READING I TIMOTHY 4

 

There are different ways of approaching any portion of Scripture, so what follows is only a rough guide using this particular portion of I Timothy as a typical example.

Genre

Perhaps the first step is to firmly keep in mind what sort of literature you might be reading – for example, is it in the Old Testament or New Testament? What is the basic genre of the book – poetry, historical narrative, personal letter, etc.? All such parameters will have a drastic effect on how you understand what you are reading. For example, if you approach Leviticus as if all the regulations applied literally to Christians today, you will end up contradicting Jesus on a number of points. Similarly, trying to treat the Psalms as you would a historical narrative will end up misleading you entirely as to what is being conveyed.

In the case of I and II Timothy, they are obviously personal letters to an individual from Paul containing instructions on how he should conduct his ministry. Thus, we should keep in mind that although these teachings may indeed have applicability for today, the ideas expressed in them do not necessarily follow any chronological progression or hold prophetic clues as to future events, citing just two examples. But we should expect that a variety of topics may be included in those Pastoral Epistles, treated one topic at a time and perhaps given in some sort of logical order.

Section Limits

That leads us to the next step – ensuring that we have a complete intended section of the book in front of us covering what the author wishes to say on a given subject. One might naively expect that we can simply rely on the chapter divisions in our Bibles to take care of this point for us. However, those were invented by a single person in the Middle Ages and should only be treated as a rough approximation of the thought divisions that Paul had in mind when writing.

Thus, in properly dividing up a book such as I Timothy into major sections, there are other things we can use as guides to those divisions. Often, there are tell-tale signs as to when a given section begins or ends. For example, a direct address to the original readers such as “Dear children” often means the start of a new section just as a doxology usually means the end of a passage. In the specific case of I Timothy it turns out that we have few such guideposts to help us. As Lea and Griffin state, “Formal divisions of the letter are difficult to make, for we pass quickly from one exhortation to another.”

The opening and closing points of the whole book are of course rather obvious, but within the bulk of the letter there are few such possible pointers to go by. For example, the word “now” starts chapter 4, which some commentators feel is a clue that a new subject is beginning. But not everyone agrees that it serves that function.

So turning to another obvious method of dividing the letter, one can simply look for drastic changes in subject matter. And here we are given some definite help in our task. I Timothy 3:1-13 obviously are concerned specifically with the qualifications for church offices while Chapter 5 treats of administrative and pastoral counseling issues. That leaves 3:14-4:16 as our best guess as to a discrete section. And we will see confirmation of that decision in noting the number of times the subject of pastoral teaching and preaching pops up in that passage.

Paragraph Divisions

The next challenge is to further divide up our determined passage into sub-units equivalent to today's paragraphs. Again, we might think that we would only have to look at our English translations, which are already divided in that manner, unless one is consulting the King James Version or NASB, for example. But, as with current chapter divisions, any such modern divisions should be taken with a grain of salt.

The NRSV, which I have before me, recognizes the following units: 3:14-16; 4:1-5; 4:6-10, 4:11-16. NIV, RSV, and TEV agree with those dividing points. NEB and The Message differ only in that they further divide the final unit into 4:11-14 and 4:15-16. And The Jerusalem Bible only has the following paragraphs: 3:14-16; 4:1-11; 4:12-16. The Living Bible paraphrase is divided as follows: 3:14-15; 3:16; 4:1-5; 4:6; 4:7-10; 4:11-13; 4:14-16. Nevertheless, this rough consensus gives us a starting point to work from, recognizing that further study may necessitate some minor changes.

Flow of Thought

Lastly, comes the hardest part of the task. And here commentators are quite divided in their approaches. The liberal scholarly school tends to look for awkward shifts of language or thought as tip-offs that different authors or editors were involved in the composition of the book. By contrast, more conservative commentators search for examples of overall unity in a given passage of Scripture, assuming that there will be such unity. But even those scholars are divided into two general classes: (a) those who assume a logical progression of thought and (b) those who look for a more literary unity based on phenomena such as inclusions, chiasms, parallel arrangements, and specifically repeated language. I will admit that I personally, though no trained scholar, tend to side with the latter group.

With that in mind, the next thing I would personally look for is to see if there are any correspondences between the individual paragraphs in terms of either subject matter or specifically repeated language. Starting with the logical approach first, one can label the individual paragraphs in terms that approximately describe their respective topics. Thus, we arrive at the following:

    3:14-16 Paul hopes to come soon but may be delayed; his instructions are designed to give Timothy teaching on how to behave in the church body; ending with a poetic hymn

    4:1-5 He warns against deceitful teachers and teachings

    4:6-10 Next he tells Timothy to put these instructions before the church; shun myths; train yourself in godliness; the hope of believers

    4:11-16 Finally, he says that these are indispensable teachings; Timothy should let no one despise his youth; and to do that he should set a good example before others. Finally he exhorts Timothy to, until Paul arrives, place close attention to himself and the teachings in order than he might will save himself and his listeners

One thing we can see immediately is that this entire passage is permeated with the idea of teaching. Thus, we have the following synonyms: instructions (3:14), proclaimed (3:16), teachings (4:1), instructions (4:6a), words (4:6b), teach (4:11), speech (4:12), public reading, exhorting and teaching (4:13), the gift? (4:14), and teaching (4:16). Along with that, we have exactly seven appearances of Greek words in 3:14-4:16 based on the Greek root pistis (such as faith, believe, believer). All of this repetition helps to confirm that 3:14-4:16 is a discrete section clearly distinguished from what preceeds and follows, as well as outlining the major subjects in the passage.

As to the individual units in this passage, the subject matter summarized above by itself does not really help us much in detecting an overall plan or train of thought. For that we need to break down the four major blocks of teaching down into smaller units. The only sure thing we can state at this point is that the two mentions of Paul's absence from Timothy and desire to be with him soon may represent parallel units. With that in mind, it turns out that an overall plan for this unit can be easily constructed:

                                       Figure 1: Literary Structure of I Timothy 3:14-4:16

    A. Paul's temporary absence and written instructions (3:14-16)

            B. Negative forces to resist (4:1-3)

                    C. Positive teaching (4:4-5)

                            D. Effect of sound teaching on others (4:6)

                                --------

            B'. Negative forces to resist (4:7)

                    C'. Positive teaching (4:8-10)

                                --------

                                    E. Conclusion: necessary teachings (4:11)

                                --------

            B''. Negative forces to resist (4:12a)

                    C''. Positive teaching (4:12b)

                                --------

    A'. Paul's temporary absence and written instructions (4:13)

            B'''. Negative forces (4:14)

                    C'''. Positive teaching (4:15-16a)

                            D'. Effect of sound teaching (4:16b)

As you can see above, this demonstrates that there is not a linear development of ideas, but instead a totally symmetrical arrangement in which the main point actually appears in the center (4:11), not at end of the passage. However, that is not to disparage the great importance of units D and D', which occur at the culmination of the series ABCD and A'B'C'D', thus pointing out the final effect which sound teaching has on others as well as on the teacher.

A shorthand version of Figure 1 would thus look like the following, a very common arrangement found throughout the Bible and known as chiasmus or a chiasm:

    Unit I (3:14-4:6)

            Unit II (4:7-10)

                    Unit III (4:11)

            Unit II' (4:12)

    Unit I' (4:13-16)

At this point, a reality check is in order by considering some of the specific words and thoughts which are repeated within this passage to see if they help confirm the plan in Figure 1. The results are summarized below:

    “word(s)” (4:9, 12b)                         II and II'

    “these things” (3:14; 4:11,15)          beginning, center, and conclusion of passage,

                                                             inclusio (i.e. set of bookends) for I

    “piety” (3:15; 4:7,8)                         inclusio for whole passage

    “living /God” (3:15b; 4:10)              inclusio for whole passage

    “attend to” (4:13,14,16)                    unification of I'

Lastly, we should now return to the various divisions suggested in the translations for comparison. Here we see that the proposed divisions and subdivisions in Figure 1 above have both similarities to and differences from the various translations. Specifically, it may help explain why the Jerusalem Bible connects v. 11 with the preceding verses while other versions feel it starts a new section. One sees this same disagreement in scholarly commentaries on verse 11, which reads, “These are the things you must insist on and teach.” (NRSV) According to my scheme, it belongs to neither verses but represents a section unto itself. Partial confirmation of that conclusion is found in the literature:

    Knight: “V. 11 is a transition verse and could be taken as the conclusion of what precedes or as the beginning of this section [i.e. 4:11-16].”

Hanson: “The verse is one of those linking phrases whereby the author holds together his varied material.”

Ward: “These things broadly covers the contents of the epistle.” Note above that this phrase is the second of three such occurrences in this passage, the other two located at the beginning and conclusion.

Towner: “The dual imperative, 'Command and teach these things,' creates the almost formulaic link...between a preceding apostolic statement and a parenetic section calling the coworker into action as a teacher...Together these two terms, overlapping to some degree, summarize the actions Timothy would take to apply the sort of apostolic discourse given in response to specific doctrinal and ethical errors or more generally to community needs (6:2).”

We can now look at the overall flow of logic in this passage, which proceeds from the ends toward the middle instead of from beginning to end.

Units I and I' lay out the important reasons for Timothy's teaching ministry in the church.

Units II and II' draw his attention to the various pitfalls he must avoid and ways in which he can do that.

Unit III (4:11) serves as even more than a “link,” “summary,” or “transition” verse. Instead, it is the central point of the passage and could be considered as its topic sentence.

EIGHT ACCOUNTS OF ONE SIEGE (II KINGS 18-19)

It is an old truism that history was written by the victors. But in the case of Sennecherib's siege of Jerusalem in 701 BC, there was no clear winner, and thus we see a number of variant accounts of that event by both interested parties and bystanders. So let's first take these sources one at a time before deciding if any consensus can be achieved as to the actual facts by considering all of them together.

Micah 1-3

The least specific of the writings concerning the time period of the Assyrian invasion are found in these verses, perhaps prophetically written before the attack on Jerusalem. Mobley says, “Micah offered a theological interpretation of the dizzying events near the end of the eighth century: the fall of Samaria, the expansion of Jerusalem fueled by emigrants from the north, and the international situation made unstable by an aggressive superpower, Assyria.”

Regarding the actual invasion, he notes that the towns listed in verses 1:10-16 “in southwestern Judah lay along the path of the Assyrian king Sennacherib's campaign in 701...although the specific locations of several are unknown.”

II Kings 18:13-19:37

Here we have the most complete account of the events during Sennacherib's campaign against Judah. I will summarize this extended passage before comparing the next two versions below against it.

18:13-16 Sennacherib of Assyria takes some of the major cities of Judah before coming to Jerusalem. King Hezekiah sues for peace by giving all the gold and silver tribute that Sennacherib demands. At this point there is the decidedly minor view of Millard that Hezekiah only promised payment to Assyria but had not yet delivered it. And that is the reason for the siege being continued.

18:17-37 However, Sennacherib instead sends for some of his chief officers, one of whom, the Rabshakeh, proceeds to intimidate and demoralize Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with his speeches.

One challenge to the Israelites that is made by the Rabshakeh in v. 32 I find especially interesting: “Chose life and not death!” This is practically a parody of Joshua 24:15 – “...choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

It is especially ironic in that the Rabshakeh follows his challenge by trying to point out the superiority of his gods to the God of Israel, the reverse of Joshua's comparison of the people's previous deities with the Almighty God.

19:1-7 Hezekiah turns to Isaiah, who tells him: “Behold, I will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.”

This is somewhat a difficult passage. Cogan and Tadmor state: “The content of the report is not stated, but whatever it might have been, Sennacherib is pictured as behaving differently than expected, and it is this divinely contrived rumor which will be his undoing. In 1 Kgs 22:20-23, [to cite a parallel example] a 'lying spirit' in the mouths of 400 prophets leads Ahab to his death at Ramoth-gilead.”

19:8-19 More intimidation proceeds from Sennacherib via a letter, but Hezekiah takes the letter with him to the temple and prays to God for help.

19:20-34 God, through Isaiah, responds first with an extended poem followed by a sign indicating that a remnant will survive this crisis. More specifically, He states that the Assyrian forces will not enter the city at all, but will return to where they came from.

19:35-37 Finally, we learn that the angel of the Lord slew most or all of the Assyrian army camped around Jerusalem while Sennacherib returned to Assyria where he was murdered by two of his sons while praying to his god Nisroch.

II Chronicles 32:1-22

Here we are given a mostly parallel account to the narrative in II Kings except for the following points:

Omitted from Chronicles is the initial tribute given to Sennacherib from the temple and treasury.

Included in Chronicles but not found in Kings are the preparations made by Hezekiah for the siege.

The two accounts of the Rabshakeh's psychological warfare are quite different in each version, but both cover basically the same territory. However, whereas there is no reply given to the blasphemous words of the Rabshakeh in the Kings narrative, the Chronicler feels compelled to add a theological defense of God in verse 19: “And they spoke of the God of Jerusalem, as of the gods of the peoples of the earth, which are the work of men's hands.”

Of the two accounts, only Kings tells of the heavy involvement of Isaiah and his prophecy of what will eventually happen to Sennacherib.

Both versions record Sennacherib's death using basically the same language.

So the main difference from the Kings narrative is the Chronicler's slightly greater emphasis on the sanctity of the temple and defense of the only God and a concomitant de-emphasis on the role of the prophets. Both of these tendencies are seen elsewhere in comparison of these two sources.

Isaiah 36:1-37:38

This large passage in Isaiah is duplicated identically in II Kings 18-19, with one minor exception. Isaiah has omitted the fact, recorded in II Kings 18:14-18, that Hezekiah stripped nearly all the valuables from the temple and gave them to Sennacherib in an attempt to appease him. This is the same omission found in the II Chronicles version.

Assyrian prisms

Nogalski explains that this story appears on three different prisms that have been discovered – all reading practically the same. These were actually written soon after the events themselves (700-691 BC) and thus one might feel that they would contain the most accurate record. However, we must also weigh in the fact that most ancient cultures tended to gloss over their military failures or ignore them altogether. In Egypt, for example, all monuments of the period of Hyksos rule over their land were destroyed or defaced after that alien group was conquered.

The Jews, by contrast, for the most part had no problem whatsoever airing their dirty linen before the world in their holy writings, as is quite obvious to anyone reading the Old Testament historical books. The reason was that they put no ultimate trust in their military or political leaders, believing that only God Himself deserved that sort of devotion.

In any case, Cogan and Tadmor say, “It has been noted that source A [i.e. II Kings 18:13b-16] agrees in great measure with Sennacherib's own account of his Judean campaign.”

Nogalski states, “Sennacherib's account adds historical context, but it does not mention massive casualties to Assyrian troops. Sennacherib's account attributes his decision to attack Judah to Hezekiah's rebellion...Sennacherib claims to have withdrawn from Jerusalem only after Hezekiah paid him a large tribute.”

Herodotus

As a Greek historian who could be considered a fairly disinterested party to any conflicts between Israel and Assyria, his account is of special interest to us. But we need to also keep in mind that his writings on the siege came almost 200 years after the events themselves and may have relied on faulty information.

Wiseman quotes this historian as writing of a plague “of field mice which by night devoured all the quivers and bows of the enemy, and all the straps by which they held their shields...next morning they commenced their fight and great numbers fell as they had no arms with which to defend themselves.” That account may sound ludicrous in that such a insignificant event could have had such disastrous effect on the final outcome of a battle. But remember Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Serious historians have proposed that the deciding factor causing the French army to retreat was the fact that the metal buttons on the soldiers' uniforms were made of an alloy which became extremely brittle in cold weather, causing the buttons to break. Thus, the French troops found themselves fully occupied in just trying to keep their pants from falling down and their winter jackets from gaping open.

It appears that Herodotus got his information from an Egyptian tradition of an invasion of rats causing both the flight and death of the Assyrians. And as Ellul says, “Now we know that antiquity was already aware of the relation between rats and plague.”

Sirach 48:18-21 and Josephus, Antiquities x. ch. 1

Here are two more extrabiblical sources to consider, although they come from much more recent dates than the OT accounts:

“In his days Sennacherib came up and sent the Rabshakeh; he lifted up his hand against Zion...Then their hearts were shaken and their hands trembled, and they were in anguish, like women in travail. But they called upon the Lord is who is merciful...and the Holy One quickly heard them from heaven, and delivered them by the hand of Isaiah. The Lord smote the camp of the Assyrians, and his angel wiped them out.” (Sirach 48:18-21) This basically follows the biblical account.

Josephus gives us a much longer narrative which I won't bother to quote. But he specifically adds that Sennacherib double-crossed Hezekiah after the latter gave him the large tribute by rescinding his promise to remove his troops from around Jerusalem. There are a number of other emendations to the biblical narrative that Josephus adds to flesh out the story.

Cogan and Tadmor call both of the above versions “later theological rationalizations of the miraculous deliverance.”

Conclusions

Nogalski states that “The three biblical examples [other than Micah] share a common source, but each account has been altered for its literary position.” Two controversial issues in these passages are discussed below.

Cause of Death for the Assyrian Troops

Considering the various versions above, the most likely scenario is that rats invaded their camp, spreading a plague which caused the army's retreat. In the Bible, plagues are always attributed to the direct act of judgment of God on disobedient people.

Timing of Sennacherib's Death

He adds that “the biblical accounts imply that Sennacherib was killed immediately after he returned from his campaign against Jerusalem. In reality, while Sennacherib was eventually assassinated by two of his sons, he continued to rule for another twenty years after the siege of Jerusalem ended.” Thus, Nogalski appears to pose a major challenge for those expecting a literal fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.

Since Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah all record Sennacherib's death using basically the same language, I will quote the slightly fuller II Kings account so that you can decide for yourself if Nogalski's assertion is correct:

“So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned and dwelt at Nineveh. And as he was worshiping in the house of Nisrock his god, Adram-melech and Sharezer, his sons, slew him with the sword, and escaped into the land of Ararat.” (II Kings 19:36-37a)

Ellul notes the irony in that the king's god could not even protect him as he was worshiping in its very temple.

As to the so-called contradiction here with historical sources which had him dying 20 years after the failed siege, most commentators don't even bother mentioning it since (a) there is no indication in the biblical texts as to how many years intervened between the king's return and his eventual death and (b) such telescoping together of events separated widely chronologically is a standard fixture of both biblical narratives and prophecies.

House, for example, states: “In other words, Isaiah's predictions are not just short-term in nature, they also cover long-term events. Thus, God is in control of all occurrences.” (House)

 

LAYING ON OF HANDS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Laying on of Hands in the Old Testament

Those in Pentecostal churches may associate the laying on of hands with the receiving of the Holy Spirit or being “slain in the Spirit” while other Protestant groups think of it in the context of ordaining a person into full-time Christian service or appointing people as deacons or elders (see Acts 6:6; 13:3; I Timothy 4:14; Hebrews 6:2). But we rarely think of that practice in relationship to the Old Testament. It turns out that laying on of hands was also a part of Jewish ceremonies, but in that context it sometimes served a somewhat different purpose.

Here is a brief survey of those OT passages, starting with a general overview by Schutz: “Alongside this [the Day of Atonement ceremony of Leviticus 16], though more rare, is the laying on of hands as an act of blessing (Gen. 48:18; Isa. 44:3). It is no doubt closely related to the ritual of laying on of hands on the occasion of a man's installation in an office (Num. 27:12ff, etc). The laying on of hands means, therefore, if one compares the two very different acts of removal of sin and blessing, that there passes to the one on whom hands are laid the particular quality of the one who performs the act. He passes on his special blessing or burdens the scapegoat with the burden which he himself had carried.”

Genesis 48:8-20

The context here is the blessing by the aged Jacob of all his descendants. However, in blessing Joseph's sons he purposely places his right [i.e. favored] hand on the younger son Ephraim and his left hand on the older son Manasseh. Joseph objects but Jacob explains that the “younger brother shall become greater than he, and his descendants shall become a company of peoples.”

Hamilton points out: “The subtlety of Jacob naming Ephraim ahead of Manasseh back in v. 5 slipped by Joseph unnoticed, even though Jacob named his own children chronologically – Reuben, then Simeon.” He also notes, “The act of hand imposition in this incident is conveyed by the verb sit (vv. 14,17) and by the verb sim (v. 18), both of which mean 'put, place.' In contrast, throughout priestly literature, whenever there is a laying on of one hand (Lev. 1:4) or of both hands (16:21), the verb that is consistently used is samak. It is possible that sit/sim and samak are synonyms. But it is also possible that sit/sim may refer to laying one's hands on the head of another lightly, while samak implies the use of more pressure.”

Leviticus 1:4

Banwell: “The touch of a person's hands was held to communicate authority, power, or blessing, the right hand being more significant in this respect than the left, but both hands were often used (Gn. xlviii.13,14; Dt. xxxiv.9). Note especially the laying of the hands of the worshiper on the head of his sacrificial beast, where the communication of authority probably signified identity with the offering (Lv. 1.4).”

Milgrom gives a Jewish perspective on this verse: “The explanations of this rite fall into four categories: (a) transference of sin to the animal...or of ownership to God...; (b) identification 'intended to penetrate the animal with the soul of the offerer' (Dussaud), or the animal, turning into smoke, brings the offerer nearer to God...; (c) declaration, to enable the offerer to declare its purpose...or his innocence...; (d) ownership...” He eliminates all possibilities except the last one, although others could well question his reasoning in reaching that conclusion.

Leviticus 16:20-22

“The clearest expression of the imagery of atoning sacrifice appears in the legislation of the Day of Atonement...First, Aaron sacrifices for himself and his house so he can continue the ceremony without fear of judgment (Lev 16:11-14). Second, he offers the sin-offering of a goat for the congregation of Israel (Lev 16:15-19). Third, Aaron lays his hands on a second goat (a scapegoat) and sends it outside the camp to die (Lev 16:20-22). The first goat is sacrificed. This act symbolizes the divine side of atonement: God's holy justice is satisfied...The second goat represents the human side of atonement. The sins of the people are transferred to the goat by Aaron's hands...This twofold imagery helps to resolve a long-standing theological controversy over the imagery of atonement...Expiratory views of atonement focus on sacrifices as the way to free people of sin and its defilement. Propitiatory understandings of atonement present sacrifices as the appeasement of divine wrath. The symbolism of two goats on the Day of Atonement indicates that both concepts are essential...” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Leviticus 24:14

This passage presents the specific case in which a people heard someone utter a curse using the Lord's name. Wenham says, “It was not simply uttering the holy name of Yahweh (the Lord) that constituted the offense, as Jews often hold, or cursing by itself. It was using the Lord's name in a curse that merited the death penalty...Blasphemy brings guilt on those who hear it as well as on the blasphemer himself. To rid themselves of this guilt the hearers had to lay their hands on the blasphemer's head (v. 14). His subsequent death [by stoning] then atoned for his own and his hearer's sin.” Rooker echoes this opinion almost word for word.

Most Christians, including myself, might take issue with the comment that the rite atoned for the blasphemer's sin. But that is probably due to a confusion regarding (a) which of the two above-mentioned understandings of atonement one is thinking of and (b) the great difference in OT and NT views of life and death (There are arguably less than a handful of OT verses expressing the idea of eternal life and death). Thus, we would probably say that God's wrath brought about by the blasphemer's sin has been satisfied by the offender's physical death in that He no longer needed to wreak his vengeance on those who had heard the blasphemy. However, that does not at all imply that the offender himself is now back in God's good graces and will enjoy eternal life with Him.

Numbers 8:10ff

“This section [i.e. Numbers 8:9-13] clarifies the parallel between the Levites and the animal sacrifices...Beginning in v. 10b the procedures for offering both the Levites and the animal sacrifices are given in parallel form: hands are laid on the offerings (vv. 10b, 12a), a proper person offers the sacrifices (vv. 11a, 12b), and the outcome of the offerings is given (vv. 11b, 12c). The laying on of hands possibly denotes the identification of the Levites with the people and the animal sacrifices, but more probably denotes the substitution of the one for the other.” (Ashley)

Numbers 27:12-23

“Despite the difference in authority between Moses and Joshua, there was a real continuity between them expressed symbolically by the laying on of Moses' hands (18,23). In this symbolic gesture Joshua was identified with Moses and made his representative for the future...the closest parallel to the imposition of hands on Joshua is the ordination of the Levites (8:10ff), when the Israelites appointed them as their substitutes in place of their first-born children.” (Wenham)

Deuteronomy 34:9

This verse reads, “And Joshua, son of Nun, was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him, and the Israelites obeyed him and they did what the Lord had commanded Moses.” This refers back to the event in Numbers 27:18, which, however, seems to read as if Joshua already had the spirit before hands were laid on him. The difference between the two accounts may lie in the fact that, as Levinson states, “In Num 27.18, Joshua already possessed an undefined 'spirit' (often associated with prophecy or possession)." This may, therefore, be different from the specific 'spirit of wisdom' which Deuteronomy mentions.

 

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.