IS PAUL A POOR THEOLOGIAN (I TIMOTHY 1:17)

 I want to start off with a rather critical comment on this verse by A.T. Hanson: “We may note the alternative reading 'immortal' (atnanatoi) for 'invisible' (the word rendered immortal by RSV is probably 'incorruptible'). This is the only passage in the entire New Testament in which God is described as invisible without the accompanying assertion that he has made himself known in Christ or in his works of creation. Compare 6:16, where the invisibility of God is strongly emphasized, but his intention of manifesting Christ at the parousia [Second Coming] is also asserted. Compare Rom. 1:20; Col. 1:15; Jn 1:18; 6:46. This is no doubt an oversight on the author's part; he was no great theologian.”

Hanson's comments bring up several issues which cry out for a response.

Authorship

My title is a bit misleading since I should not accuse Hanson of purposefully criticizing Paul's theology. But he is only free of such a criticism because he, in line with many other more liberal commentators, does not at all believe that Paul wrote this letter. That is why Hanson refers at the end of his statement to “the author” rather than to “Paul.” However, that is not a universally held position by scholars.

The most likely options appear to be: (a) a traditional Pauline authorship, (b) various “fragment” theories in which an editor assembled and expanded upon some scraps of genuine writings by Paul, (c) the amanuensis theory whereby an associate of Paul’s put his heavy stamp upon Paul’s communications, and (d) a pseudonymous author. The pros and cons of these various views have been voluminously reviewed elsewhere with varying conclusions reached. Despite a lack of consensus on this point, the at-least-indirect involvement of Paul in writing the Pastorals has by no means been ruled out by modern scholars, and the possible involvement of Luke in the process has also been suggested by several commentators. Certainly no one in his right mind would dare to question the theological qualifications of either Paul or Luke.

Text

Hanson begins his comments by referring to “the alternative reading.” That language usually refers to one of two things: a different translation of the same Greek word or, more often, to a variant Greek reading found in one or more manuscript. The problem is that neither one of these two possibilities applies in this case. In regard to the first possibility, the Greek words for immortal [athanatoi] and invisible [ahorato] are totally different, and neither one can be translated as the other.

Secondly, in reference to the authentic Greek text of this verse, not a single English translation or paraphrase deletes the word “invisible” or even attaches a footnote giving an alternative reading referring to it. In terms of the comments of known textual scholars, Metzger lists no alternative readings for this verse. But contrast, Comfort does mention that a few early Greek manuscripts do have the following variant readings: “indestructible, invisible;” “immortal, invisible;” and “indestructible, invisible, immortal.” Note that even in these cases, none proposes deleting “invisible” in favor of another description. So I would have to conclude that Hanson is “no great commentator.”

The Uniqueness of I Timothy 1:17
Next Hanson states that this is “the only passage in the entire New Testament” where God's invisibility is not coupled with a statement to the effect that God has been revealed in the person of Christ. The impression is that there are a great number of such other passages. Let us consider the facts. From consulting a number of commentaries, I have compiled a list of over thirty cross-references to I Timothy 1:17 that may possibly bear on the subject. Here is the breakdown of what is contained in those passages:

    Discarded as having nothing pertinent to say on the subject: John 5:19; 9:8; 9:39; 11:1; 12:40; 21:21; II Corinthians 12:6; Hebrews 2:9

    Mentioning the revelation of Christ but not God's invisibility: Matthew 11:27; John 1:14; 9:37-38; 12:40; 14:8-10; II Corinthians 4:6

    Seeing both God and Christ at the same time: Acts 7:55-56; Revelation 22:4

    Mentioning God's invisible nature only: I Timothy 1:17; Hebrews 11:1-3; I John 3:2; 4:40; Revelation 4:3

    God's invisibility stated and possibly the revelation through Christ: John 6:40,46; II Corinthians 4:6,18; I Timothy 6:14-16

    Both God's invisible nature and Christ's revelation stated: John 1:18; Colossians 1:15; I John 4:12-14

From this tabulation, one can deduce the following: Hanson is way off-base in his declaration that other than I Timothy 1:17, all New Testament references to God's invisibility are accompanied by mention that Christ has revealed Him to us. In fact, there are five clear example in which no such accompaniment is found. And if one wishes to include those passages in which it is a rather dubious whether Christ's revelation is also included, then that adds another two such examples.

Actually, the above statistics show only three times in the NT when both God's invisibility and His revelation through Christ are clearly stated. That hardly accounts for Hanson's hyperbole which gives the impression that there are many such NT passages which do so. Even if one includes the rather dubious verses above, that would still only account for a total of six such references, one of which happens to also be in I Timothy. That brings up my next point.

Hanson grants that the author of I Timothy does give the complete formulation of invisibility plus revelation in 6:14-16, but still faults him for not including it in 1:17 also. At this point, it is helpful to back up a point and review a principle I have mentioned again and again in my many posts – the ubiquitous utilization of repetition throughout the Bible. One of the clearest examples is seen in Hebrew poetry, which accounts for a large portion of the Old Testament writings. Poetic parallelism is the term used to refer to the repetition, with minor variations, found between separate stanzas within a given verse. Below is an example chosen at random:

        “Prove me, O LORD, and try me;

        test my heart and mind.” (Psalm 26:2)

Note that both lines express the same thought even though synonyms (prove, try, test) are used. However, the first line makes it clear who is doing the testing while the second line clarifies what is being tested – both heart and mind.

Less clear in prose passages, but still very much present, are parallel lines which may be widely separated within a single book of the Bible. Thus, for the epistle in question, one can see the following arrangement present (for further information, see my post on the literary structure of I Timothy):

Figure 1: The Structure of I Timothy

I. Charges to Timothy (1:1-20)

A. “Charge” to Timothy, “my son” (1:1-5)

B. “Certain persons” (1:6-11)

C. Thanksgiving (1:12-17) – ending “AMEN”

A'. “Charge” to Timothy, “my son” (1:18-19a)

B'. “Certain persons” (1:19b-20)

II. Household Codes (2:1-3:13)

III. Instructions to Timothy (3:14-4:16)

II'. Household Codes (5:1-22)

I'. Charges to Timothy (5:23-6:21)

A. Advice to Timothy–true wisdom (5:23-25)

B. Servants (6:1-2a)

C. False teachers (6:2b-10)

C'. True teachers (6:11-16) – ending “AMEN”

B'. The Rich (6:17-19)

I have highlighted the two parallel passages in question. Here is how each of these passages reads:

    “To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” (I Timothy 1:17)

    “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see; to him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.” (I Timothy 6:15b-16)

Towner remarks on I Timothy 6:15b-16, “The parallel with 1:17 is evident though this description is more elegant than its earlier counterpart...All that is left after so majestic a litany is an expression of doxology uttered in awe (cf. 1:17; Rom 11:33-36)

So these two passages are obviously a matched pair in the same manner of the two stanzas of Psalm 26:2 shown earlier. And just as in that case, there are both many similarities between the two parallel passages (invisibility, King, honor, Amen, and eternality) and items which are mentioned in one passage but not the other (“glory” only in 1:17 and the revelation of Christ only in I Timothy 6, if one counts v. 14). So to say that the author made an oversight by neglecting to mention the revelation of Christ in 1:17 is to ignore the fact that both passages are to be read together, with each doxology illuminating the other one, just as in the poetic parallelism of the Old Testament.

Both 1:17 and 6:16 have been called “theology cast as doxology” due to the wealth of doctrinal issues faced in these passages. (A. Smith)

That brings up the final slap in the face made by Hanson “The author was no great theologian.” I could go on and on with quotations from scholars who would greatly disagree with his statement and provide examples to prove it, but here is just one tiny example coming out of the disputed verse 1:17. Paul uses the phrase “the only God,” a strong statement of the most basic doctrine coming out of the OT scriptures: the unique nature of God. One can make the case that the author here is stating something which actually goes beyond any similar declaration found elsewhere in the NT. Thus, the best we can come up with in other New Testament books in terms of a monotheistic teaching are the following:

    “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5:21)

    “only true God” (John 17:3)

    “only wise God (Romans 16:27; Jude 25)

As Guthrie says, “The omission of the adjective ['wise'] here provides a more emphatic expression of Jewish monotheism.”

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, here are some additional comments made regarding the two doxologies in I Timothy:

“' Whom no person has seen or can see' [6:16]...is based on Exod. 33:20 and may be a loose reworking of it: 'And he said, You shall not be able to see my face; for no one can see my face and live.'” (Towner)

Litfin says regarding 1:17, “Immortal and invisible speak of two of the central attributes of God: His eternality and His spiritual essence.”

Mounce on Revelation 4:3 – “The Psalmist spoke of God as one who covered himself 'with light as with a garment' (Ps. 104:2), and Paul described the Lord as dwelling 'in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see' (I Tim 6:16). The source of the description is the vision of Ezekiel 1 in which the throne appears like sapphire surrounded by a rainbow (1:26-28).”

Hendricksen: “God, being imperishable, is also invisible...It is only in his Image (Col. 1:15,16) that man 'sees Him who is 'invisible,' and then only by faith (Heb. 11:27). He sees parallels to I Timothy 6:15-16 in Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:12; and Isaiah 6:5.

PSALM 68

 Literary Organization

As an introduction to this lengthy psalm, I have pictured below some of the repeated elements that go into its composition so that you can get an approximate overview of the whole.

                                        Figure 1: The Organization of Psalm 68

A. enemies scattered (1-2)

    B. people praise “sing” (3-4a)

        C. rider in the sky (4b)

            D. God's home – holy habitation (5)

                E. procession of prisoners and fate of rebels (6-10)                   

                                                                                                        Selah (7b)

A'. enemies scattered (11-12a)

                    F. gifts received (12b-13)

A''. enemies scattered (14)

            D'. God's home – abode (15-16)

            D''. God's home – holy place (17)

                E'. procession of captives and fate of rebellious (18a)

                    F'. gifts of metal received (18b)

                        G. “blessed be the Lord” (19a) 

                                                                                                        Selah (19b)

-----

                E''. salvation of his people and fate of enemies (20-23)

            D'''. God's home – sanctuary (24a)

                E'''. procession into the temple (25-27)

            D''''. God's home – temple (29a)

                    F''. gifts of metal received (29b-31)

A'''. enemies scattered (30)

    B'. people praise (“sing”) (32a) 

                                                                                                          Selah (32b)

        C'. rider in the sky (33-34)

            D'''''. God's home – sanctuary (35a)

                        G'. “blessed be God” (35b)

Tanner provides some support for this sort of arrangement when she says, “In structure, the psalm is cyclic, beginning and ending with the same proclamations (praise of the Rider, vv. 4 and 33) [see sections C and C'], and both of these proclamations are centered in sections that declare God's power and might over all the world.”

By contrast, Alter endorses Fokkelman's view of “a series of divisions going from small to large, vv. 2-11, 12-24, 25-36 and arranged around the respective mountains of Sinai, Bashan, and Zion.”

Although Figure 1 is not a strictly symmetrical structure, there are certainly strong similarities between verses 1-10 and 30-35 as well as rough parallels between vv. 14-19 and 20-31, with the selah at 19b dividing the chapter into two parts. By the way, no one is really sure what that mysterious word means; it is possibly some sort of musical cue for when the psalm was originally sung.

As Holladay says, “The psalms were doubtless sung or chanted and they were probably given musical accompaniment: Ps. 68:25 offers enticing hints.” That verse reads, “the singers in front, the musicians last, between them girls playing tambourines.”

Difficulties

There are several issues involved in approaching Psalm 68, as Baigent states: “This is one of the most difficult psalms in the Psalter both to translate and to interpret. Attempts to find a life-setting range from suggesting a particular historical occasion (e.g. 2 Sam. 6:12-19; I Kg. 8:1ff; or 2 Chr. 30) to the idea that Ps. 68 is really a catalogue of some thirty poems, each listed by citing its first line or stanza.”

That last idea originally comes from Albright and may appear to be totally absurd, but it is actually not that unreasonable since it has also been proposed for Psalm 86 – the central poem in the whole Psalter (see my post titled “The Psalms: Introduction to the Literary Structure”). But in the case of Ps. 68 it is somewhat less likely due to its overall arrangement, as shown in Figure 1.

Baigent goes on to say, “Inevitably, any attempt to trace the progression of thought in this psalm must be tentative and generalized. I would certainly agree with him there, but Figure 1 does suggest a sort of starting point to use as a springboard to interpretation.

“Ps. 68 is notoriously difficult both to outline and to place in any specific historical setting. Scholars often rank it among the most difficult psalms to interpret...and the wide variety of proposals for its setting are evidence of the truth in this assessment...Despite this variety of material, the psalm displays a coherent historical movement from God's past faithfulness to Israel to a future in which all the nations of the earth would worship him.” (Thielman)

Anderson: “The interpretation of this Psalm is a difficult task because its structure is very complex, and the text is clearly corrupt in more than one place.” He calls it “a triumphal hymn', although it contains elements usually not included in such psalms. “The Sitz im Leben [original setting] of our Psalm may have been the Autumnal Festival which included the celebration of Yahweh's kingship and his mighty deeds, as well as a praise of his providential care.”

“This is one of the most magnificent songs of triumph in the whole of the OT...It was almost certainly written to celebrate the transference of the ark of the Lord from the house of Obed-edom to the new Tabernacle which David had prepared for it on Mt. Zion (cf. 2 Sa. 6:2-18) or, possibly, to celebrate an annual memorial of this great procession wherein Yahweh's Kingship would be vividly portrayed and praised.” (M'Caw and Motyer)

And Tanner says, “No matter how one divides Psalm 68 or how one chooses to understand its unity or lack thereof, one thing is certain: its theme is one of unflinching praise for the powerful Warrior God of Israel. Its images are some of the most ancient in the Bible, and many of its words and phrases are so difficult that any translation is a tentative one where no one reading is superior to the multiple others that have been proposed. Further, scholars find it impossible to assign the psalm to a genre or to agree if the images presented are depictions of actual historical happenings or are mythic battles between the gods.”

Psalm 68 Through the Ages

In spite of all these uncertainties, this psalm has continued to inspire readers throughout the centuries. For example, Holladay notes that it was the favorite hymn of Emperor Charlemagne; the Dead Sea community apparently wrote a commentary on it (unfortunately only fragments remain); and it was very popular with the later Huguenot armies. And even earlier, Paul quoted from Psalm 68:18 in his letter to the Ephesians (4:8). The latter is worth looking at some time, but the explanation of that particular usage is too complicated to discuss here.

As a final illustration of the applications that readers still glean from Psalm 68, below are a few thoughts from Beth Stovell, professor of Old Testament at Ambrose University, as she writes in the May/June 2023 issue of CT magazine:

    “Psalm 68 is a theophany psalm...A theophany is an experience of God's presence – the moment when God shows up...When God shows up, he reveals who he is and transforms difficult situations. This helped me see God's presence in Psalm 68 differently.”

    “First, God shows up in Psalm 68 as a divine warrior. While it may seem odd today to think of God as waging war, it might be helpful to remember how much we appreciate God's power in times when we feel powerless...He is more powerful than death or disease or loneliness or pain.”

    “The power of God's name travels from the Old Testament to the New when 'at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth' (Phil. 2:10)...the message is clear: 'Do not be afraid of [your enemies]; the Lord your God himself will fight for you' (Deut. 3:22).”

    “Despite his power, God is not like the leaders of ancient Israel's time or today's leaders who might value or care for only the powerful and elite. Instead, the psalmist points out that God sees those other might overlook. He acts as a father to the fatherless (Ps. 68:5). He defends the widow. For those who have experienced loss, he longs to care in the midst of that loss.”

    “God also sees our loneliness; he 'sets the lonely in families' (v. 6).”

    “But Psalm 68 doesn't stop there. This personal God who knows the most fragile places in us is also the God who is able to free his people from slavery and sustain them in the wilderness through his miraculous provision...This is the Lord Almighty, whose power far exceeds that of any other king or any other nation (vv. 11-18). This is the God who saves his people 'who daily bears our burdens. Our God is a God who saves' (vv. 19-20).”

    “Psalm 68:24-26, then, does what I have done throughout my life as a worship leader: guide people into a procession of worship. When God as divine warrior destroys the enemies who plot against his peace and wholeness, we respond with praise.”

    “Psalm 68:32-35 continues this praise by referring to what we see about God in the first 10 verses. [This is another confirmation of the gist of Figure 1.] They encourage the whole world to sing praise to the Lord, who is power and majestic. God's power is not just over Israel, but over all of creation.”

So despite the many uncertainties surrounding these verses, you can see that it continues to minister to believers today.

THE TEXT OF MATTHEW 13

The Text of Matthew 13

If you take the time to compare a given passage of Scripture as rendered by different translations, you will naturally see that they do not read word-for-word the same. That is to be expected when trying to convey a thought in one language which was originally written in another language. But in the case of the New Testament, for example, being translated from ancient Greek into modern English, there is another hidden factor involved in the process that most Christians are not aware of. First, one must have an accurate Greek text with which to work. And the reality is that we do not possess any handwritten documents (also called manuscripts) by the original authors, only copies of copies of copies.

So before even beginning the translation process, teams of textual scholars must first compare all of the thousands of manuscripts with one another and make a judgment call for each verse of Scripture as to the wording of the original writing. This is necessary since it turns out that there are numerous variations in the exact wording of these many manuscripts. Some of the differences between them are due to accidental mistakes in copying (we might call them typos), while others are due to purposeful alterations which the scribes felt were necessary to “correct” or “better explain” the text.

While this may seem to cast a huge cloud over the Bible and make us feel that we can't trust anything written there, the problem is not nearly as insurmountable as it may seem. The vast majority of these textual variations can be easily dismissed as sloppy copying by the imperfectly trained “scribes.” (By the way, this problem does not exist with the Old Testament text nearly as much due to the scrupulous pains taken by professional Jewish scribes to accurately preserve the original text over the centuries.)

For those NT variations which are not as easily dismissed, modern textual scholars have a built up a whole host of common sense principles to employ in reconstructing the original wording.

For example, although going with the reading found in the majority of the manuscripts might sound like the most sensible approach to take (and it was the basic approach used in establishing the text behind the King James Bible), that can be highly misleading. The reason is that it only takes one mistake in a copy of the NT produced early on to be perpetuated over the centuries by subsequent copyists. Thus, one has to also take into account the relative ages of each manuscript (favoring the earliest ones) and the geographical scope of the manuscripts (favoring the reading found in widely different areas over one existing primarily in a narrow part of the ancient world). Other things scholars look for are purposeful changes made in order to bring the wording of one verse more in line with similar verses found elsewhere in the NT, attempts to clarify the text for the reader, and the addition of doctrinal issues mainly of importance in later church life.

So how does a reader know how accurately the scholars have done their job in establishing a reliable Greek text before the translators began their job? One way is to look at the footnotes in your English translations. Any good study Bible with not only have useful explanatory notes at the bottom of each page, but also textual footnotes beginning with parallel wording such as: “other authorities read,” “other witnesses have,” or “other manuscripts read.” Those alternative readings will represent those places where some doubt remained in the minds of the translators as to the original Greek wording.

Let's turn to Matthew 13 as a random example. If you happen to have the Jerusalem Bible, then you will note that there are textual notes for verses 9 and 35. RSV contains textual notes on verses 9, 35, and 43; NRSV has a note each for verses 9 and 43 as well as two notes for v. 35; NEB only footnotes v. 35; and the NIV Study Bible contains no textual information at all.

You can see this same disagreement in reading scholarly commentaries on this same passage, so that for example:

Hendricksen only comments on one dubious point in v. 35 while France sees textual items worth pointing out in vv. 22, 35, 43, and 55. Even within textual scholars themselves there is disagreement regarding which textual variations are important enough to justify a mention. In this regard, there are two valuable resources for those who wish to delve into this matter in more detail: Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament and Philip Comfort's A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament. Metzger's work is perhaps the better known of the two, but for those such as myself who do not read Greek fluently, Comfort has the more accessible treatment as well as providing a good introduction to the whole subject of textual criticism. Concerning Matthew 13, Metzger comments on verses 9, 13, 35a, 35b, 40, 43, 44, and 55 while Comfort discusses verses 35a, 35b, 36, 37, 41, 43, and 55.

With that overly long background to the subject, here are the specific variations found within manuscripts containing Matthew 13 just so you can get a good idea of the extent they might or might not affect the actual meaning of this passage.

Matthew 13:9

The tag line at this parable's ending reads “He who has ears, let him hear.” The Jerusalem Bible notes that some manuscripts instead read “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” to bring it into line with Matthew 11:15 and 13:43. Here we have an example of textual critics siding with the more difficult reading, the reasoning being that there is every justification for a scribe to change 13:9 so as to agree with the two other similar formulations in the Gospel, but no discernible reason for anyone to subtract “to hear” from the more common longer wording.

Matthew 13:13

There are several “families” of NT texts identified by their common textual peculiarities and the geographical area in which they tended to circulate. Thus, Greenlee states, “The Caesarean text lies mid-way, so to speak, between the Alexandrian and the Western text...It is often found in the company of the Alexandrian text (e.g., kriston einai in Mark 1:34), often with the Western text (e.g. hina blepontes me bleposin in Matt. 13:13), and often with its own readings apart from the other local texts...”

And Metzger says, “Several representatives of the Western and the Caesarean types of text, influenced by the parallel passages in Mk 4.12 and Lk 8.10, altered the construction to hina with the subjunctive mood.” The difference between the two readings is that one says the peoples' hearts are hardened so that they won't turn and repent while the other states that because their hearts are hardened, they can't repent.

France concludes: “Moreover, his [Matthew's] full quotation of Isa 6:9-10 in vv. 14-15 makes explicit what is only implicit in the summary, that the people's failure to understand keeps them from repenting and so from being healed. Set in that context, Matthew's 'because' does not seem so different from Mark's 'in order that'; intentions and results are blended into a scenario which is not at all hopeful for the enlightenment of the outsiders. 'Because' does not in itself make the parables a means of curing the people's blindness, but only a form of teaching appropriate to it.”

Matthew 13:22

This verse talks about the cares of “the world.” France translates it as “this world” instead (as do JB and TEV, for example), and explains: “There is no 'this' in the oldest Greek texts here (though many MSS and versions add it), but English idiom requires it to distinguish this age from the age to come.” Other English renderings read “worldly cares” to convey the same idea. So this example is really a combination of both textual and translation issues, with virtually no overall differences in understanding between the variations.

Matthew 13:35a

This is without a doubt the most discussed textual issue found in this chapter. Jesus introduces an OT quotation by stating: “This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the prophet.” This is probably the original wording since, as Hendricksen points out, (a) alternative readings (specifically, the addition of “Isaiah” after “prophet”) have much weaker manuscript support and (b) there is also no specific name given for “the prophet” in Matthew 2:17; 3:3; 4:14; and 12:17.

Comfort adds that scribes may have added “Isaiah” since that prophet is mentioned by name in Matthew 3:3; 4:14; 8:17; and 12:17. Other places where individual scribes added “Isaiah” to the original text are found in 1:22 and 2:5.

However, not all translations agree with the above reasoning. Thus, although we see the NIV Study Bible omitting “Isaiah” and not even providing a textual note to point out the alternative, NEB includes “Isaiah” in the text itself with a footnote indicating that other manuscripts omit it.

One major problem with the inclusion of the prophet's name is that, as Hill explains, the actual quotation is not at all from Isaiah's writing but to Psalm 78:2 instead, ascribed to Asaph. But does Asaph meet the requirements of a true OT prophet? Hill responds that “All the OT scriptures have, for Matthew, a prophetic value.” To this, Nixon concurs: “While some MSS read 'Isaiah' instead of prophet, this is unlikely. Matthew may have had in mind that Asaph to whom Ps. 78 is ascribed, was described as a prophet (1 Ch. 25:2), but in any event the psalmists speak prophetically.” Other commentators point to II Chronicles 29:30 for an alternative source of that same information on Asaph as a prophet.

But not all commentators agree that the specific mention of Isaiah is inappropriate. Blomberg points to van Segbroeck as giving an alternative explanation, believing that the quotation also alludes to texts in 'Deutero-Isaiah such as Isa 40:5, in which Jesus' behavior is explained as reproducing a previously described pattern on figurative speech.”

Another defender of “Isaiah” as being original, is Menken, who feels that the word kekrymmena (“things hidden”) was introduced into the text from Isaiah 29:14b, “and so attributes the conflated quotation to Isaiah (cf. his attribution of the complex quotation of 27:9-10 to Jeremiah, even though the primary source was Zech 11:13).” (France)

I will leave it up to you to read the prophecy itself in Matthew 13:35b and compare it to both Isaiah 40:5 and Psalm 78 to see which one fits Jesus' quotation the closest in both wording and overall thought..

Matthew 13:35b

The second issue found in verse 35 involves the final words of the quotation – “of the world” following “foundation / beginning” Blomberg says that it is “textually suspect, being absent from several older manuscripts.”

In Comfort's discussion of this issue he notes that the Hebrew of Psalm 78:2, from which this quotation is taken, reads “from of old.” According to Comfort, that may refer to the foundation of the nation of Israel. However, the Greek Septuagint text of this same verse reads, “the beginning of creation.” He concludes: “On the basis of internal evidence, either reading can be argued for. Therefore, we must turn to the external evidence [i.e. manuscript support], which slightly favors the first reading.

France: “'Of the world' is missing' in some significant MSS, but since 'the foundation' alone would have been understood as the foundation of the world, the sense is not affected. It is probable that Matthew used the full phrase here, as he does in 25:34. See contra, however, Carson, arguing that the shorter reading is closer to the less explicit wording of the psalm.”

Metzger, writing for the translation committee of the RSV, discusses both possibilities and concludes that “since the preponderance of the external evidence was taken to support the inclusion of kosmos, a majority of the Committee was reluctant to drop the word from the text entirely and therefore decided to enclose it within square brackets.” This is but one indication of how carefully modern scholars approach even the most minor variants in readings between differing NT manuscripts.

Matthew 13:36

The only textual variation here consists of the fact that the three earliest manuscripts read “fully explain” while numerous later documents omit “fully.” (Comfort)

Matthew 13:37,41

The phrase “Son of Man” in this verse was a lesser known messianic title derived from Daniel 7:13-14.

Therefore, in common with other sacred names such as God, Christ, and Spirit some of the NT manuscripts tended to utilize a special way of writing it using an abbreviated spelling in capital letters with a line above the abbreviation. Thus, in these verses the copyists of two manuscripts decided to use this nomen sacrum while others do not. Either way, there is no real difference in the reading of those two document other than the added emphasis given to Jesus' divinity. (Comfort)

Matthew 13:40

Most manuscripts read “the [present] age.” However, due to the familiarity of the term “this [present] age” elsewhere in the NT, some later manuscripts inserted “this.” (Metzger)

Matthew 13:43

Four early manuscripts use the nomen sacrum for “Father” in this verse. (See Matthew 13:37,41 note above).

Matthew 13:44

Instead of “sold all that he had,” some Alexandrian texts delete “all.” Metzger attributes this shorter version to the fact that this family of manuscripts has “a penchant for pruning unnecessary words.”

Matthew 13:55

Comfort notes that the name of one of Jesus' brothers is called Joses in the earliest manuscript containing this verse. By contrast, two slightly later texts read “Joseph.” But in fact, he adds, “'Joses' is the Galilean pronunciation (yose) of the Hebrew yosep ('Joseph').” Thus, there is no difference in meaning between the two readings.

France feels that Matthew preferred the Hebrew form “which also reminds the reader of the (now dead?) head of the family who is not otherwise named.”

Conclusion

From the above examples, you can see that not a single one of the variant readings is of any real importance in affecting the message that Matthew has in mind to convey, and certainly does not cast any doubts on matters of doctrinal significance. Also, keep in mind that Matthew 13 possesses many more manuscript variations than do most chapters in the New Testament.

 

PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP (CONTINUED) -- MATTHEW 18:12-14; LUKE 5:4-7

 

I once attended a church where the pastor delivered a sermon on the Good Samaritan at least once a year. But there is really nothing excessive about that practice since Jesus' stories are so open-ended that they continually challenge readers to draw out new insights and applications in them. So I am using that as an excuse to put together this third posting on the story of the lost sheep recorded twice in the gospels (For your information, the first two posts are titled “Parable of the Lost Sheep: Luke 5:4-7” and “Is Anyone So Righteous That They Don't Need to Repent?”) The following are rather random, but still pertinent, comments gleaned from the scholarly literature that were not included in those earlier essays.

Donahue explains: In their transmission the parable received different applications and interpretations...parables originally addressed to opponents are directed to the church (Matt. 18:1, 12-14; Luke 15:15:2-7).”

Cochran: “Many scriptural texts run counter to utilitarian reasoning. The dominant witness of the NT is that all humans are equal and all life is worth preserving...Jesus interacts with social outcasts (Matt. 9:10-13; Mark 2:13-17; Luke 5:27-32; 19:1-10; John 4:7-39), treats children with special care (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17), and praises the actions of a shepherd who leaves ninety-nine sheep in order to find the one that is lost (Matt. 19:10-14; Luke 15:3-7). The idea that the good of some persons can be sacrificed for the sake of a greater number of people is at odds with these texts' emphasis upon care for all persons.”

“In the parable of the Lost Sheep (15:4-7) the description of the shepherd who goes after the one lost sheep (15:4) echoes Ezek. 34:11-12, 16...As Jesus' audience consists of the Pharisees and scribes who complain about Jesus welcoming and eating with sinners (15:2), he challenges them to understand themselves as shepherds. The Pharisees' and scribes' lack of concern and mercy for sinners echoes Ezek. 34...The emphasis on joy in heaven over the repentance of one sinner in 15:7 may echo Ezek.18:23: 'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the LORD God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?'” (Pao and Schnabel)

“When people receive the word (Mt 13:20) and discover the kingdom (Mt 13:44), they respond with joy, just as the shepherd rejoices when he finds a lost sheep – a transparent metaphor for the Father who does not want any of 'these little ones' to be lost (Mt 18:12-14).” (Green)

“God deals mercifully with the lost; everything depends upon that. There is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents (Lk. 15:7, 10, 23). Indeed the whole of Lk. 15 with its parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son presents Jesus calling upon men to rejoice with him over the lost returning to the Father (15:6,9,32).” (Beyreuther and Finkenrath)

Goetzmann says that “the predominantly intellectual understanding of metanoia as a change of mind plays very little part in the NT. Rather the decision by the whole man to turn round is stressed. It is clear that we are concerned neither with a purely outward turning nor with a merely intellectual change of ideas...However absolute the call to repentance, it was a message of joy, because the possibility of repentance exists. Because God has turned to man.., men should, may and can turn to God. Hence conversion and repentance are accompanied by joy, for they mean the opening up of life for the one who has turned. The parables in Lk. 15 bear testimony to the joy of God over the sinner who repents and call on men to share it.”

Murray disagrees somewhat with Goetzmann, at least in his definition of what a 'change of mind' means. “In the New Testament the terms 'repent' (metanoeo) and 'repentance' (metanoia) refer basically to a change of mind. It is all-important to note this significance. For repentance consists in a radical transformation of thought, attitude, outlook, and direction. In accordance with the pervasive Old Testament emphasis and with what appears also in the New Testament, repentance is a turning from sin unto God and His service.”

Lunde says, “Jesus' demand for repentance stresses God's covenantal grace, for he is its fulfillment and embodiment...Appropriately then, joy and celebration are often associated with repentance in Jesus' proclamation, evincing the grace which is its context (Matt. 13:44; 22:1-10; Luke 5:27-29; 19:6,8...)”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “In the NT the figure of one hundred vividly conveys the sense of a complete number. In Jesus' parable of the lost sheep (Mt 18:12-14; Lk 5:4-7), when one sheep out of a hundred wanders off, the number of those remaining seems lacking and incomplete by comparison...To grasp the power of a hundred as a image of completeness, one need only consider hypothetical variations on the parable. If Jesus had told a story of a man with ninety-nine sheep who loses one and is left with ninety-eight, the sense of completeness in the numbers would be substantially less, as would the rhetorical power of the parable.”

Conversely, another article in the same source states: “The quality of being 'one'...expresses the uniqueness of human beings. The worth of a single person in the eyes of God is expressed by the parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin (Lk 15:1-10). Here God's preference for the unimportant, the sick, the sinner is stressed even more than in the OT.”

I PETER 1:1-2:3 REPETITIONS

In reading some of the New Testament writings, you may have been struck by how often an author appears to re-use the same language over and over even though the overall flow of thought may proceed in a straightforward manner. This is especially true in the case of John, but Peter may come in a close second in that regard, as we can see in the examples below, taken from his first epistle. Such repetition may be a little off-putting, but there is always a good reason for it.

As one example, look at the opening section of I Peter. I have previously posted an analysis of this whole letter (see “I Peter: Introduction to the Literary Structure”) where it was demonstrated that there are major breaks in thought after both 1:12 and 2:3 following a general introduction in 1:1-2 which can also be viewed as the opening for the first twelve verses. Confirmation that this is a valid breakdown of the sections is seen in that 1:3-12 constitutes one single sentence in the Greek. For convenience sake, I Peter 1:1-12 will be called x, and 1:13-2:3 will be labeled as y.

Some of the repeated words and thoughts in this overall section serve to tie together x and y in a general manner by their appearance in both. These include:

    exiles (1:1, 17)

    faith (1:5a, 7a, 9a, 21c)

    salvation (1:5b, 9b, 10a; 2:2)

    revealed (1:5c, 7e, 12a, 13c, 20a)

    gold (1:7b, 18b)

    the last time (1:11b) / end of the ages (1:20b)

    they were serving not themselves but you (1:12b) / for your sake (1:20b)

Sometimes these duplicated words are specifically found within the same general location in both literary units. Thus:

    obedient (1:2b) / obedience (1:22) – conclusions of x and y

    grace (1:2c, 13c) – beginnings of x and y

    hope (1:3b, 13) – beginnings of x and y

    glory / glorious (1:11e, 21b, 23b) – conclusions of x and y

    announced to you...good news (1:12c,d) / good news...announced to you (1:25c,d) –

        conclusions of x and y

Then there are those cases, where the repetition occurs within the same section in order to unify it:

    God the Father (1b, 3a) in x

    rejoice (1:6a, 8a) / joy (1:8c) in x

    suffer (1:6b) / suffering (1:11d) in x

    word (1:23, 24a,b) in y

More specifically there are occasions when such duplication of vocabulary within a given unit serves as an inclusio. That is the technical term for the same word or phrase at the start and conclusion of a small or large portion of Scripture in order to act as a pair of bookends to delineate the boundaries of that unit. Possible examples for the individual sub-sections of the beginning of I Peter include the following:

    Spirit (1:2a, 11c, 12e) – inclusio for x

    grace (1:2c, 10b) – inclusio for x

    heaven (1:4b, 12f) – inclusio for x

    time / the last time (1:5d, 11b) – inclusio for x

    obedient (1:14) / obedience (1:22) – inclusio for y

    hope (3b, 13b, 21d) – inclusio for y

    therefore (13a; 2:1) – inclusio for y

    hope (1:3b, 13b, 21d) – inclusio for y

Similarly, duplication found near the start and conclusion of a whole section (1:1-2:3, for example) can also signal an inclusio. In this case we have the following examples:

    obedient (1:2b) / obedience (1:22)

    new birth (1:3a) / you have been born anew (1:23a) / newborn infants (2:2)

    Lord (1:3b, 25; 2:3)

    resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1:3c) / who raised him from the dead (1:21a)

    imperishable / perishable (1:4a, 23b,c)

    God (1:5, 21, 23)

So keep this phenomenon in mind when you begin to encounter a passage in either the Old or New Testament which appears to use redundant words or phrases that say the same thing. Before just dismissing it as a sign of sloppy writing, keep in mind that it may very well signal that something more is going on behind the scenes.

FAULTY CHRISTMAS CAROLS (HAGGAI 2:7)

There are at least three familiar carols inspired by this verse in Haggai:

    “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing” has the line “Come desire of nations, fix in us Thy humble home.”

    Charles Wesley's hymn “Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus” says “Dear Desire of ev'ry nation, joy of ev'ry longing heart.”

    Finally, there is the verse that goes, “Sages, leave your contemplations; brighter views beam afar; see the great Desire of nations; ye have seen his natal star.” That is found in “Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus.”

But if you look up Haggai 2:7 in your Bibles, you may wonder where the concept of Jesus as “the Desire of nations” came from, that is, unless you happen to have the King James Version, which reads:

    “And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come; and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.”

The problem is that few modern English translations render the verse in that manner. Here are some examples:

    NIV – “I will shake all nations, and what is desired by all nations will come”

    TEV – “I will over overthrow all the nations, and their treasures will be brought here”

    NEB – “I will shake all nations; the treasure of all nations shall come hither”

    JB – “I will shake all the nations and the treasures of all the nations shall flow in”

    RSV – “I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in”

    NRSV – “I will shake all the nations, so that the treasure of all nations shall come in”

As you can see, only the NIV follows KJV, whereas the other renderings make it clear that the “treasure” or “desire” is not at all a long-expected Messiah which will come to the nations, but will instead be earthly treasures given to the Temple by them or taken from them.

And even the NIV Study Bible hedges its bets with the following explanatory footnote: “'Desired' can refer to individuals, as in I Sa 9:20; Da 9:23 (where the same Hebrew verb is translated 'highly esteemed'); 11:37. Thus it may have Messianic significance (cf. Mal 3:1). The same Hebrew word can also refer to articles of value, however (see 2 Ch 20:25; 32:27) – such as the contribution of King Darius to the temple (Ezr 6:8). If that is the intent here, the bringing of the 'riches of the nations' to Zion in Isa 60:5 is a close parallel.”

Since this understanding may be considered quite revolutionary to some people who have been weaned on the King James Version, I will list below the opinions of scholars from a wide diversity of denominations. These quotations are not really listed in any particular order and they may differ somewhat on the timing of the prophecy's fulfillment, but practically all of them agree that those Christmas carols above which follow the KJV give a very misleading picture.

R.L. Smith: “KJV and Martin Luther took this messianically as 'the Desire of all nations.' But that reading has been abandoned almost universally...In Isa 2:2-4 the interest is upon the nations and the significance the new Jerusalem and the temple will have for them. In Isa 60:1-22 the emphasis is upon the light of the new Jerusalem to which the nations in darkness come bringing their sacrifices and treasures which brings an end to violence and the beginning of universal peace. Now Haggai speaks of a cosmic disturbance, and the nations, shaken by such an event, will come into Jerusalem bringing their treasures...There is no materialism or avarice on the part of Haggai here. It is a bold prediction of the complete recognition of Yahweh's sovereignty over the whole world.”

Talley states, “An eschatological element is introduced in Mal 3:1, where the desire is for a future messenger, one still to come...Some have attached a messianic significance to the text (cf. Hag 2:7...).”

Jacobs says that “in Hag 2:7, the nations have a role designed by Yahweh's plans and for the benefit of Yahweh's people...Haggai 2:7a reveals that the focus of the action on the nations is the nations' treasure. One option is to see the nations as the subject of the plural verb uba'u, in which case, as a result of shaking the nations will bring treasure (hemdat). Another option is to understand the treasure as being the subject, treating the singular noun as a collective that 'will come' (ba'u). Whether hemdat is seen as the subject or the object, it does not refer to an esteemed individual or precious person. Such an argument attempts to interpret the term as pointing to a messianic figure and ignores the connections within Hag. 2:7 and 8 – the treasure and splendor and the silver and gold...Second, the treasure is not given willingly but is obligatory, based on the vassal status of those who give tribute to their sovereign.”

“The particular word used to indicate precious things, hemdeh, is problematic...The [Latin] Vulgate takes very seriously the fact of a singular noun and gives the word a distinct Messianic connotation...Attention to the Hebrew syntax, viz., the plural verb, makes such a translation and interpretation impossible!...In Haggai, the language derives from theophanic traditions and carries a punitive undertone toward the nations, an element missing from Isa. 60. In Haggai the nations are being shaken in order to jar loose their wealth...Yahweh will use the precious objects to fill the temple with glory.” (Petersen)

Redditt: “God himself promised to beautify the building when the treasure of all nations would flow in and God would fill this house with splendor, surely promises with political ramifications...Again the image was eschatological...the reversal of the present with Judah being elevated and the nations brought down, the rich being stripped of their treasures and the house of God in poor Judah being filled with riches.”

Watts refers to a parallel teaching in Micah 4:13 – “You will crush many nations, and the wealth they got by violence you will present to me, the Lord of the whole world.” (TEV)

Kessler discusses the uncertainty concerning the date of this oracle. If it was 521 BC, then it may reflect the upheaval of the Persian Empire at the time. But if it was written a year earlier, as most scholars believe, then it reflects a more hopeful time of peace and stability.

“Haggai argued that the solution to economic fruitlessness was responsible action (Hag 1:2-11; 2:18-10), promising a day when their warrior God (Hag 2:6) would bring the wealth of nations to their humble temple (Hag 2:7-9).” (Hilber)

“By the time of the later prophet Malachi, “ the second temple had been completed, but it paled in comparison to its Solomonic predecessor (Ezra 3; Hag 2:1-9)...The disillusionment of the postexilic Jewish community was prompted by several theological misunderstandings, including the expectation for wealth that Haggai had promised once the second temple was rebuilt (Hag 2:7, 18-19)...” (Hill)

Kaiser: “The word 'desire, treasure of all nations'...is clearly plural and therefore is not a reference to the Messiah. However Herbert Wolf...pointed to other OT passages where the plural verb and noun clearly refer to an individual; thus the reference could be messianic.”

Wiseman states, “All nations points to the future when, as at the Lord's coming, all nations will pay tribute to His people (cf. Is. 60:9-11). The present disturbances in the Persian lands might well have occasioned the thought. The treasures. RSV here follows LXX [the Septuagint]. RV 'the desirable things' is preferable to AV 'the desire', since the following verb is plural. Or read possibly 'that which is desired by the Lord'). There is not necessarily a reference here to the Messiah. Rather it points to the gifts to be brought by the Gentile rulers to adorn the Temple. This would have a first fulfillment soon (v. 9; cf. Ezr. 6:8,9) but not completely so until Christ's reign (cf. Eph. 2:17-22).”

Verhoef: “In this presentation we must retain the concept of the holy war. These things will become available to the project of the rebuilding and furnishing of the temple, not as voluntary offerings, but as 'spoils' dedicated to the Victor in the holy war (cf. Josh. 6:19; Mic. 4 and 13)...In essence the OT temple finds its ultimate fulfillment in the 'Lord of the temple,' who is greater than the temple (Matt. 12:6), namely, Jesus Christ (cf. John 2:13-22). The final fulfillment coincides with the consummation, when the temple would be superseded by the Lord Almighty and the Lamb as the city's temple (Rev. 21:22-27).”

“Haggai invokes a universalistic vision of the future. In doing so, he deals with the problems raised by the comparison of preexilic temple with postexilic temple. The latter may not now have an associated monarchy, but it is the building to which, eventually riches will flow. As soon as God tumbles the world order, as only he can do, the glory that had previously characterized the temple when it was associated with the royal palace will once again come to Jerusalem.” (Meyers and Meyers)

Mason states, “The temple is Yahweh's house' and so an essential feature of the life of the community. Haggai urges them to rebuild it, whatever the cost in materials and to other, more self-centered interests, and he assures them that when Yahweh dwells among them again, the temple will be filled with 'glory'...There, God will rule again over all the earth so that the treasures of all peoples will again flow toward it, so enriching the whole community.”

“The translation of v. 7 ('the desired of all nations') carries messianic overtones. Although it is a misleading translation, and probably an inaccurate reading of the overt sense of the original, no Christian reading these verses can fail to reflect that treasure and splendor, in a sense unguessed at by Haggai's contemporaries, was indeed to grace the site on which they were working, in the person of the lowly Son of Man. In a literal sense, Darius's generous subsidies already referred to (see Ezr. 6:8,9) would have given the people an early sense of the fulfillment of the prophecy; further fulfillment came in later centuries in the splendid extravagances by which the egregious Herod sought to buy Jewish loyalty...But to Christian understanding the supreme fulfillment was surely when He visited it who was Himself without earthly treasure, and whose rejection brought about its destruction (Mt. 24:1,2).” (Coad)

J.B. Payne feels that the fulfillment of this prophecy was in the immediate future with “the coming of silver and gold (v. 8) from various heathen lands for the completion and beautification of the second temple then under construction (1:14); see Ezra 6:8-9 and Zech 6:11 for particular examples. Such a prophecy was needed in the face of current discouragement (Hag 2:3-4). The plural verb prohibits the Messianic interpretation suggested by the KJV, 'the desire of all nations shall come.'”

I find this last quotation the most interesting of all for one main reason. All the other commentators agree that the immediate support by Darius for the rebuilding of the temple was indeed helpful but was not nearly enough to warrant the statement that it would thus be enough to restore it to its former glory, much less to signal the “shaking of the nations” or the restoration of God's rule on the earth from Jerusalem. All other scholars treat this as an eschatological prophecy of events in the last days.

And what makes Payne's statement even more remarkable is that he generally represents the dispensational premillennial viewpoint with its usual adherence to demanding a literal fulfillment of all OT prophecies, usually in times yet future. But in this case he is alone in finding a satisfactory literal fulfillment of Haggai's words soon after the prophecy was made and denies that there is any future meaning. The only possible reason behind this unusual change of interpretative stance must be that it is impossible for him to find a place to fit a literal eschatological fulfillment of Haggai 2:7 into the incredibly detailed chronological scenario of future events that dispensationalists have developed over the years.

But note that even Payne agrees that the King James translation is faulty.

OBJECTIONS TO GENESIS 11:6 (THE TOWER OF BABEL)

 

                                               Tower (2013, collage and oils)

Joseph Sommer, writing for the American Humanist Association, voices two objections to the Tower of Babel incident. He states that “it's inconsistent with science – and ludicrous – to believe that God confounded the language of humans because he was afraid they could build a tower high enough to reach heaven (Genesis 11:1-9).” That statement betrays two basic ways in which he misunderstands (accidentally or on purpose) what the text is actually saying. We will comment on both these issues separately.

Inconsistency with Science

The first thing to point out is Sommer's misplaced reliance on the omnipotence of science concerning the exact manner in which strictly verbal languages originally developed and evolved over the millennia before written records. There may be a lot of suppositions and theories based on much later developments, but little in the way of hard proof. And additional considerations are pointed out by Bible scholars below.

Bush: “This [confusion] was to cause a dispersion of the multitudes congregated at Babylon; an end which did not require for its accomplishment the instantaneous formation of new languages, but simply such a confusion in the utterance of the old, as should naturally lead to misapprehension, discord, and division. The dialectic discrepancies, however, thus originating, through perhaps not very great at first, would become gradually more and more marked, as men became more widely separated from each other, and by the influence of climate, laws, customs, religion, and various other causes till they finally issued in substantially different languages.” He thus speaks of the time factor involved, an issue which the biblical text does not specify.

Hamilton mentions another possibility for the meaning of “one language” at the beginning of the story, one first pointed out by Gordon: “When we read in Gen. XI 1 that all the Earth had one language (sapa 'ehat) after the Flood, the meaning is that while the component ethnic elements of the International Order had their speech for family and ethnic communication, there was an international lingua franca that made communication possible so that great projects like the Tower of Babel could be constructed. God broke up the arrogant Order in Babylon...by confounding the lingua franca.” In modern times, we might look on English as the lingua franca for a large portion of the globe.

A number of scholars note that the Bible is not the only ancient text to state the existence of one original language. For example, Burke says, “The understanding that the earliest humans shared a common language is found in the Sumerian Enmerkar Epic.”

Kline points out some other important caveats to take into account: “The confusion possibly resulted from a protracted natural process, but probably a supernatural intervention is intended, a strange miracle of confusion to be answered at Pentecost by another divine descent and a miracle of linguistic fusion. The text does not attribute all language differentiation to this event, nor even claim it as the first instance of such after the Flood, not deny linguistic variations before the Flood.”

If Kline is correct, then this whole account is concerned with a limited geographical area in the Middle East only and not the entire inhabited planet. Many others have proposed the same sort of interpretation for the Flood story as being the best way to look at this narrative in light of geological information.

Next we have the results coming from the science of linguistics to consider. Ellison, for example, states: “Studies of languages that were never reduced to writing have shown how quickly peoples with a common linguistic background have become unintelligible to one another.” Even in this day of multiple means of universal communication, Oscar Wilde's quip still applies to some extent: “Americans and the English are two peoples separated by a common language.” One could even say the same thing regarding the difficulty of the English, Welsh, Irish and Scots understanding one another. And as another example, we once had a marketing representative for our company who came from Belgium. She seriously told us how many languages she spoke, two of which were English and American.

Jacques Ellul always has a unique take on biblical passages. As to this issue, he says that a “separation into several languages is not mentioned but rather a 'confusion of their language.' It is not stated that man will speak several languages, but that he will no longer understand what others are speaking. The emphasis is not on speaking as such, but on understanding.”

Schaeffer, on the other hand, says: “In the flow of history language was one. There was a common language among the descendants of Noah. This isn't surprising considering the tenacity with which men hold onto language. In Switzerland, for example, there are four languages and there is a language group clinging firmly to each one. Within one of them, the Romansh, there are about 60,000 people speaking two dialects, and this situation could continue practically forever. Therefore, that men with a common origin are speaking one language is to be expected.”

Finally, Longman, writing in the Dictionary of Christianity and Science, discusses this issue from a slightly different perspective: He begins by noting what a number of other commentators have pointed out: “Genesis 10:1-11:9 is purposefully told out of chronological sequence. After all, Genesis 10 speaks of a diversity of languages before the story that narrates how humans moved from a single language shared by all people to many languages.”

Then Longman turns to the issue at hand: “But what are we to make of this account of the origins of multiple languages? Should it be taken at face value and provide the foundation of the modern discipline of linguistics? Some scholars today treat the Tower of Babel story and the genealogy of Genesis 10 as an etiology [an explanAtion of origins] of the presence of diverse languages. Not all scholars who believe that Genesis 10:1-11:9 is an etiology would agree that it is historically true. Indeed, many linguists today would argue that human languages did not derive from a single original language, though any treatment of the beginning of human languages is quite speculative. Most scholars, however, understand that Genesis 10 is a primitive linguistic map in the form of a genealogy and reflects not the immediate postflood period, but rather the perception of the known world at the time of Moses (or after) in the second half of the second millennium BC...Though there is a historical reference behind the Table of Nations of Genesis 10..., its primary purpose is theologically cataloging the further fragmentation of humanity as the result of sin.”

Longman is right to stress the main purpose of all biblical writings, and that is to reveal theological information, not primarily to convey scientific facts that mankind is fully capable of (eventually) discovering on its own.

God's Fear

“Sommer makes another colossal mistake in construing God's comment in Genesis 11:6 to mean that He was shaking in His boots as He saw the growing tower slowly approaching His throne. At this point, He was worried that human beings would conquer heaven and set themselves up as gods instead of him. According to this interpretation the people of Babel didn't do anything particularly wrong, but their concerted actions caused God to detect a future threat to His own power if allowed to continue. Those who hold to this view often cite the similarity to Genesis 3:22 where God expresses alarm that Adam and Eve might eat of the Tree of Life and have eternal life as He does. For example, Carr interprets God's words in v. 6 as His “fearing the human power that might result from ethnic and linguistic unity.” But one would have to possess an exceedingly low view of God to believe that He was concerned in any way whatsoever with the possibility of any human beings raising themselves up to threaten His sovereignty.

In the case of the Tower of Babel episode this is made abundantly clear in Genesis 11:4-5 where the inhabitants of Babel attempt to build a tower with its top in the heavens. But in order to view this grand tower, God needs to “come down” to even see it. It is that insignificant. There is also ironic humor elsewhere in this episode. Turner points to the mockery of their words “Come, let's make bricks (nilbonah)...” (11:3) in God's statement of 11:7 – “Come, let us mix up (nabelah) their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech.”

Michael Heiser, in most of his writings, stresses again and again that the nations' sin was so great that they needed not only to be punished by dispersal, but in addition were totally abandoned by God, who even purposely put angels in charge of each nation who would lead them all into idolatry.

A much more favored and nuanced view is that God's fear was indeed that mankind had overstepped its bounds. However, the potential danger wasn't to His own status but to the danger they might do to themselves and the creation when they attempted to increase the time of their existence (Genesis 3) or limit the space that God wished them to occupy (Genesis 11).

As Ringgren puts it, “This action of God is both punishment and a preventative measure; it prevents men from going too far in their pride.”

We also see this sort of balanced perspective in scholars such as Kline, who writes that “the dispersion of Gn. 10 appears as a curse, a centrifugal force separating men and retarding the subjugation of the earth (cf. v. 6b). Yet in sin's context this curse proved a blessing for it also retarded the ripening iniquity that accompanied civilization's progress (v. 6) and so it forestalled such judgment as would have interfered with the unfolding of redemption.”

Ross adds, “The potential for calamity is dangerous for the race, and God will prevent it. They will nullify the purposes of God in favor of their own purposes, which are within reach. They will be at liberty for every extravagance if they can think only of their own confederation.”

“A humanity capable of communicating has in its possession the most terrible weapon of its own death: it is capable of creating a unique truth, believed by all, independent of God's.” This is what God saves humanity from.

Osborne: “Traditionally the sin that God punished in the Babel story has been seen as an act of hubris in which humans attempted to build a tower that would, in their view, enable them to assault heaven itself...God's dispersion of the builders throughout the earth may, however, be seen as a means of realizing the original blessing given at creation: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth (Gen 1:28)...The language of Genesis 11:6 clearly indicates God's concern about the actions of the builders in terms that suggest an act of hubris: an attempt to challenge divine prerogatives...Divine intervention was designed to limit the devastating impact of human hubris on the ordered world and on humanity itself. The divine action was both an act of judgment and an act of grace..”

Buller: says that “the juxtaposition of sem ('name') in Genesis 11:1-9 and 11:10-11 offers an ironic contrast between the builders of the tower of Babel and God's chosen line. When the builders seek to make a 'name' (sem; Gen 11:4) for themselves, God intervenes to thwart their plans (Gen 11:8-9) and then promises to make a 'name' for Abraham...”

HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE BIBLE (ROMANS 1:26-27)

I might as well start off the new year with a controversial subject – one of the few cases where I will probably present a more liberal perspective than many fellow evangelical Christians generally have. So here goes.

Relative Emphasis

First, it needs to be pointed out that there are, as far as I know, only seven passages in the whole Bible which deal in any way with the matter of homosexual activity. These are: Genesis 19:10; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Judges 19:22-23; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9; and I Timothy 1:10. Of these, the similar narratives of Genesis 19:10 and Judges 19:22-23 do not really speak to the general subject at all since it is obvious that the sin being condemned by the narrator in both cases is two-fold: forcible rape and the violation of all ancient conventions of hospitality, not homosexual activity or orientation per se. That the latter is not the issue is obvious from the fact that in both passages all the male inhabitants of a city (obviously not all by nature homosexuals) are seemingly just as happy to satisfy their sexual lusts on a woman as a man.

As for the other passages, all of them specifically condemn homosexual acts between two males except for Romans 1:26-27, which also mentions relations between two women. But even that lone example may not present an unambiguous condemnation of lesbian sex as a guideline for Christian conduct today, due to the various extenuating factors briefly presented below.

But before getting to those factors, a person may object at this point that lesbianism was hardly mentioned at all in the Bible simply because either (a) it was so rare an occurrence or (b) the authors of the biblical accounts were either too naive or too prudish to mention such an aberration. This last opinion is easy to refute, however, due to the numerous mentions of such sexual practices as rape, fornication, adultery, sex before marriage, bigamy, sex during a woman's period, various degrees of incest in including incestuous rape, male and female prostitution, sex between women and angels, and even bestiality. Concerning the last practice, it is instructive that there are actually four passages condemning sex between humans and animals (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16; and Deuteronomy 27:21). All four are blanket prohibitions, and two of them specifically mention women as the offending parties. So much for a prudish or naive approach to sex!

Problem Areas in Understanding these Passages

Jeffrey Siker's article on “Homosexuality” in Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics, published by the conservative Baker Academic press, is probably of more interest for highlighting the many ambiguous issues it raises concerning this subject rather than any firm conclusions it reaches. Thus, Siker says:

“The place of reason and experience as sources of authority and revelation that both contextualize and relativize understandings of Scripture and tradition on homosexuality has been an issue of much debate and disagreement among ethicists and biblical scholars alike.”

“The interpretive challenge in each text has to do with the translation of Hebrew words from the OT and Greek words from the NT, as well as with the translation of ancient cultures for modern times.”

“Certainly, homosexual rape is condemned [in Genesis 19], but does the passage indicate that all forms of same-sex relations or desires are evil in the sight of God?”

“The difficulty here [i.e. the Leviticus passages given above] is translating cultures, since Leviticus also bars practices such as crossbreeding animals, sowing two kinds of seed in one field, [etc, etc]...Are modern people of faith to pick and choose among the various Levitical prohibitions and punishments? If so, on what basis?”

“...the use of 'homosexual' is problematic because it suggest that the biblical authors had an understanding of homosexuality that parallels our contemporary understanding, resulting in potentially anachronistic readings of Scripture.”

“As best we can tell, Paul would have known about pederasty and prostitution. Does his condemnation of these forms of same-sex relations in the first century indicate a blanket condemnation of all form of same-sex relations in our time with our understanding of human sexuality?”

“What is the authority of Scripture, and how should it be interpreted? To what degree has God created humans with normative and essential standards of sexual ethics that transcend time and space? What role do human experience and reason play in discerning the leading of God's Spirit? Are same-sex relations to be condemned as a violation of God's revealed will, or are they to be celebrated as another expression of God's revealed will for human sexuality?”

“Other questions have to do with whether it is important that Jesus said nothing directly about same-sex relations in any of his recorded teaching...Do the different approaches to marriage sanctioned in the Bible (multiple wives, concubines, levirate marriage) suggest openness to changing understandings of marriage and sexuality?”

“The Bible serves as a key touchstone for this conversation within the church, though its interpretation, relevance, and application in relation to homosexuality remain points of significant contention, especially as interpreters seek to correlate and integrate the biblical witness with other sources of authority – tradition, reason, and experience.”

Cause or Effect?

In approaching this subject more specifically, one thing should be pointed out first. Blanket opponents of any form of homosexual activity generally take the stance that because the participants engage in such activities, God will reject them. But the biblical picture turns this approach on its head.

Knox, for one says that “'God gave them up', because in turning from God they violated their true nature, becoming involved in terrible and destructive perversions.”

“Moral perversion is the result f God's wrath, not the reason for it.” (Kasemann)

“In this passage sexual perversion is seen as a result of (and to that extent as a judgment on) man's sin in worshiping the creature rather than the creator. Because he has put something else in the place which can only properly belong to God, man's natural relationships have become perverted.” (Colin Brown)

D.F. Wright: “In the context Paul is portraying the moral disorder that accompanies the rejection of the knowledge of God in the pagan world.”

And L.C. Allen adds, “Because they exchanged the real God for false gods, by way of temporary punishment they exchanged natural sexual intercourse for homosexuality...The price they paid for rejecting God was to become moral rejects...”

Fitzmyer explains that “the condition of pagan humanity results from the moral degradation to which their idolatry has brought them: to the craving of their hearts for impurity

Thus, attempting to extend Paul's words beyond the pagan environment he saw around him and applying it wholesale to all same-sex relationships today causes a problem in understanding the many men and women who were raised in a Christian environment and are dedicated believers yet continue to wrestle with their feelings of homosexual attraction. For those people, it is illogical to state that they are the way they are because God is punishing them for rejecting Him in the first place.

The Purpose of Sex

Other commentators approach this question from the viewpoint that sexual differentiation was put in place by God in the first place for only one reason only – procreation. That explains the various permitted forms of sexual couplings approved in Old Testament times but viewed as sinful today. These include practices such as levirate marriage, bigamy, and having multiple concubines. Therefore, any form of sexual activity which does not have the possibility of resulting in pregnancy is sinful. The Roman Catholic Church, of course, has held to this view more or less strongly over the years and used it to condemn birth control methods.

So we have D.F. Wright explain: “The broader context of his [Paul's] teaching on sexuality supports the view that he saw same-sex activity as so self-evidently contrary to God's creative purpose as to allow of such brief – but eloquent mention.”

This view is becoming much rarer nowadays, and it should be admitted that even Paul admits that another reason for sex is the pleasure it produces in both parties. Thus, any abstention from sexual activity within a marriage should only be for a season.

Another factor to take into account is that even if populating the earth was the original purpose for sex, that hardly applies today in an already over-populated world with competition for its limited resources.

Natural vs. Unnatural

Elliott: “Paul's Jewish contemporaries criticized a range of sexual behaviors common in the pagan world. Although widely read later as a reference to homosexuality, the language of unnatural intercourse was more often used in Paul's day not to denote the orientation of sexual desire, but its immoderate indulgence, which was believed to weaken the body ('the due penalty').” If true, this would explain the words 'lust' and 'passions' in Romans 1:26-27.

P.J. Tomson alternatively says that “the majority of commentators on Romans have understood the female vice which Paul refers [as lesbian conduct]. A few, however, have interpreted it as 'unnatural' intercourse of women with men.”

This alternative explanation is critiqued by Whitmore, who says that “contemporary homosexuals insist that these verses mean that it is perverse for a heterosexual male or female to engage in homosexual relations but it is not perverse for a homosexual male or female to do so since homosexuality is such a person's natural preference. This is strained exegesis unsupported by the Bible. The only natural sexual relationship the Bible recognizes is a heterosexual one (Gen. 2:21-24; Matt. 19:4-6) within marriage.

Despite Whitmore's opinion, there is no denying that the Bible's most detailed and damning narratives concerning homosexual lust (in Genesis and Judges) involve whole cities whose male populations were obviously predominantly heterosexual by nature, unless human nature has changed drastically since that time. And the same could certainly be said regarding the pagan Gentile populations Paul is criticizing.

A minority opinion on this subject is held by Brooten, who states that “Paul sees same-sex sexual relations as transgressions of hierarchical gender boundaries. For example, 'unnatural' (Rom. 1.26) most likely refers to the women's attempt to transcend the passive, subordinate role accorded to them by nature.”

“Unfortunately, Paul uses homosexuality – a common Jewish complaint against Gentiles – as an illustration of the inversion of society. In this he follows the traditional Jewish understanding of heterosexuality as normative.” (Tamez) As one example, “Josephus mentions that 'the law [of Moses] knows no sexual connection but the natural intercourse with a wife, and that only for the procreation of children.'” (Fitzmyer)

Thus, you can see that there is little agreement among commentators as to what is natural and what is unnatural. After all, Paul stated elsewhere (I Corinthians 11:14) that nature itself teaches that men should wear their hair shorter than women, a comment that has puzzled Bible scholars up to today. Fitzmyer concludes that in “this instance, physis hardly refers to the natural order of things, but to social convention...Yet what is meant there has little relevance for this context in Romans...Only modern eisegesis could read these words of Paul and understand them as referring to female contraception.”

Orientation vs. Action

Wright states, “A distinction between persons of heterosexual and homosexual orientation was almost certainly unknown to him [i.e. Paul].”

Hendricksen points out that “A person's sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not the point at issue. What matters is what a person does with his sexuality!”

“Certainly, in terms of imagery, the Bible does not have the category 'homosexuality,' but rather 'homosexual behavior' or 'homosexual acts.' In fact, homosexuality as an 'identity' is arguably a modern construction.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Church's View of the Seriousness of the Behavior

Brauch's view of conditions in the ancient world of Paul may not be strictly accurate (I am no historian), but his comments bear repeating: “Most men married out of duty to their family if for no other reason. The church had only one instruction to such men and women: Your wife or husband is to be your exclusive sexual focus. Satisfy one another. There is no option of a homosexual relationship on the side. For the few who were not married the church had two options: remain celibate or marry...By stressing these two positive options (rather ranting against homosexuality) the early church appears to have had little problem with the practice of homosexuality, despite its being in the world around them.”

D.F. Wright states, “Paul does not single out same-sex intercourse as specially perverted or monstrous. He lists it alongside theft, drunkenness and perjury, as well as adultery and murder. The paucity of Paul's references is inconsistent with its being incomparably execrable, but this fact does not imply its relative unimportance.”

We could point to other sins equally condemned in Romans 1:27-32, such as libel, slander, arrogance, and lack of pity for others. This should serve as a reminder that those Christians who so vehemently want to stamp out all deviant sexual practices and deny that there is any such thing as a naturally homosexual orientation may find themselves committing even more heinous sins in the process.

One could even make the case that though Paul leads off this series of transgressions with sexual sins, the penalty stated for them is merely one in their bodies. By contrast, the “spiritual sins” listed next are actually said to disqualify a person from entrance into heaven.

But despite that fact, the good news for all of us is that because of the work of Christ, there is no final condemnation for those who accept it. (Rom 8:1)