WHAT IS THE DIVIDING WALL OF EPHESIANS 2:14-18?

RSV renders these verses as follows: “For he is our peace who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end.”

This passage has been much discussed, especially the exact nature of the dividing wall of hostility. Here is how several Bible scholars have dealt with one or both of the two issues involved: the metaphoric allusion to the wall and its exact meaning. And the two are intertwined with one another, as you will see below.

The reference is to the wall within the temple

“Here the immediate allusion seems to be the barrier placed in the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple to prevent them from penetrating further within...Two copies of the actual inscription forbidding any foreigner.., on pain of death , to 'enter within the barricade which surrounds the temple and enclosure' have been found in the neighborhood – one in 1871 and the other in 1935.” (Simpson)

Comfort: “Commentators frequently identify the 'wall' with the barrier in the Temple dividing the Court of the Gentiles from the Court of the Women. This barrier, beyond which no Gentile was to venture on pain of death, has been figuratively torn down in Christ.”

A dissenting voice comes from Hoehner, who cites four reasons why this is an unlikely reference:

                        “1. There is no reference to the Jerusalem wall in this context;

2. the Jerusalem wall is never called by the designation in the present context...;

3. the wall in Jerusalem was still standing when Paul wrote this letter; and

4. it was probably unfamiliar to the average person in the churches around Ephesus.”

Some scholars take issue with this last reason since they feel that the problem Paul had when he was accused of sneaking Gentiles into the Temple would have been well known to the Ephesian church.

The wall inside the temple represents the Law

This is the theory favored by Hoehner, who explains: “Some rabbis thought of the wall as the 'fence' around the law. However, that spoke more about the protection around the law than the hostility mentioned in this context. Nevertheless, in later rabbinics, rather than the law itself which protected Israel from pagan practices...the law, which many have included many minute scribal additions, was to be strictly observed by the Jews, and was at the same time offensive to the Gentiles, thus causing hostility between Jews and Gentiles. Consequently, it makes good sense to consider that the 'wall of partition' was not a literal wall but a metaphorical wall that divided Jews and Gentiles.”

“Ephesians 2:14-15 is the one other place [besides Galatians] in the Pauline corpus where the Law is cast as an enemy, and it is the only place where Christ is said to have 'destroyed' (katargeo) the Law or rendered it powerless (cf. Rom 3:31). The Law is here likened to a 'barrier' or 'dividing wall of hostility,' a reference to the role of the Law in forming a barrier of racial and ethnic hostility (Eph 2:14,16) between Jews and Gentiles...Commentators frequently find an allusion here to the balustrade in the Jerusalem Temple, a wall that separated the court of the Gentiles from the inner courts of Israel. But this Temple wall, part of a microcosmic representation of Israel's view of the world...was a Torah-inspired spatial representation of the distinction between Israel and the nations...This dividing wall, the 'law of commandments and regulations,' Christ 'destroyed' (Eph 2:15)...” (Reid)

The wall is the Mosaic Law

The following commentators identify the law as what Paul is talking about, without connecting it to the barrier in the temple:

Beale and Gladd say, “Though many have debated the precise identification of Paul's metaphor, it is likely that he is referring to the Old Testament law. For in Ephesians 2:15 he expands on the previous verse by explaining how Christ made both groups into one body...”

Witherington says, “For Paul the removal of the Mosaic Law as a means of right-standing with God, as a way of being saved or working out one's salvation, had broken down the barrier between Jew and Gentile.”

J.B. Green concurs by saying that “the Law appears as a barrier separating Jew and Gentile; there the death of Christ abolished this 'dividing wall.”

The wall represents several kinds of barriers

“(kata)lyo means to break down. It also occurs several times in the New Testament of the destruction of the temple or the law. A dividing wall “is a wall that prevents certain persons from entering a house or a city (cf. 2:19).., a mark of hostility (2:14,16)...Each of these terms [wall, enmity, law] throws light on the others; the author wants them to be considered as synonyms.” (M. Barth)

“Paul's quarrel is with the imposition of old and temporary structures upon the new eschatological age of reconciliation – structures who purpose was to condemn sin and to sequester the Jews from the Gentiles (cf. Eph 2:14-18).” (Thielman)

“Paul employs a metaphor probably drawn from the wall in the Jerusalem Temple, or the Temple itself, which prevented Gentiles from proceeding into the inner courts. This was reinforced by the Law of commandments, condemning in its requirements.” (Porter)

The wall represents two kinds of separation

Hillyer explains, “The wording of Eph. 2:14 presupposes a conception of phragmos [barrier] which calls for the image of the cross as its counterpart. Paul's text in fact assumes a double phragmos, one that separates Jew from Gentile, and the other that separates the world below from the world above...Christ restores unity, therefore, in a double sense. He destroys both the vertical wall separating Jew from Gentile, and the horizontal wall separating man from God. He does this by the cross, representing the double work of Christ extending both vertically and horizontally.”

Metzger: “Christ has not only broken down the...hostility between Jew and Gentile (made us both one), but has reconciled both to God in one body, the church.”

Marcus Barth says, “Christ is praised here not primarily for the peace he brings to individual souls; rather the peace he brings is a social and political event...While the 'enmity' mentioned at the end of vs. 16 is the one-sided enmity of man against God, the 'enmity' of vs. 14 is mutual among men.”

“Christ's work of reconciliation also [i.e. in addition to bringing peace between man and God] included putting an end to the age-old hostility between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14-16). This was accomplished by nullifying the Mosaic Law, which historically, set Jews apart from their pagan neighbors ('the dividing wall of hostility [echthra].),' Eph 2:14], thus 'making peace' (Eph 2:15) between Jew and Gentile.” (Belleville)

The wall refers to the barrier between ascending souls and God

Yamauchi refutes this idea in saying, “Some scholars have interpreted the 'dividing wall' of Ephesians 2:14-16 as the opposition of the hostile powers to the ascent of the souls in the divine pleroma [i.e. fullness] of Gnosticism. But the simplest explanation would be a reference to the barrier keeping out Gentiles from the inner precincts of the Jerusalem Temple.”

Hoehner provides two specific reasons for rejecting this interpretation: “This is unlikely because the separation is not between the celestial and the terrestrial but between Jews and Gentiles. Furthermore, [the] sources for his [Schlier's] theory are too late and postdate Paul (second or third century A.D.)...”

The wall refers to the curtain in the Temple between the holy place and the holy of holies.

Hoehner rejects this proposal, saying that “this is untenable because it was a curtain and not a wall, and because the curtain separated all men, including the Jews, except the high priest who entered once a year into the holy of holies. The wall in the present context separated Jews and Gentiles.”

The probable reason for this suggestion in the first place is that upon Christ's death, that curtain was ripped in two. Thus, it serves as another powerful supporting argument for those who, rightly in my mind, state that Christ's death simultaneously broke down the barriers separating Jews from Gentiles and mankind from God.

Conclusion

One final piece of evidence has yet to be taken into account – the literary structure of the passage. Although these verses appear in a mainly prose composition, that may not apply to this particular passage, as several commentators have noted.

Arnold, for example, says that “a possible hymnic fragment appears in Ephesians 2:14-18...The formal characteristics of the passage – the unique words, the use of participles, the intensely christological content, the parallelism of the lines, the 'we' style that interrupts the 'you' style – lead most scholars to conclude that it is indeed hymnic.”

Wu seconds this proposal: “In the Pauline corpus, passages such as Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20; Ephesians 2:14-16, 5:14 and 1 Timothy 3:16 are generally acknowledged as hymnic materials.”

Concentrating on just one of these factors, parallelism of the lines, yields the following graphical representation:

                                           Literary Structure of Ephesians 2:14-18

    A. For he is our peace (14a)

            B. who has made us both one (14b)

                    C. and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility (14c)

                            D. in his flesh (14d)

                    C'. the law of commandments and ordinances having abolished (15a)

                            D'. that he might in himself (15b)

            B'. create one new man in place of two (15c)

    A'. so making peace (15d)

            B''. and might reconcile us both to God (16a)

                            D''. through the cross (16b)

                    C''. thereby bringing the hostility to an end (16c)

                            D''''. in himself (16d)

    A''. and coming preached peace (17a)

            B'''. to those far and near (17b)

                            D'''''. because through him (18a)

            B''''. we both by one Spirit have access to the Father (18b)

From this poetic organization, one can see that verses 14-15c clearly refer to the law as the wall of hostility dividing Jew and Gentile while 16a-18 introduce the subject of mankind's reconciliation to God. Verse 15d thus serves two functions, as conclusion to 14-15 as well as beginning the verses ending with v. 18. And the means by which both of these were accomplished is emphasized in the five “D” sections as Christ's atoning death on the cross.

ISAIAH 41:21-29

 

Isaiah 41:21-29

In comparing English translations of the Bible with one another, one factor is often ignored by readers: the line spacing used to denote where new paragraphs end and begin. These simple indications can often have a great effect on how Scripture should be interpreted. As a random example, consider the above prophetic passage in the writings of Isaiah.

The first thing to note is that almost all translations or Bible commentators consider these nine verses to constitute a discrete section. However, half of them subdivide it into two smaller literary units: verses 21-24 and 25-29. This division of opinion is reflected below:

    Isaiah 41:21-29: NEB, TEV, AB, Whybray, Oswalt, Payne, Kidner

    Isaiah 41:21-24 + 41:25-29: RSV, NRSV, NIV, JB, The Message, The Living Bible, Wolf

The way in which the meaning is impacted by which of these two schemes one chooses is demonstrated by the following:

Representative of the first method of division is the analysis of Osborne, who first states: “The way the message [from God] was communicated to the prophet differed greatly depending on the situation.” One such form was the legal or trial oracles which “contain a summons to the divine trial court, a trial setting in which witnesses are called, leading to a stress on both the guilt of Israel or the nations and the judgment or sentence due.” As one such example, he cites the passage in question here, which “begins with the call of the pagan gods to trial, challenging them to assemble their evidence (vv. 21-23), followed by the charge that they are nothing (v. 24) and the witnesses who prove their guilt (vv. 25-28). Finally, the verdict is pronounced: 'they all are false...amount to nothing...wind and confusion' (v. 29).”

You can see from the above that Osborne treats the whole passage in a chronological manner. But this approach leads to several problems as he attempts to fit all of the received text into one “logical” package because of his preconceived, and often mistaken, notion that the Bible is largely written as we would compose a piece of writing today.

But if instead, one takes the second approach above, adopted by the majority of modern translations and paraphrases, then one looks at these verses in a whole new light. This group also feels that all of verses 21-29 constitute a unity, however a unity that is somehow also divided into two parts. The way in which that generally arises is that the two halves are parallel to one another in some literary manner.

With this new understanding, we can now look to see whether that is also the case here.

                                          The Literary Structure of Isaiah 41:21-29

    A. Set forth your case (v. 21)

            B. Tell us the future and former things (vv. 22-23a)

                    C. Do good or do harm (v. 23b)

                            D. Your work is nothing (v. 24)

    A'. I have summoned one (v. 25a)

                    C'. He shall trample on rulers (25b)

            B'. Who else predicted it? (vv. 26-28)

                            D'. Their works are nothing (v. 29)

Sections A and A'

In both these parallel sections, God summons another party. In A, that party consists of the false idols whereas it is Cyrus in A'. The correspondence is made more clear by translations such as The Message, which adds the word “God” (not in the Hebrew text) to A' to match the appearance of that word already in A. This is done in order make it abundantly clear that it is the LORD who is acting in both cases.

Another loose translation, Today's English Version, makes the same move.

Sections B and B'

These parallel units deal with the divine property of omniscience, possessing the knowledge of all past and future occurrences. O'Connell says, “As part of Yahweh's claim to incomparability among the gods (Isa 41:21-24, 26-29), he taunts other gods to do what only a true god could do, namely, reveal future events (41:22)” While I might take issue with O'Connell's identification of the particular verses expressing that idea, he does accurately capture the fact that omniscience is stressed twice in the text, not just once.

McKenzie says, “The gods are challenged either to relate the past or to disclose the future; they can do neither. In the collection of Israelite traditions available to Second Isaiah both history and prophecy were contained. No other nation had such a collection of historical memories, all centered upon the saving acts of God. No such recital existed. Nor could the gods produce documents to demonstrate their prophecy.”

Naude explains that the Hebrew root s'h in Isaiah 41:23 “expresses the feeling of loss of strength and courage. The vb. is used to substantiate the charge that the gods are incompetent: they cannot even interpret and predict events. As a result they do not have an effect on people and can dismay them or fill them with fear.”

Sections C and C'

These twinned sections zero in on another prime characteristic of the Deity: omnipotence. In C, God challenges the idols to do something outstanding that will get our attention, a challenge they are totally unable to meet. In stark contrast, God reveals that Cyrus, His “servant,” will truly do something outstanding in the future, something that will be bad for Babylon but good for Israel.

As Southwell puts it, “Like Isaiah (cf. 41:2,25), Habakkuk becomes sure that God is at work on the stage of international history, even in events that are not self-evidently desirable.”

Foulkes: “The root rms in 41:25 is “used to speak of human aggression, the trampling of enemies, but also of the powerful action of God in judgment.” Both concepts are combined here so that this verse, as its twin in 23b, relate ultimately to divine actions, not just human ones.

The challenge in Unit C for the gods to do good or evil may seem to be a strange one, but it is actually a Hebrew figure of speech called a merism. In a merism, opposites are cited to include everything in between as well. Thus, we might express the thought as “Don't just stand there. Do something, anything at all!”

Sections D and D'

But, the strongest clue that Osborne's linear analysis is faulty is seen in the fact that he labels v. 29 as the verdict on the false idols when, in fact, the practically same language is applied to them back in v. 24. Thus, there are two almost identical conclusions to the section, not just one.

And in a second example of how The Message strengthens the similarities between two verses, it renders both endings using identical wording: “sham gods, no-gods, fool-making gods.” This is a good demonstration of how a free paraphrase can sometimes depart considerably from a literal translation, but at the same time bring out the hidden meanings in the text better than a word-for-word equivalence.

But a paraphrase can also go way too far in departing from a literal translation. For example, The Living Bible renders v. 24 as “Anyone who chooses you needs to have his head examined.”

It is also interesting that a fairly literal translation such as the King James Version is occasionally more helpful than modern translations. Thus, it begins both verses here with the word “Behold!” to indicate the parallel nature of the two conclusions.

“Pagan gods also claimed to have performed great works, but their deeds are considered less than nothing (Isa 41:24)...” (Carpenter)

Summary

In conclusion, Wakely states, “The nominative somot (lit. powerful things or strengths), which is used of strong words or arguments, i.e. convincing proofs, occurs once (Isa 41.21)...The inability of the gods of the nations to show insights into past events or to indicate the course of future history or to intervene actively in history (vv. 22-24) exposes their nothingness.”

A Modest Proposal

In light of Figure 1, if I were to translate this passage into English so that the literary structure stands out even better, there is one very minor change I would make without departing from the literal text. There are several subordinate “so that” clauses in these verses, with the conjunction translated (or not translated at all) in various ways depending on the version in question. Thus, we have:

Translation      v. 22              v. 23a              v. 23b                 v. 26

KJV                 that, -----       that                 that                     that, that

RSV                that, that        that                 that                     that, that

NRSV             so that, that   that                 that                     so that, so that

JB                    -----, and       and so             so that                 so, so

NEB                that, that        then                ----                     that, so that

The Message   so that, ---     ------               ----                      so, ----

Of the above renderings, only RSV clearly shows the parallel relationship between the two appearances each of this conjunction in sections B and B'. But in addition, I would change the translation of the two words in v. 23 to something like “so that” and “so,” respectively, in order to make it clear that these two occurrences do not indicate a parallel relationship with each other or with any of the other four appearances of the word found in this section.

ISAIAH 41:21-29

In comparing English translations of the Bible with one another, one factor is often ignored by readers: the line  spacing used to denote where new paragraphs end and begin. These simple indications can often have a great effect on how Scripture should be interpreted. As a random example, consider the above prophetic passage in the writings of Isaiah.

The first thing to note is that almost all translations or Bible commentators consider these nine verses to constitute a discrete section. However, half of them subdivide it into two smaller literary units: verses 21-24 and 25-29. This division of opinion is reflected below:

Isaiah 41:21-29: NEB, TEV, AB, Whybray, Oswalt, Payne, Kidner

Isaiah 41:21-24 + 41:25-29: RSV, NRSV, NIV, JB, The Message, The Living Bible, Wolf

The way in which the meaning is impacted by which of these two schemes one chooses is demonstrated by the following:

Representative of the first method of division is the analysis of Osborne, who first states: “The way the message [from God] was communicated to the prophet differed greatly depending on the situation.” One such form was the legal or trial oracles which “contain a summons to the divine trial court, a trial setting in which witnesses are called, leading to a stress on both the guilt of Israel or the nations and the judgment or sentence due.” As one such example, he cites the passage in question here, which “begins with the call of the pagan gods to trial, challenging them to assemble their evidence (vv. 21-23), followed by the charge that they are nothing (v. 24) and the witnesses who prove their guilt (vv. 25-28). Finally, the verdict is pronounced: 'they all are false...amount to nothing...wind and confusion' (v. 29).”

You can see from the above that Osborne treats the whole passage in a chronological manner. But this approach leads to several problems as he attempts to fit all of the received text into one “logical” package because of his preconceived, and often mistaken, notion that the Bible is largely written as we would compose a piece of writing today.

But if instead, one takes the second approach above, adopted by the majority of modern translations and paraphrases, then one looks at these verses in a whole new light. This group also feels that all of verses 21-29 constitute a unity, however a unity that is somehow also divided into two parts. The way in which that generally arises is that the two halves are parallel to one another in some literary manner.

With this new understanding, we can now look to see whether that is also the case here.

                                               The Literary Structure of Isaiah 41:21-29

    A. Set forth your case (v. 21)

                B. Tell us the future and former things (vv. 22-23a)

                            C. Do good or do harm (v. 23b)

                                        D. Your work is nothing (v. 24)

    A'. I have summoned one (v. 25a)

                           C'. He shall trample on rulers (25b)

                B'. Who else predicted it? (vv. 26-28)

                                        D'. Their works are nothing (v. 29)

Sections A and A'

In both these parallel sections, God summons another party. In A, that party consists of the false idols whereas it is Cyrus in A'. The correspondence is made more clear by translations such as The Message, which adds the word “God” (not in the Hebrew text) to A' to match the appearance of that word already in A. This is done in order make it abundantly clear that it is the LORD who is acting in both cases.

Another loose translation, Today's English Version, makes the same move.

Sections B and B'

These parallel units deal with the divine property of omniscience, possessing the knowledge of all past and future occurrences. O'Connell says, “As part of Yahweh's claim to incomparability among the gods (Isa 41:21-24, 26-29), he taunts other gods to do what only a true god could do, namely, reveal future events (41:22)” While I might take issue with O'Connell's identification of the particular verses expressing that idea, he does accurately capture the fact that omniscience is stressed twice in the text, not just once.

McKenzie says, “The gods are challenged either to relate the past or to disclose the future; they can do neither. In the collection of Israelite traditions available to Second Isaiah both history and prophecy were contained. No other nation had such a collection of historical memories, all centered upon the saving acts of God. No such recital existed. Nor could the gods produce documents to demonstrate their prophecy.”

Naude explains that the Hebrew root s'h in Isaiah 41:23 “expresses the feeling of loss of strength and courage. The vb. is used to substantiate the charge that the gods are incompetent: they cannot even interpret and predict events. As a result they do not have an effect on people and can dismay them or fill them with fear.”

Sections C and C'

These twinned sections zero in on another prime characteristic of the Deity: omnipotence. In C, God challenges the idols to do something outstanding that will get our attention, a challenge they are totally unable to meet. In stark contrast, God reveals that Cyrus, His “servant,” will truly do something outstanding in the future, something that will be bad for Babylon but good for Israel.

As Southwell puts it, “Like Isaiah (cf. 41:2,25), Habakkuk becomes sure that God is at work on the stage of international history, even in events that are not self-evidently desirable.”

Foulkes: “The root rms in 41:25 is “used to speak of human aggression, the trampling of enemies, but also of the powerful action of God in judgment.” Both concepts are combined here so that this verse, as its twin in 23b, relate ultimately to divine actions, not just human ones.

The challenge in Unit C for the gods to do good or evil may seem to be a strange one, but it is actually a Hebrew figure of speech called a merism. In a merism, opposites are cited to include everything in between as well. Thus, we might express the thought as “Don't just stand there. Do something, anything at all!”

Sections D and D'

But, the strongest clue that Osborne's linear analysis is faulty is seen in the fact that he labels v. 29 as the verdict on the false idols when, in fact, the practically same language is applied to them back in v. 24. Thus, there are two almost identical conclusions to the section, not just one.

And in a second example of how The Message strengthens the similarities between two verses, it renders both endings using identical wording: “sham gods, no-gods, fool-making gods.” This is a good demonstration of how a free paraphrase can sometimes depart considerably from a literal translation, but at the same time bring out the hidden meanings in the text better than a word-for-word equivalence.

But a paraphrase can also go way too far in departing from a literal translation. For example, The Living Bible renders v. 24 as “Anyone who chooses you needs to have his head examined.”

It is also interesting that a fairly literal translation such as the King James Version is occasionally more helpful than modern translations. Thus, it begins both verses here with the word “Behold!” to indicate the parallel nature of the two conclusions.

“Pagan gods also claimed to have performed great works, but their deeds are considered less than nothing (Isa 41:24)...” (Carpenter)

Summary

In conclusion, Wakely states, “The nominative somot (lit. powerful things or strengths), which is used of strong words or arguments, i.e. convincing proofs, occurs once (Isa 41.21)...The inability of the gods of the nations to show insights into past events or to indicate the course of future history or to intervene actively in history (vv. 22-24) exposes their nothingness.”

A Modest Proposal

In light of Figure 1, if I were to translate this passage into English so that the literary structure stands out even better, there is one very minor change I would make without departing from the literal text. There are several subordinate “so that” clauses in these verses, with the conjunction translated (or not translated at all) in various ways depending on the version in question. Thus, we have:

Translation      v. 22                  v. 23a                  v. 23b                  v. 26

KJV                 that, -----          that                      that                      that, that

RSV                that, that           that                      that                      that, that

NRSV             so that, that      that                       that                      so that

JB                    -----, and         and so                   so that                  so, so

NEB                that, that          then                      ----                       that, so that

The Message   so that, ---       ------                     ----                        so, ----

Of the above renderings, only RSV clearly shows the parallel relationship between the two appearances each of this conjunction in sections B and B'. But in addition, I would have changed the translation of the two words in v. 23 to something like “so that” and “so,” respectively, in order to make it clear that these two occurrences do not indicate

WAS LOT A RIGHTEOUS MAN? (II PETER 2:7-8)

Among the many flawed human beings in the Old Testament, Abraham's nephew Lot stands out. Perhaps that is why most of the biblical references to him outside of his appearances in Genesis are simply to his descendants (Deuteronomy 2:9,19; Psalms 83:8) and to his times (Luke 17:28-32). The one strange exception is found in II Peter 2:7-8, where he is called righteous. It seems unusual because the Genesis portrait of him is by no means flattering.

As Grogan points out, “Flaws in his character first appear when he selfishly chose the well-watered Jordan valley (Gn. xiii. 8-13).” That left the less desirable land to his uncle Abraham.

In addition, Coogan notes: “Throughout these stories, Lot is portrayed as a less that heroic figure, who has no respect for his own family (Gen 19.14), is hesitant (19.16), and is tricked by his daughters.”

“In Gen. 19:7 Lot calls the Sodomites brothers...Here we see the transference of brothers from a physical to spiritual relationship.” (Gunther)

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery says, “Although Lot is judged by God to be the only righteous man there, his misguided desire for the security of the city is again reflected in his appeal to the angels as they lead him away...Within the context of the story and as evidence of the ironic attachment of Lot to a wicked and civilized lifestyle in which he lives with a bad conscience, Lot whimpers that he cannot conceive of life without at least a little 'sin city' [Zoar] as his residence.... Also, his drunken behavior after the escape demonstrates that what The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery says concerning his daughters applies just as well to Lot himself, namely, “although one can take one's children out of Sodom, one cannot take Sodom out of one's children.”

Green: “He appears simply as a man of the world (Gn. 13:10-14; 19:16) who had strayed a long way from the God of his fathers. Though hospitable (19:1f.), he was weak (19:6), morally depraved (19:8), and drunken (19:33, 35). His heart was so deeply embedded in Sodom that he had to be positively dragged out (19:16, 19). Time and again it is emphasized that his rescue was entirely due to the unmerited favor of God, which he shows to men because of what he is, not because of what they are (e.g. 19:16, 19).”

“Twice the angels command him to flee the imminent destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:17), but Lot negotiates escape to an nearby city rather than over the hills (vv. 19-20, 22).” (Hubbard)

Carson rightly critiques Morschauser's attempt to characterize Lot 'as a righteous man who acts honorably throughout' the episode in Sodom. Carson instead says, “At the very least he is living a terribly compromised existence even before the events of Gen 19...even if in consequence Lot appears more righteous than he otherwise would, he remains a flawed figure.”

But despite this overwhelmingly negative portrait given of Lot in the OT, here is what we read in the NT: “And if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds)...” (II Peter 2:7-8, RSV)

Obviously, the author believed that Lot was a righteous man, in light of the three-fold repetition of that word in these two verses. But how can that statement be justified in light of what the OT says about him? Below are several explanations given by scholarly commentators:

    1. “2 Pet. ii. 7f emphatically asserts his righteousness. It is probable that Peter is here deliberately alluding to Abraham's prayer for the 'righteous' in Sodom.” (Grogan)

This is also one of the factors that R. Harvey feels points to Lot's righteousness, “indicated by the fact that Abraham pleads for Sodom not on the grounds of having a relative there but on the grounds of the presence of righteous persons there, suggesting that in Abraham's mind Lot is one of those righteous persons to be discovered by the Lord.”

Green notes that “Jewish tradition saw Abraham's prayer for the righteous in Sodom as particularly applying to Lot, which says much for the power of intercessory prayer.”

    2. A second factor in Lot's favor includes the righteous deeds done by Lot while in Sodom. Regarding the coming of the angels to town, Ellul says, “Not only does he take them in as such, not only does he protect them with his own life and by offering his daughters' virginity, but he also blindly believes everything they say. He recognizes them (but not distinctly or explicitly) as messengers from God. He senses in them Yahweh's power on the march, and he treats and defends them as such...He was not particularly virtuous by nature – the rest of the story leaves no doubt to this effect – but he recognized the angel of the Lord, and accepted his judgment and the risks that were included in such a decision against the world, against the city.”

Reicke comments that “Christians ought likewise to stand up against the tendencies of the seducers toward ungodly, violent, and lawless living.” In a similar vein, Green adds, “It is customary for Christians today, living in a secularized society, no longer to be shocked by sinful things which they see and hear. They will, for example, without protest sit through a television program presenting material which a generation ago they would never have contemplated watching at a theater or cinema. But when a man's conscience becomes dulled to sin, and apathetic about moral standards, he is no longer willing to look to the Lord for deliverance.”

    3. Various English translations realize the inherent problem with calling Lot righteous and take refuge by translating at least one of of the appearances of dikalon (“righteous”) in Peter's letter with a somewhat weaker word such as “good” or “just” instead. See The Living Bible, KJV, Phillips, NEB, and The Message. The Jerusalem Bible's rendering of this word as “holy” conveys totally the wrong impression for most readers.

    4. Closely related to the above approaches is that of those who reason that Lot's behavior at least stood out starkly in contrast to that of the Sodomites around him. We might say that if God grades on a curve rather than using an absolute basis, Lot would have been given an A. Thus, Neyrey says that when Peter “defends Lot's just judgment, which includes rewards to the righteous, he contrasts Lot with Sodom and Gomorrah.”

“It may be partly a matter of comparison with the men of Sodom, in which case NEB's 'a good man' (a decent fellow) may be near the mark.” (Green)

“In contrast to the other inhabitants of Sodom Lot's righteousness is revealed by his hospitality to the strangers who come to his town, and his attempts to protect them, an action cynically described by his neighbors as wanting to 'play the judge' (a jibe more and more frequently aimed at Christians today (Gen 19:1-29) and indeed his actions do judge the wickedness of the townspeople.”

    5. “Why then is he called righteous here? The answer may partly lie in extra-canonical tradition; thus he is called 'the just one' in Wisdom x. 6; xix. 17 [The Wisdom of Solomon is a book in the Apocrypha].” (Green)

    6. Finally, Green also notes that some of the best manuscripts omit the article “the” in verse 8 so that, with the Latin Vulgate, the meaning would then be that Lot was “upright in what he looked at and listened to.”

Conclusion

Carson provides some apt closing remarks touching on all the above factors, beginning with a comparison of Lot with other notable OT figures: “Abraham is a man of faith, beloved by God, but he is also a liar, and the latter does not undo the former. Despite his faith, he sleeps with Hagar because he cannot at that point see how God will provide him with the promised progeny by any other means.” A similar thing can be said regarding David, a man after Gods own heart. “Also Lot: he is sufficiently a man of faith, a righteous man, that he joins his uncle Abraham in following the Lord, leaving Ur to travel they known not where. Although he makes the flawed decision to settle in the cities of the plains despite their reputation, there is no evidence that he becomes morally indistinguishable from them, and two important pieces of evidence suggest that he maintains some God-centered and righteous distinctions: (1) he listens to the angelic visitors when he is told to flee; (2) when Abraham pleads for the cities (Gen 18) by appealing to the number of 'righteous' people who may still be there, clearly he is including Lot in their number.

THOU SHALL NOT COVET? (EXODUS 20:17; DEUTERONOMY 5:21)

 An internet site critical of the Bible says, “The tenth commandment, for example, has been erroneously translated as 'thou shalt not covet'. In this case, the structure and etymology of the phrase are misleading, as the words 'covet' and 'take' in Hebrew come from the same root. It is the second word, 'take', that was originally written in the Ten Commandments.”

When one comes across such a definite statement from an anonymous online source without any justification or supporting evidence, it is prudent to investigate the issue in more detail before taking it as Gospel truth. So here are the steps I took myself:

1. The first thing I did after reading the above was to go to modern English translations and paraphrases to see how they translated the two Hebrew words in question (hmd and 'wh). The vast majority translated both words as “covet,” but the following synonyms were also found in these sources: be envious, desire, lust after, set your heart on. Not one modern version chose a synonym for “take.” Keep in mind that most translations are prepared by whole committees of experts in biblical history, theology and languages.

2. Next I decided to go to an exhaustive analytical concordance to see if the internet author was correct in stating that “covet” and “take” come from the same Hebrew root. There are a great number of words for “take” or “steal” listed there, but not one has the remotest similarity to hmd or 'wh.

3. Since the issue is one of word meanings, the next convenient sources I consulted were the multi-volume sets of the New International dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek words published by Zondervan. Many of the comments below come from articles in these valuable resources, and not one even hinted that either of the two Hebrew words in question were related to “take.”

4. Then a good thing to ask is whether the internet critic's comments even make logical sense in the first place. In looking at the Ten Commandments, one can see that there are already commands against stealing from anyone and from committing adultery with another man's wife. Since that is so, why would there be any need to add a tenth command which simply repeats those restrictions, assuming that the original word was “take” instead of “covet?”

5, Lastly, I turned to scholarly commentaries on Exodus and Deuteronomy to see what they might have to add, and it was there that I found the only hint as to the source of the internet comment.

With that general background in view, here are the detailed comments from various scholarly sources, beginning with those who generally confirm “covet” or its equivalent as the proper translation:

“Note...that in the Exodus version of the commandment about coveting (20:17), the order is house and wife (and the vb. for coveting a house and wife is hmd). By contrast, in Deut 5:21 the order is wife and house (and the vb. for coveting a wife is hmd, while that for coveting a house is 'wh).” (Hamilton)

“The root 'wh is found only in the West Semitic languages and has as its basis the notion of 'desire,' whether that be good (as in the will of Yahweh expressed by the vb. In Ps 132:13,14), bad (as in Prov 21:10), acquiring the sense of 'lust, covet' (as in Deut 5:21) or neutral (as in Deut 14:20)...In the hitp.[a particular verb form], however, a reflexive or middle voice is apparent, and the vb. itself is nuanced toward one's own person. In context it accordingly acquires the meaning 'desire selfishly, covet [lustfully]' as in Deut 5:21, where 'wh is paralleled by hmd, covet, the vb. used for both clauses of Exodus 20:17.” (W.C. Williams)

Talley comments on the Hebrew root hmd: “This vb. is also used in the form of a command, lo tnhmod (Exod 20:17 [2x]; Deut 5:21; 7:25)...These passages also point to the desire to obtain the object, rather than simply to describe or enjoy it.”

Since the condemnation of a mere thought seems to be more of a New Testament concept than one belonging in the Old Testament, that might add ammunition to the critic's comments. However, G.H. Hall notes: “On rare occasions even the desire for another woman is condemned...(Job 31:1,7-8; cf. Exod 20:17; Prov 6:25-26; Matt 5:28).”

“If the tenth commandment (Exod. 20:17) forbids such [evil] desire, it is because God desires from men not merely obedience in acts, but also in their words, thoughts, looks, efforts and wishes. He desires love from the whole heart (Deut. 6:5).” (Schoenweiss)

“You are not to 'lust for, desire obsessively.' The clear implication of this...is desire for one's own possession or use.” (Durham)

Harman: “The final word [i.e. command] is different from the others in that it is directed against inward motives rather than outward actions...It may well be that this final commandment is a summarizing one, pointing attention to the fact that desire is the root of all other sins, as all coveting comes from the heart (Prov 6:25).”

Cole disagrees with Harman's opinion and states, “It is sometimes claimed that this is the only one of the ten commandments which prohibits an attitude of mind rather than an outward act: but to make this distinction is probably to misunderstand Hebrew thought. As in the case of 'loving' and 'hating', 'desiring' is an activity, almost equivalent to 'seeking' to acquire.”

This last statement attempts to bridge the gap between those holding objective and subjective stances regarding this verse. It prepares us for a discussion with the internet comment that started out this post and deals with the probable source of that comment. The two sources quoted below in some detail come from scholars who represent very different theological backgrounds, and yet they both agree that there is no reason that “covet” should be replaced by “take.”

Durham: “An array of attempts has been made to 'reconstruct' the original form of the commandments...All such attempts are of course speculation; even though the assumption of an original list of very brief commands is probably a correct one, any precise recovery of such an Ur-[i.e. original]-form is not possible, given the information available to us...The question whether the verb may also suggest action as well as desire, particularly since the other nine commandments appear to command specific actions, has complicated the understanding of the tenth commandment...In every OT passage in which 'desire' leads to actual possession, a second verb is supplied to make that additional meaning clear...Just as the first commandment 'You are not to have other gods,' provides the foundation for covenantal relationship, so this tenth commandment 'You are not to desire for yourself..,' describes the foundation for the severance of covenantal relationship...The tenth commandment thus functions as a kind of summary commandment, the violation of which is a first step that can lead to a violation of any one or all the rest of the commandments. As such, it is necessarily all-embracing and descriptive of an attitude rather than a deed.”

Childs reviews in detail the arguments pro and con regarding whether the prohibition in Exodus and Deuteronomy refers to a subjective attitude or an objective action. He concludes: “The Deuteronomic substitution of the verb hit 'awweh did not mark a qualitative difference of approach which had the effect of internalizing a previous action-oriented commandment. Here a false interpretation of Israel's religious development is also at work. Rather, the Deuteronomic recension simply made more explicit the subjective side of the prohibition which was already contained in the original command. Moran has provided a good check against basing an interpretation of an commandment too much upon a reconstructed historical transformation, the different stages of which have been exaggerated.”

 

ABRAHAM, FRIEND OF GOD (II CHRONICLES 20:7)

 

Abraham, Friend of God (II Chronicles 20:7)

After working for many years in in the corporate world, I have learned the great importance of having friends in high places. Below are some of the scriptural references concerning those who had such high friends, lost such friends, or aspired to have them.

II Chronicles 20:7

This is where the phrase “friend of God” first appears in the Bible, and in this case it refers to Abraham. As important as this verse is, there are still different understandings regarding the reason Abraham was given that distinction, as witnessed below:

“Because of Abraham's faithful obedience, he was known not only as God's 'servant' (Gen 26:24; Ps 105:6,42), but also as his 'friend' (2 Chron 20:7; Isa 41:8).” (Verhoef) This understanding seems to link being chosen with Abraham's prior act of obedience.

“Abraham played a role as intercessor for the nations, and this was traced in Genesis 18 to his status as confidante of God. This status, afforded to only one other individual in the history of Israel (Moses, in Ex 33:11), may be reflected in two instances outside of Genesis in which Abraham is called 'the friend of God' (2 Chron 20:7; Is 41:8).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery) Here the primary cause of the choice of Abraham is left unsaid.

Isaiah 4:8

Finally, regarding this repetition of the choosing, Oswalt states, “Here we are introduced for the first time to the concept of God's 'servant,' which is especially frequent in this part of the book...It is evident that servant is intended to be an encouraging term here by its connection with the vocabulary of election. Israel, like Abraham, Moses, and David has been especially chosen to serve God. That chosen servanthood extends in a straight line back through their ancestors to Abraham, himself, the prototype of election (see Chr. 16:13 and Ps. 105:6). my friend (lit. 'my lover' or 'my beloved') suggests that election is not an austere, judicial act but is rooted and grounded in love, both the love of God for the chosen and the love of the chosen for God. Thus, as those particularly chosen to serve God, offspring of his unique friend (2 Chr. 20:7; Jas. 2:23), they have nothing to fear (John 15:14-15).”

Here we have the cooperative nature of being chosen or saved – it involves actions on the part of both God and man. To attempt to assign a priority of importance to one or the other of these actions while excluding the other entirely is not really justified by Scripture.

Exodus 33:11

The next person in the Bible to claim such a high status is Moses. This verse states: “The LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.” The phrase 'face to face' should probably not be taken literally since soon after this statement, we read in v. 18 that Moses requests to actually see God's presence. This close relationship between these two parties is reemphasized in Numbers 12:7-8 and Deuteronomy 34:10-12 where the phrase 'face to face' is repeated.

Thus, we have the following comments from scholars:

Ramm: “A commentary on this is found in Numbers 12:8...These passages reveal a directness of communication not experienced by any other prophet in the history of Israel. Moses was in no trance, nor ecstatic state but the communication was a direct as possible.”

Cole: “God will speak to Moses 'mouth to mouth', that is to say, not in dreams or visions, but clearly and directly. Moses had the gift of clarity of spiritual insight: he shared the very counsels of God.”

Matthew 26:50

This is perhaps the most confusing usage of “friend” in the Bible since it is the term Jesus uses to address Judas just after He has been given the infamous kill of betrayal. France best explains the situation by saying, “This form of address is peculiar to Matthew in the NT; cf 20:13; 22:12. In each case there is an element of reproach and of distance, which is hard to reproduce in any accepted English idiom. 'My friend,' taken in its lexical sense, is too warm and welcoming, but we do sometimes us it in this rather formal way to address someone who is not in fact a friend at all. In all three Matthean uses it 'denotes a mutually binding relation between the speaker and the hearer which the latter has disregarded and scorned' (K. H. Rengstorf). The comment of Davies and Allison that 'Jesus remains friendly to his betrayer' depends more on the lexical meaning of hetairos than on the idiom as it is used in Matthew. R. E. Brown stresses the ironic function of the term here and in its other Matthean uses.”

John 11:11

Jesus tells his disciples, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep,” referring to his death. Culpepper notes, “Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are identified as those whom Jesus loved (11:3,5). The only other individual in John of whom it is said that Jesus loved him is the Beloved Disciple. Lazarus is also a 'friend' (11:11; cf. 15:13-15; 3:29). Since the raising of Lazarus is the final offense which sets in motion the plot to kill Jesus – and he was well aware that it would be (11:7, 8, 16) – Jesus actually lays down his life for a friend by returning to bring life to Lazarus (cf. 15:13).”

John 15:14-15

In this address of Jesus to his apostles, He says that they are now friends, not servants of his, since He has made known to them all that He received from the Father.

“Having introduced in the previous verse the subject of genuine friendship...John now employs the noun philoi to spell out the implications or basic requirements of such friendship. They are exactly the same obedience requirements as those (15:10) for abiding in his love (agape). It is therefore imperative to avoid the frequent mistake of highlighting differences between agapan and philein in John. The point of the verse is that obedience to the commands of Jesus defines what it means to be his friends...But neither in the Old Testament nor the New Testament is God or Jesus referred to as the friend of humans in the manner of the gospel song 'What a Friend We Have in Jesus.' Such a thought probably would be regarded by the biblical writers as too debasing of God or Jesus.” (Borchert)

John 19:12

Those wishing to have Jesus crucified attempt, successfully, frighten Pontius Pilate by saying that he is no friend of Caesar if he acquits Him. The exact import of this comment is somewhat ambiguous and has given rise to the following diverse opinions. It is not necessary, however, to choose between them since they both have good ideas to share.

Keener: “One of the most common political uses of 'friendship' in our literary sources refers to political dependence on a royal patron...In the Roman period it applies especially to friendship with Caesar..., although of Jewish tetrarchs and rulers, apparently only King Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-2) felt secure enough to adopt this title on his coins. John 19:12 probably refers to this position of honor.”

Morris: “Some hold that 'Caesar's friend' is used in a technical sense, but this seems unlikely. It is a general term for a loyal supporter of Rome. The Jews are maintaining that there is an antagonism between Jesus and Caesar. Again we have John's irony, for there is a sense in which this is true, though not in the sense in which the Jews meant it.”

James 2:23

As an apt conclusion to this subject, Tasker brings together several of these passages as he discusses this NT verse:

“The words here quoted from Gn xv. 6, Abraham believed,and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, though they referred specifically to something that happened thirty years before the incident narrated in Gn. xxii, are nevertheless regarded as being fulfilled in Abraham's readiness to sacrifice Isaac, for there is a sense in which they were prophetic of that event.

“James also draws upon further Scripture proof in his desire to underline the reality of the righteousness imputed to Abraham. He was called the Friend of God. In 2 Ch. xx. 7 Abraham is called God's 'friend for ever'; and in Is xli. 8 God calls Israel 'the seed of Abraham my friend'. The meaning of the expression 'friend of God' seems to be that God did not hide from Abraham what He proposed to do (see Gn. xviii. 17). Abraham was privileged to see something of the great plan which God was working out in history. He rejoiced to see the day of the Messiah (see Jn. viii. 56). Similarly, because Jesus unfolded to His apostles, particularly in the discourses in the Upper Room at Jerusalem, the divine secrets entrusted to Him, He was able to call them His friends. 'Henceforth', He said, 'I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you' (Jn. xv. 15).

“The meaning is certainly not that Abraham 'earned the title of God's friend' because of his readiness to sacrifice Isaac, as R. A. Knox's translation states; any more than we should infer that the apostles of Jesus earned by their obedience the right to be initiated into the secrets of the divine will, and so be styled Jesus' 'friends'. Both in the case of Abraham and of the apostles it was entirely due to divine grace that they were able to receive a title of such honor and dignity.”

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE CENSUS MENTIONED IN LUKE 2:1-7?

 

Is there any evidence for the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-7?

Years ago when I worked at a corporate laboratory in upstate New York I had the occasion to visit our facilities in the Gulf Coast. I met a number of their personnel and after I had given a presentation, one young woman came up to me and asked in a Southern drawl, “Where y'all from? You shore don't sound like a Yankee.” I replied that I was originally from Southern California. Her comment was, “Oh, then you're not a Yankee, you're a foreigner.”

The point is that people often falsely assume that the last place where you lived must be close to where your original home was. That is not as much true today, but it especially applied in Biblical times. Thus, we have two ironic conversations recorded by John.

Culpepper discusses the various types of irony found in John's Gospel and continues by saying, “The most common device employed by the evangelist is the unanswered question, often based on a false assumption, in which the character suggests or prophesies the truth without knowing it. For each of these questions the character assumes an answer the reader knows to be wrong...By suggesting the truth in some of these questions, the interlocutors expose the error of their assumptions.” He cites two examples: 1:46 (“Can anything come out of Nazareth?”) and 7:42 (“Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David [i.e. in Micah 5:2], and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?”).

The source of confusion in these cases, of course, comes from the fact that Jesus was widely known as coming from Nazareth (as stated no less that eighteen times in the New Testament). But John (and the reader) know that He was actually born in Bethlehem and His family only settled in Nazareth after returning from their time in Egypt. It is highly doubtful that John would have been confused as to Jesus' birthplace since he was given charge of Mary when Jesus when dying on the cross.

But the question is: “Do we have any independent indication that Bethlehem was the birthplace of Jesus?” Mark does not mention the fact at all. Matthew, in Chapter 2 of his Gospel, does state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem but gives no additional information as to why the Holy Family was there at the time. We are most dependent on Luke's detailed account for that fact. He explains that they were there for a census carried out when Quirinius was governor.

That statement raises a huge red flag in the minds of many skeptical commentators. But to explain, we first need to pin down the year of Christ's birth. Geldenhuys says, “That would seem to be a given since our whole calendar system is based on the year of Jesus' birth. However, we know from the Bible that after Herod's encounter with the magi, he determined to kill all the children in Bethlehem aged two years or younger. That was probably since the magi did not arrive until some time after Jesus' birth itself. But Herod died in 4 BC according to the latest calculations of scholars. That would mean that Jesus was actually born somewhere between 4-7 BC.

However, even this may not be accurate. The traditional date for Herod the Great's death was actually 1 BC, using a different line of reasoning. And in addition, Herod's heir to the rule over Judea was Herod Archelaus, who may have had some hand in ruling the region even while his father was still alive. And the biblical account may have been referring to him instead of his father.

Then there is the census carried out under Quirinius to be taken into account. It turns out that the only recorded census under him that we know about occurred in A.D. 6-7. However, it has been proposed that Quirinius may have carried out an earlier census, of which we know nothing. Alternatively, 'Quirinius' in the biblical text may have been confused with 'Saturninius,' who was governor of Syria from 9-6 BC.”

In addition, Geldenhuys notes, “Although no express mention of this enrollment has been found outside the New Testament and Christian writers, this does not by any means prove that Luke's statement is incorrect for numerous important events are mentioned, e.g. in the works of Josephus, which are not mentioned elsewhere and yet no one will allege that all such statements of his are false.”

The footnote in the Jerusalem Bible reads, “The first [census] of a series. The translation sometimes given, 'This census preceded that which was held when Quirinius was governor of Syria', is difficult to justify grammatically. The historical circumstances are little known. Most scholars put the census of Quirinius in 6 A.D., but the only authority for this is Josephus who is doubtfully reliable in this matter. The most probable explanation is that the census, which was made with a view to taxation, took place about 8-6 B.C. as part of a general census of the empire, and that it was organized in Palestine by Quirinius who was specially appointed for the purpose. Quirinius might have been governor of Syria, between 4 and 1 B.C., and if so Luke's expression would then be a rough approximation. Jesus was certainly born certainly before Herod's death (4 B.C.), possibly in 8-6 B.C. The 'Christian Era', established by Dionysius Exiguus (6^th century), is the result of a false calculation.”

The scholarly literature on this subject is extensive and would take a book-length discussion to thoroughly canvass. So I am just going to quote from two additional commentators who are typical, respectively, of the liberal and conservative side of the issue.

The Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmyer goes on for several pages in his commentary on Luke's Gospel to explain why the account in Luke 2 is “a Lucan composition;” in other words, it was a totally fictional story made up by Luke. He starts out by saying that “it is clear that the census is a purely literary device used by him to associate Mary and Joseph, residents of Nazareth, with Bethlehem, the town of David...Aside from this statement here in Luke (and of later Christian and pagan writers who depend on him), there is no ancient evidence of a universal worldwide registration or census ordered by Caesar Augustus. No ancient historian tells of a Roman census conducted on this scale in the time of Herod the Great (37-4 B.C)...Hence it seems that Luke, living in the Roman world of his day...was aware of censuses under Augustus and indulged in some rhetoric in his desire to locate the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem under the two famous reigns, of Herod the Great and Caesar Augustus, using a vague recollection of an Augustan census to do so.”

In looking over Fitzmyer's reasoning above, a couple of things stand out:

First, note that he conveniently rules out the confirmatory evidence of Matthew, John, other early Christian writers, and even pagan sources by simply stating that they must all have been dependent on Luke's account. That is a huge, and unprovable, assumption designed solely to prejudice the case against the historicity of the Bible.

Second, the only evidence Fitzmyer has for his scenario is that no such census was known outside of Luke's account. A standard saying of archaeologists is: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” And that truism has played out a number of times in the history of Biblical criticism. Supposed fabrications in the Scripture were later shown to be historically accurate once more hard evidence came to light. Just one of many famous examples was the denial by liberal scholars for decades that Pontius Pilate ever existed, until inscriptions containing his name and title were later uncovered.

Third, the brief statement by Geldenhuys above hints at several other explanations for the seeming contradiction. F.F. Bruce goes a little further in this direction, as quoted below, starting with the claims Luke has to being considered a serious historian:

“Luke inherited the high tradition of Greek historical writing, and had access to various excellent sources of information [including probably Mary herself] about the events with which he dealt, besides being himself present at some of the incidents which he narrated...after Luke there arose no writer who can really be called a historian of the Christian Church until Eusebius, whose Ecclesiastical History was written after Constantine's Milan Edict of Toledo (AD 313).”

One way in which Bruce demonstrates Luke's care with the details is to demonstrate the historical accuracy with which he records in the Book of Acts exact titles of various minor officials in the Roman Empire. Thus, of all the Gospel writers, Luke certainly has the strongest claim to being strictly scrupulous regarding his facts.

As to the specific charges against the accuracy of Luke's infancy account, I am going to rely below extensively on Bruce's comments in his short but excellent book titled “The New Testament Documents: are they reliable?” He begins with summarizing his conclusions, saying that “it is now widely admitted than an earlier enrollment, as described in Luke ii. 1ff, (a) may have taken place in the reign of Herod the Great, (b) may have involved the return of everyone to his family home, (c) may have formed part of an Empire-wide census, and (d) may have been held during a previous governorship of Quirinius over Syria.” His evidence for such statements is summarized below:

(a) “The holding of an imperial census in a client kingdom (as Judea was during Herod's reign) is not unparalleled; in the reign of Tiberius a census was imposed on the client kingdom of Antiochus in eastern Asia Minor.”

(b) “The obligation on all persons to be enrolled at their domiciles of origin, which made it necessary for Joseph to return to Bethlehem, has been illustrated from an edict of AD 104, in which C. Vibius Maximus, Roman prefect of Egypt” issues such an order.

(c) “There is scattered evidence of the holding of enrollments in various parts of the Empire between 11 and 8 BC, the papyrus evidence in the case of Egypt being practically conclusive.”

(d) “There is good inscriptional evidence that when Quirinius took up office in Syria in AD 6 this was the second occasion on which he served as imperial legate...But our evidence does not state expressly in which province he was imperial legate at this earlier date. Sir William Ramsay argued that the province was Syria. We have, however, a continuous record of governors of Syria for those years, which leaves no room for Quirinius; Ramsay suggested that he was appointed as additional and extraordinary legate for military purposes [the reason that most censuses were carried out]...Then there is the possibility due to hints in Tertullian's writings that Saturninus was the name that Luke mistakenly wrote as Quirinius, as Geldenhuys also mentions above.”

SHUFFLING SCRIPTURE: THE SONG OF SONGS

 

Shuffling Scripture: the Song of Songs

This is the last in a series of posts beginning with “Shuffling Scripture.” In the other posts in this series the worst offender in regard to the number of textual alterations is The Jerusalem Bible. That is a modern Roman Catholic rendering into English of an earlier French version.

My problem with JB is not due to it being a modern translation which, as with many other recent translations, occasionally chooses a reading other than that found in the standard Hebrew Masoretic text. That is sometimes justified when other ancient texts such as the Dead Sea scrolls or early versions in other languages appear to have superior readings.

My objection to the JB is also not because it is a translation of a translation. The fact that this is a Roman Catholic translation does not bother me either in the least, except for the occasional footnote which will betray its theological leanings. But I do object to it being called a translation at all rather than the very loose paraphrase that it is on occasion. And even paraphrases, though they will often depart significantly from the literal wording in the Hebrew, do not actually rearrange the verse order so as to “make more sense” out of the text.

But my major problem is that the Jerusalem Bible blithely rearranges the verse order to the point where at times the reader would not recognize it as the same text found in any other English translation. And it almost always does so without a shred of manuscript evidence in any language to indicate that their “improved” order was the original one. Often they refuse to provide any reason at all for this way in which they treat the text.

With that rather critical beginning, let me turn to the Song of Songs for another case where translators felt compelled to depart from the received order of the verses. Surprisingly, the offender in this case is the New English Bible rather than the Jerusalem Bible. Without any manuscript support, comment or seeming justification, it moves 4:12 to a position after v. 14.

Since no reason was given, at this point I must make an educated guess as to why that move was made. The only rationale I can see is a literary one, namely to provide what is called an inclusio for the passage. An inclusio is simply a literary technique in which the same or similar wording appears at both the start and conclusion of a discrete passage, providing a set of bookends for it. In this case, moving v. 12 to the end of the unit would form a match with v. 8 since both contain the phrase “my sister...my bride.”

Of course, that reasoning begins with the assumption that a new unit begins with 4:15. That is where the NEB made its first mistake since most other modern translations (including JB, RSV, NIV, NRSV, TEV, AB, etc.) feel that v. 15 concludes the unit rather than beginning the next passage. And v. 15 contains the phrase “down from Lebanon” as does v. 8, the preferred start of the passage. Thus, it already had an adequate inclusio without any need for rearrangement.

Here is how passage in its the original order can be diagrammed:

Organization of Song of Songs 4:8-15

  1. “Down from Lebanon” (v. 8)

       2. “My sister, my bride” (v. 9)

             3. The “bride” is described (vv. 10-11)

       2'. “A garden, a fountain” (v. 12a)

      2''. “My sister, my bride” (v. 12b)

            3'. The garden is described (vv. 13-14)

       2'''. “A garden fountain” (v. 15a)

  1. “Down from Lebanon” (v. 15b)

This scheme is partially confirmed by Landy, who proposes that 4:8-11 and 4:12-5:1 constitute two parallel units. His proposal greatly confirms the above structure with the difference that he extends the passage through 5:1, which happens to also have the phrase “my sister, my bride” in it.

Note also how the transition point at v. 12 between the two parallel descriptions in the above diagram serves to tie the two together by the interlocking nature of the two lines in verse 12. I have purposely italicized the parallel units so that it is easier to see this literary technique. The term “janus verse” has been proposed for similar situations in the Bible where a given verse looks equally forward and backward like the Roman god Janus, pictured with two faces looking in opposite directions.

It is interesting the way this song appeals to the senses: unit 3 uses similes involving drinks while 3'' deals with fruits and spices.

By contrast, the translators of the NEB totally missed this literary structure and so simply moved all of v. 12 to the end of the section so that it would match up with v. 9 – both containing the phrase “my sister, my bride.” In the process, however, they destroyed the symmetry of the two 2-3-2 structures in the section.

We see the same sort of mistake being made time and time again from liberal scholars who do not take into account the symmetrical literary arrangement of words and ideas which characterizes almost all of the biblical writings. Thus, they see something in the text repeated and so assume that it is because the original “editor” had two versions of the same story in front of him and didn't know which one was correct. His solution, according to them, was to just include both of them in close proximity to one another and let the reader decide between them.

And at other times they deride the fact that the Bible doesn't always stick to a chronological presentation. Both of these phenomena can be easily explained by looking for the care with which the authors have carefully structured their writings so as to create better balance and flow in the books and so that the main points of a passage are best emphasized.

WHO IS SPEAKING IN SONG OF SONGS 8:6a?

Popular mottoes featuring “love” abound in culture. They include:

    the cute – Love is a warm puppy,

    the theological – God is love,

    the controversial – Love makes the world go round (one young woman at church got extremely mad at me when I took issue with her statement that this was literally true),

    the nonsensical – Love is never having to say you're sorry,

    etc., etc.

But perhaps the most unexpected statement comes from Song of Songs 8:6. This verse states, “Love is as strong as death.” I have already dealt in some detail with the meaning of this statement (see the post titled “Song of Songs 8:6”). But one aspect was overlooked – the speaker in this verse.

There are two places in this poetic book, which can also be read as a play, in which the identity of the speaker is in doubt. And interestingly, these are also the two places which have been identified as the literary conclusion of the Song.

In another post titled “What is the Importance of the Organization of the Song of Songs?” I proposed that the center point of the book in terms of its literary structure was located at 5:1b, a short benediction which has been variously attributed to the chorus or to God Himself. If it refers to God, then that verse has the distinction of being the only one in the book to do so.

However, there is the more common understanding (with accompanying confusion) that Song 8:6 should have that honor. For example, Pokrifka says, “Although God is mentioned only once in the book (Song 8:6b), it portrays life as redeemed from the curses of Genesis 3; it is life under divine blessing beyond the hostility of nature and male domination,” and Oswalt says that “a divine title occurs only once in Song of Songs: 'the LORD.'”

However, Oswalt continues by saying that “the reference is of almost no theological significance. Most modern versions actually take it as an adjective of intensity. Thus, the literal '[jealousy] like a flame of the LORD' is rendered with 'like a mighty flame' or something similar.”

The common confusion regarding these two candidates for the central passage in the Song involves the identity of the speaker. Verse 5:1b has been attributed to either God or to the Chorus in the book. And there are actually three candidates for the person talking in 8:6.

As to the speaker in that verse, Gledhill says “that here, the author of the poems is himself intruding into his own creation and meditating on the nature of love itself. No longer is it the particular love of our young lovers, but love in its most abstract guise...For many, this unit represents a high point in the Song. If 5:1 represents a climax in the lovers' physical relationship, then these verses represent a climax in praise of the unconquerability of love in the face of all its foes.”

Longman states: “This verse is arguably the most memorable and intense of the entire book. M. Sadgrove remarks on this verse and the next that 'this is the only place in the Song where any attempt is made to probe the meaning of the love that is its theme; everywhere else it is simply described'...the woman gives a motive for her request to the man.

Dobbs-Allsopp agrees with this attribution: “The woman desires to be bound closely and always to her lover.” R.B.Y. Scott says, “The lovers return, the maiden imploring her lover to be faithful.” NIV asigns this speaking part to “She;” TEV and The Message to “The Woman;” and The Living Bible to “The Girl.”

By contrast, The Jerusalem Bible and NEB both assign speaking parts to each verse and identify 8:6 as being said by the bridegroom. And although Pope in his Anchor Bible commentary opts for the woman to be the speaker, he mentions that there is some confusion regarding the gender of the pronouns in the passage.

This whole issue, which will probably never be settled, is but one of several that certainly set Song of Songs apart from all other books in the Bible.

WHAT EVENT IS MICAH 5:5-6 PREDICTING?

What event is Micah 5:5-6 predicting?

Trying to make sense out of Old Testament prophecies is probably one of the most difficult tasks faced by a Bible interpreter. It is actually quite easy to get a consistent picture as long as you limit your sources to those who hold to the same general view of prophecy. But once you stray outside that narrow field, you are bound to get as confused as I am in attempting to explain this one verse.

Let me start out, as I often like to do, by diagramming this passage to point out the symmetry within it.

                                                        Structure of Micah 5:5-6

    And this shall be peace:

        1. when the Assyrian comes into our land

            2. and treads upon our soil

                3. that we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men

                    4. they shall rule the land of Assyria with the sword

                    4'. and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword

                3'. and they shall deliver us from the Assyrian

    1'. when he comes into our land

        2'. and treads upon our soil

This literary organization helps to settle one minor disagreement among commentators, some of whom take the events in these two verses in chronological order while others feel that it should read in reverse order so as to make sense. In fact, both camps are partially correct, since the chronological order reads from both ends toward the middle. The order of events is therefore: (1) the Assyrians come into the land, (2) Israel's rulers fight them off, and finally (3) Israel actually conquers Assyria.

Seven and Eight

Let us start with the easiest issue to deal with – the significance of these two numbers.

Those conservative scholars who hold to a dispensational premillennial interpretation of prophecy generally make a fetish out of the fact that they take everything in the Bible as literal. Thus, most of them steer away entirely from trying to explain the meaning of the numbers 7 and 8. One exception is J.B. Payne, who states: “The progression 7>8, seems to be a literary figure for augmented strength (cf. Amos 1:3,6, Prov 30:15,18, etc.); but the concept itself remains essentially literal.” He rightly recognizes the figurative meaning of the numbers, but needs to add that the “concept” is literal, whatever that might mean exactly.

“There seems to be no special significance to the numbers seven and eight. Probably they are used in the same manner in which Amos uses three and four (Am. chs. 1 and 2), and simply indicate a number of leaders adequate to meet the exigencies of the situation.” (D.J. Clark)

This opinion is echoed by R.L. Smith: “The seven shepherds and eight leaders are not to be taken literally. This is a Hebrew literary device to indicate than an indefinite yet adequate number of leaders will arise to overthrow the Assyrians (Prov 30:15,18,21,29; Eccl 11:2).”

Clark is correct in as far as he goes, but Gleason Archer probably hits on the most complete explanation: “The number seven represents the full and perfect work of God, and would be quite sufficient, but one more (eight) is added to ensure that there will be more than enough to furnish the proper leadership against all assailants.”

Then there is the opinion of Andersen and Freedman, who tentatively endorse the figurative use of these numbers: “Parallelism of numbers x/x+1 is a feature of West-Semitic literature, used sparingly elsewhere...It is not clear whether the numbers...have a precise meaning and refer to some specific group leadership pattern. In a context that has memories of David's historic role, there may be an echo of the fact that he was the eighth and youngest son of Jesse...But there is no tradition that he held the primacy in leadership shared in some way with his brothers.”

Assyria

But the major dividing point among scholars involves the identification of “Assyria” and the concomitant issue of the expected timing of the predicted event in Micah 5. The five basic opinions appear to be (a) events during Sennacherib's reign and attack of Israel, (b) events directly following the Assyrian/Babylonian exile, (c) events that are still in our future, (d) figurative fulfillments throughout history, and (e) a partial fulfillment soon after the prophecy with a more complete and literal fulfillment during the Last Days.

(a). One school of thought tends to look for the nearest adequate fulfillment of a prophecy occurring after the prediction itself. Thus we have the opinion of McConville: “An oracle such as Micah 5:2-6 appears to come from a time when the Assyrian invasion of Judah was a threat that had not yet been realized...On one view, Micah here refers to none other than King Hezekiah. This is plausible because Hezekiah is remembered in 2 Kings 18-19 as a righteous king who averted a national disaster by his prayer and trust in Yahweh. The passage may be taken quite differently, however, because it avoids the term 'king'...On this view the predicted ruler is actually contrasted with Hezekiah, because of the (equally valid) memory that in his day Judah had in fact been overrun by the Assyrians. This debate is hard to resolve.”

“In 5:1-6 there seems to be little reason to take Assyria (vv. 5f.) as other than literal. The resultant period can be narrowed down by the reference in v. 1 to the state of siege Jerusalem was undergoing. Accordingly 701 B.C. appears to be the year when this oracle was delivered...It is evident that Micah placed the fulfillment of these promises in an eighth-century B.C. setting of threat of Assyrian invasion. The coming of this royal hero is presented as the eventual antidote to the threat and fact of Assyrian invasion. Eventual, because his birth lies in the future and so his saving activity is to be later still. There will be no immediate end to Assyrian domination. The attacking imperialist will be allowed his fling for a time, but is doomed to meet his match in the person of the victorious king of Israel. In this respect Micah agrees with his greater contemporary Isaiah, who also depicted this promised king as the answer to the menace of Assyria.” (L.C. Allen)

The problem with this view is pinpointed by the following two commentators:

    “Not only will they 'deliver us from the Assyrian' invader, but they will 'rule the land of Assyria' itself...These verses are rather difficult and admit of more than one interpretation. If referred to the background of Sennacherib's siege, they portray not merely deliverance but even military conquest of Assyria itself...Such a situation is...out of keeping with the historical realities...” (D.J. Clark)

    “This passage is difficult to interpret. If 4:14-5:3 refers to the messianic age, does 5:4-5 follow chronologically the coming of the Messiah according to the prophet's understanding? If so, Micah expected the Messiah to come at the end of the Assyrian crisis. It appears that Isaiah at one time expected a new king of the line of David to appear when the Assyrians were cut down (cf. Isa 10:34-11:10...'He' in 5b 'he will deliver' probably refers to God rather than the new king.” (R.L. Smith)

(b). The scholar D.J. Clark says, “The prophet here looks into the dark tunnel of exile to see what awaits the nation there...it seems preferable to view these verses either as a reference still future events [option c], or perhaps as a figurative description of Judean leadership coming into positions of prominence during the exile, and delivering the people in the sense of preventing their assimilation and disappearance as a distinct religious and ethnic group.”

(c). “The fact that Christ will reign over the earth is of course embedded in practically every prophecy concerning the millennial kingdom...It should be clear from the details surrounding these predictions that these prophecies are not being fulfilled in the present age, nor are they a description of the sovereignty of God in the heavenly sphere. Many other Scriptures can be cited [including Micah 5:2-5] to substantiate the reign of Christ as King in the millennium...” (Walvoord) I will not bother going into all the hermeneutical assumptions that go into this sweeping statement.

The fulfillment, according to J.B. Payne, concerns “the activity of Christian leaders at the Lord's return; cf. the more general forecast of Rev 20:4,6, about those who 'live and reign' with Christ.”

(d). “Christ will constitute the peace and welfare of His people as they come under the attack of their foes, who are (very appropriately for Micah's time) represented by the Assyrians, but doubtless this term here includes all the future enemies of Israel and the church: the Seleucid Syrians, the Romans, the Inquisition, the Modernists and the Marxists. All these will be checked and repulsed by Spirit-empowered leaders: the Maccabean patriots, the apostles, Athanasius, Augustine, Wycliffe and Luther, and whoever else would be needed to preserve the community of true believers from conquest or extinction.” (Archer)

(e). Andersen and Freedman believe that “the language of v. 5b – 'and he will rescue us from Assyria' – does not suggest merely the successful repulsion of an attack. It suggests rather that after Israel has been conquered...and prisoners have been taken back to Assyria the shepherds will go to the land of Assyria and recover the captives from there. This is the task of a shepherd, to rescue the flock, stolen by a thief, going after him with the sword. If Micah 5:1-5 is an eighth century prophecy that the outcome of menacing Assyrian imperialists would be the fresh creation of David's empire, then it was not fulfilled. Israel never conquered Assyria. Such a prophecy would retain its vitality in later interpretation only by postponing it to the End-Time...In this later setting Assyria has now become an archetypical symbol. Assyria is named in Isa 52:4 in a context that clearly refers to Babylon. If the usage in Mic 5:4-5 is similar, it could be likewise exilic.”

This is one of those issues in which I am not comfortable enough with any one interpretation to endorse it to the exclusion of the others. So feel free to investigate the possibilities for yourself and make up your own minds on the subject.