetus becomes fully human, but then follows that up by stating that at one point sex can be determined by ultrasound. This is supposed to somehow relate to Genesis 1:27, saying that “sex is intrinsic to a person’s identity (notwithstanding intersex anomalies; cf. Gen. 1:27; Matt. 19:12).” He must, however, realize that even if his reasoning (or implication) is correct, that would mean that those with intersex anomalies are not fully human. In addition, scientists have shown that the sex of a baby is determined at the point of fertilization, not when it can be detected by ultrasound.

Genesis 2:7: There is no argument concerning this verse as teaching, in his words, that “formation precedes personhood.” However, this verse alone does not necessarily prove anything concerning subsequent human beings beyond the first human couple. Also, it leaves out that fact that Genesis 7:22 portrays the animals as possessing that same breath of life (ruah) as humans. Instead, Gen. 2:7 may be the Bible's poetic way of expressing the important, and still not entirely explainable in scientific terms, original transition from inorganic matter (clay) into biological material capable of containing and reproducing life after its own kind. Such a one-time, pre-biotic evolution in the history of the world really says nothing concerning the point at which an individual fetus today could be considered as fully human or even having human potential.

The only difference between the two Genesis passages is brought out by D.H. Johnson, who says that Genesis 2:7 has God personally breathing it into human beings, “a sign of great intimacy [which] may indicate an ontological distinction [between humans and animals] as well.”

Genesis 25:22-23 and Luke 1:13-45: The author of the paper first admits that these two examples appear to support the position that full personhood begins before birth, demonstrated by, respectively, Jacob and Esau wrestling while still in the womb (Gen. 25:22-23) and John the Baptist recognizing Jesus while both were still in the wombs of their mothers (Luke 1:13-45). But then he dismisses these two passages by stating, “However, the preponderance of Biblical testimony weighs against pre-existing souls and the personhood of zygotes and unformed embryos.”

1. In the first place, that argument commits the common fallacy, also present in areas such as textual criticism, of counting the evidence instead of weighing it. And the great importance of these two examples is seen in the following points.

2. It is always risky in practicing exegesis to place too much emphasis on poetic or semi-poetic passages in order to attempt to tie down a literal biblical truth or doctrine. And unfortunately almost all of the passages quoted in the paper fall more into the poetic than the prose category or are quotations from such (semi-)poetic passages. Thus, that leaves little unambiguous biblical evidence left on which to hang the case that personhood doesn't begin until sometime later than conception. By contrast, both the Genesis 25 and Luke 1 examples fall squarely in the literal and historical category and thus should be considered as having much greater weight.

3. Those two passages span the historical range from the early Patriarchal Age to the beginning of the Gospel Age.

4. Between the two passages, we can clearly see the presence of both soul and spirit in the developing fetus. The struggle in Genesis 25 demonstrates the three basic soulish properties of intellect, will and emotion, while Luke 1 shows that an unborn child like John the Baptist already possesses the spiritual ability of being able to recognize and relate directly to the Divine Presence.

Exodus 21:22-25: The author states that this legal passage cannot be used to support any position related to the question of the beginning of life due to textual problems (i.e. the different wording in the LXX). To some extent I agree with that conclusion, but for an entirely different reason. After all, if we were to throw out all Old Testament texts in which the Septuagint version happened to disagree with the Hebrew, we would end up having a much smaller book.

It is the ambiguity of the wording in the Hebrew which is more of an issue. As Hamilton puts it, it is not clear “whether what happens to the woman [lit.., 'her children come forth'] refers to a miscarriage, a premature but healthy birth, or term delivery. Possibly the law deals with both a premature but healthy birth (v. 22b), and with miscarriage (vv. 23-25).”

Another argument sometimes adduced is that the penalty for the offending party is far too lenient than that for murder. That may be true, but keep in mind that we are really talking about manslaughter here at most, not a premeditated homicide.

I would also have to agree with Cole, who says, “It has sometimes been claimed by those in favor of abortion that the unborn child is not really considered as an individual here: but that is not the point of this passage, which is primarily concerned with injury to the woman. The destruction of the unborn child was regarded by the Hebrews as an instance of the most barbarous cruelty, calling down God's judgment (2 Ki. 15:16).”

And Knight flatly states regarding the commandment not to kill, “Infanticide...comes under this Word, and by implication, abortion, [Exodus] 21:22.”

Finally, there is the view of Kaiser in his Toward Old Testament Ethics who first says that the case cited in these verses “raises some extremely difficult exegetical questions.” He admits that his view differs from that taken in the Septuagint and by Philo, both of whom treated it as “only a miscarriage of a partially formed fetus.” Then later in his book he also admits that his interpretation is not supported by at least eight prominent English translations as well as six commentaries (as of his writing in 1983). But to support his view that the fetus is a full human being, he cites Jeremiah 1:4-6; Galatians 1:15; Psalm 139:13-16; Job 3:11; and Luke 1:39-44. However, he feels that Exodus 21:22-25 “is even more definitive in its regard for the sanctity of unborn life.” I will refer you to pp. 170-173 for his detailed arguments.

Job 31:15: Similarly, Job only alludes poetically to the “fashioning” by God of each person in order to make the point of the brotherhood of mankind, whatever their economic status on earth might be. Thus, this passage should not be taken as any sort of proof text for personhood coming at some point later than conception.

Psalm 51:5: The author of the paper also states that this verse proves that “it is nonsensical to claim that humans are conceived in sin and yet in that moment bear the image of God.” But if that same reasoning is applied to the parallel thought in the other half of this verse (“I was born guilty”), then one would also have to say that even after humans are born, they do not bear the image of God. Kselman says that this verse is just “an expression of the guilt-prone nature of humanity.” And M'Caw & Motyer feel the Psalmist “expresses the true depth of his sinfulness as being the natural state of man from birth.”

Psalm 139:16: Hooks says that when texts such as Genesis 2:7 “are compared with Jer. 1:5 and Ps. 139:16, it becomes clear that when used to describe Yahweh's people or his agents, the potter motif signifies divine election.” Thus, he associates it only with cases where specific people such as David are chosen by God for a particular task or role. And Konkel says, “The translation of the verse is problematic, but the import is that the psalmist was the special object of God's care and purpose for all the days 'formed' for him.” Note that the only “formation” here refers not to God forming the fetus into a human being, but instead to the plan God had for the Psalmist's future.

“The word translated 'unshaped form' in v. 16 is the Hebrew golmi...To translate the word as 'embryo,' as does the Common English Bible translation, is probably overspecific and misleading. And while this verse cannot be used to solve questions such as 'When does life begin?', the whole of Psalm 139 affirms the sacredness and God-givenness of life.” (deClaisse-Walford)

Isaiah 29:16: The same applies to this poetic passage using the metaphor of the potter and the clay. “As the master potter, God has the unquestionably sovereign right to give each of his creations a specific shape and purpose according to his will (Is. 29:16; 45:9; Rom 9:21).” (The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery) But this passage does not really speak directly to the issue at hand either since it appears to refer more to God's forming and molding people to his will by their development throughout their lifetime. Witness even the example of the Incarnate Jesus, who according to Luke 2:52 after His birth further “increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.” This touches on His subsequent “formation” after birth in all three areas of soul, body and spirit.

“God is depicted not only as imparting life but also as fashioning each human in the womb like a potter molding clay (Job 10:8-11; 31:15; Ps 139:13). God mysteriously creates distinctive forms of life, human or animal. The uniqueness of each human is the result not only of a particular genetic makeup but also of God's spirit and hand distinctively fashioning each human. The supernatural and the natural world are seen as seamlessly woven together.” (Pokrifka) And part of this mystery is the point in the process in which one can consider the developing fetus a human being from God's viewpoint.

Zechariah 12:1: The author also writes, “Humans are distinguished from other creatures by the spirit (rûaḥ) formed within them by God, who is Spirit (cf. Zech. 12:1).” Yet, as previously mentioned, the same ruah is said in Genesis 7:22 to be implanted in all mammals, birds, reptiles, and all animal life.

Also, commentators are in agreement that this verse primarily refers back to the Genesis story of the original shaping of Adam from the dust of the earth, from whom all inherited this same spirit of life. Thus, Boda says, “The reference to Yahweh shaping 'the spirit of the human' most likely has in view that principle of life which Yahweh placed within humanity in Gen. 2:7, after shaping (yasar) humanity from the dust of the ground.”

Myers and Myers write, “Although this verse draws upon the Eden tale, however, it also diverges significantly...The Zechariah author perhaps includes it [i.e. 'within him'] to emphasize the individuality of God's relationship with people...'Within' emphasizes that God breathed the first breath into the very corporeal existence of the first individual, who is the archetypal representative of all subsequent human beings.” Just how far one can push this “archetypal representation” is problematic.

Thus, I think it is unfair to prematurely deduce from this, as does the author, that “Scripture thus refutes the claim that 'all changes [a human embryo] will undergo are within its internal programming (its nature).'”

I Corinthians 15:4: Paul quotes the above verse, not to state anything regarding the process by which even the first human became a living being, but strictly to contrast it with the life-giving power of Christ.

I Thessalonians 5:23; I Corinthians 15:12-46: I agree for the most part with the author's contention that body, soul and spirit are all necessary for personhood in the likeness of God except to point out that biblical nomenclature at this point is notoriously ambiguous as to the meaning of the three terms. Thus, as the author says, “soul” often stands for the whole person in the Old Testament. But there are passages such as Matthew 10:28 in which “soul” is used to describe the non-material aspects of humanity or Hebrews 4:12 and I Thessalonians 5:23 which allude to a tripartite anthropology. And none of these passages indicates when all three become present.

What I am a little confused about is the author's conclusion that “quickening and delayed ‘ensoulment’ are not biblical criteria of personhood.” If that is true then it certainly does not support the thesis that full personhood appears at some point later than conception and could actually be used as proof, or at least a strong indication, of the reverse idea.

Early Church Writings: Several commentators I consulted pointed out that the actual concept of abortion does not really appear in the Bible. But the author quotes Thomas Aquinus' opinion that only the killing of a “quickened” fetus could be considered as murder as typical of the early Church. I would prefer to look at a much earlier document for guidance as to the view of the early Church, namely The Didache. It was a widely accepted writing dating to roughly AD 150, even if it obviously did not come from the hands of the Twelve Apostles as stated. In Didache 2.2 it roundly condemns those who would kill a newborn child or abort a fetus. And the Greek does not specify that it has to be to a quickened fetus.

Conclusion

It is perhaps best that I conclude this brief review with this thought from Gorman after he canvassed early Jewish and Christian writings on the subject: “The historical witness demonstrates that Scripture can have a key role in the abortion debate even if exegesis alone, still less prooftexting, is insufficient. A hermeneutic is needed that recognizes the difficulty of the issue, expresses pastoral sensitivity, and preserves the basic requirements of covenant faithfulness.”

WHEN WAS THE ARK MOVED TO JERUSALEM?

One internet Bible critic asks the above question in light of the fact that II Samuel 5-6 indicates it happened after defeating the Philistines while I Chronicles 13-14 says it happened before that time.

This is one of those occasions where fundamentalists and agnostics often find themselves as strange bedfellows on an issue. Both insist that the biblical accounts be 100% factually accurate, including issues involving chronology and specific numbers, otherwise they are nothing but bald-faced lies.

Such a hard-and-fact position betrays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Bible since its preoccupations are not primarily concerned with such matters that seem so important to us.

These are generally the same class of people I have met who brag that they have never read a short story or novel unless it was required reading at school. Instead, they rely wholly on history books and biographies to get the “real truth,” ignoring the fact that (a) the authors of such books are quite free in the selective way they use the facts at hand to convey their preconceived notions and (b) there is more than one way in which the truth can be presented, and non-fiction writings may not even be the best tool with which to accomplish that. With that said, let me quote the opinions of some prominent Bible scholars on the specific subject at hand, starting with comments on the II Samuel account.

McCarter: “As in the case of the relationship between the passages describing David's capture of Jerusalem (5:6-10) and his victories over the Philistines (5:17-25),...the editorial concerns governing the position of the present passage [II Samuel 6:1-19] are not chronological but thematic. We may not assume out of hand that the transfer of the ark succeeded the battles recounted in the previous section. In this case, however, the judgment of most modern historians vindicates the received arrangement.”

Davis: “2 Samuel 5 is a collage. It is not a single flowing narrative but a collection of 'chunks,' episodes or pieces of information placed side-by-side, all of which, however, relate to the establishing of David's kingdom...chronology enthusiasts may be delighted to note that the defeats of the Philistines in verses 17-25 may have preceded David's capture of Jerusalem in verses 6-8...Most of us, however, do not live and breathe chronology...My point is that biblical writers are not chained to chronological order – and in 2 Samuel 5 the chains have certainly fallen off. The chapter is orderly but not sequential. It is a collage; it is a collection of fragments intending to give us a proper view of the kingdom.” And Davis' point applies just as well to the quandary at hand.

Next, moving to the parallel episode in I Chronicles, consider the following:

Williamson: “From the establishment of David as king over all Israel, the Chronicler moves directly to the other of his great concerns, care for the Ark, which was eventually to be housed in the temple. This involves a rearrangement of the ordering of his Vorlage [i.e. source] (cf. 2 Sam. 5-6), showing once again that his material is presented on the basis of theme and theology rather than strict chronology. In the earlier listing, the whole account is given in one continuous chapter (2 Sam. 6)...The Chronicler, however, has divided this account between chs 13 and 15-16, using the indication in 2 Sam. 6:11 of a three month gap in the narrative to go back over the material previously omitted from 2 Sam. 5; by its new position, however, as well as some light editorial touches, this itself now contributes in a fresh way to the development of the Chronicler's main concerns.”

Myers: “The most striking feature of the story [in Chronicles] is that the attempted removal of the ark to the place where David was was a religious matter and not a semimilitary ceremony as in Samuel...Because it seemed right in the sight of all, the venture was made so as to remedy the defect in Saul's attitude toward the ark. Ostensibly this had to be the first move of the new king to prevent the same debacle befalling him as had befallen Saul. That is why the passage stands before the Philistine raids here whereas it follows them in Samuel. It must be remembered that the Chronicler's story is primarily religious and he arranges his material accordingly.”

Eskenazi: “Even when Samuel was still venerated as unbiased history, Chronicles was already read as if its particular literary constructs express its own theological and historical preoccupations...It is probably no longer necessary to reiterate that a literary approach does not demote the text from truth to fiction...” For one thing, “Placing the battles with the Philistines after the initial attempts to bring the ark toward its destination allows Chronicles to link the ark more firmly to the dialogue between David and God.”

My own literary analysis of both these passages (in bold in the figures below) in their overall context establishes that their respective ways of ordering events each make sense from a point of view of presenting a completely symmetrical organization. I am indebted to Dale Ralph Davis for much of the II Samuel organization seen below.

                                                        I Chronicles 11-20 Structure

    1. Warriors and Battles (chs.11-12)

            2. The Ark is Moved (ch.13)

        3. David's House Established (ch.14)

            2'. The Ark is Moved (chs.15-16)

                    3'. David's House Established (ch.17)

    1'. Warriors and Battles (chs.18-20)

                                                       II Samuel 5-8 Structure

    1. Various battles (II Sam. 5)

        2. God's House (II Sam. 6)

            3. The ark carried in (6:1-4)

                a. Joyful response (6:5)  

                    b. Inappropriate response (6:6-10a)

                        c. Obededom’s house blessed (6:9-11)

        3'. The ark carried in (6:12-13)

            a. Joyful response (6:14-15a) 

                b. Inappropriate response (6:15b)

                    c. David's house not blessed (6:20-23)

        2'. David's House (II Sam. 7)

    1'. Various battles (II Sam. 8)

 

REVELATION 2:4 ("FIRST LOVE")

In the first letter of Christ to the seven churches, he accuses the Ephesians of abandoning their first love. I have always thought that this referred to the fact that their initial fervor for following Christ and spreading His love to others had been lost. In other words, the honeymoon period was over. In an analogy to the Church representing the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-27), one might say that the Ephesian congregation still kept their initial vow to honor and obey her Husband, but no longer felt the same love for Him.

But this last week I heard a sermon on Revelation 2:1-7 which was excellent in many ways, but which vaguely bothered both my wife and me. As she said when the talk was through, “If the church was that far gone, how could Christ commend them in any way at all?” The reason for that comment was that the speaker seemed to strongly imply without actually stating it that the “first love” in verse 4 referred to the love that God showed through Christ toward us, citing passages such as the well-known John 3:16 and I John 4:10 (“This is love: not that we loved God, but that He first loved us”). Thus, his deduction was that they had lost, or lost sight of, the fact that God sent Christ to save us from our sins.

I decided to see what reputable scholars had to say concerning this verse and came up with the following, all of which seem to confirm and flesh out my initial thoughts on the subject:

J. Phillips: “It is possible to serve the Lord for a variety of motives – for the praise of men, for prestige or position for the sake of reputation, because it is simply the thing to do, because of a sense of duty. If service for God is not born of a devoted passion for the Lord Jesus it is worthless.”

Morris: “There is a problem in the words to the church in Ephesus..., where 'love' might mean love for Christ or 'love for one another' (Moffatt) or even love for people in general. Perhaps all three are included.”

Beale: “The point is not primarily that they had lost their love for one another, as argued by most commentators...Nor is the point merely that they had lost their love for Christ in general (as some commentators also think; cf. Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 1:18). The idea is that they no longer expressed their former zealous love for Jesus by witnessing to him in the world.”

Ellul: “At issue here is not faith and its content, but love. Which is to say that, perhaps, she has fallen from the spontaneity of the relationship with God, from the attempt to please the Lord in everything...All has become cold, flat. In short, we find a Church become institutional, theological, exact, rigorous, moral, ceasing to live by the impulsion of a force ever new.”

Verhey: “Patient endurance required fidelity in their devotion to God (Rev 2:4; 3:15,16) and in their love of and service to one another (Rev 2:19)...”

Mounce: “Every virtue carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It seems probable that desire for sound teaching and the resulting forthright action taken to exclude all imposters had created a climate of suspicion in which brotherly love could no longer exist...Good works and pure doctrine are not adequate substitutes for that rich relationship of mutual love shared by persons who have just experienced the redemptive love of God...Without love the congregation ceases to be the church.”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “First indicates the one coming or ranking at the beginning of a series; the first precedes all others in time (the earliest), order (in contrast to second) or importance...As a condition of uncorrupted beginning, this first state is sometimes presented as a norm of superior spirituality (Jer 7:12). Returning to it is either a restoration of God's favor and blessing (Is 1:26; Jer 33:7,11) or a spiritual revival (Rev 2:4-5)....Although humans can express noble emotions..., their love often diminishes (Rev 2:4)...”

Barclay feels it refers to “the most important kind of love, namely, love of the brethren.”

Walvoord: “Most of the Ephesian Christians were now second-generation believers, and though they had retained purity of doctrine and life and had maintained a high level service, they were lacking in deep devotion to Christ. How the church today needs to heed this same warning that orthodoxy and service are not enough. Christ wants believers' hearts as well as their hands and heads.”

Bruce: “For all their commendable endurance, the fervor of their original love – their 'love toward all the saints', as the longer text of Eph. 1:15 puts it – had waned. And nothing – no amount of good works or sound doctrine – can take the place of agape in a Christian community.”

Beasley-Murray: “The failure of the Ephesians is perhaps the perversion of their chief virtue; opposition to false brethren led to censoriousness and divisiveness in the church, so causing them to leave their first love. This would interpret the love referred to as brotherly love. It may, however, related to love towards God; cf. Je. 2:2,8. Since the one manifestation of love is impossible without the other, we may perhaps include both in our text (cf. Mk. 12:30,31 with I Jn. 4:20).”

Conclusion

I was gratified to see from the above that my initial feeling about this verse was not that far off-base even though there remain valid questions concerning the scope of the “love” referred to here.

But I must admit that I was rather horrified to read in these quotes what sounded like personal observations of some of the various congregations and congregational leaders with which I have had close experience over the years. These included examples of:

    an elder who bragged that at work he was widely considered to be an s-o-b,

    a senior pastor who refused to visit his long-time church secretary when she was gravely ill in the hospital,

    another elder who referred to those in the congregation as “giving units,”

    a congregation who fired an associate pastor and did away with his position of pastoral care as not being cost-effective,

    a senior pastor who fired an associate pastor for coming back from a training session required by the church itself with new theological suggestions that the pastor felt did not meet the rigorous doctrinal standards of the congregation.

In short, I have had lots of experience with Christians and church leaders who fit the old definition of “the frozen chosen,” a description applied to a number of denominational congregations over the years. I believe that was the heart problem at Ephesus.