DID GOLIATH DIE TWICE? (I SAMUEL 17:50-51)

The website QUORA invited their atheist readers to submit their favorite Bible contradictions. Here is an intriguing one: “I Samuel 17:50-51 states first the David killed Goliath without a sword and second that David killed Goliath using Goliath's own sword.”

Rather than, as the author of that contradiction states, this being a problem that no one else had pointed out earlier, it is in fact well known to Bible scholars. And similarly, there have been several approaches to dealing with the issue.

Multiple Sources

For the more liberal commentators, this poses absolutely no problem since they have consistently stated that most books in the Old Testament were composed over extended periods by multiple editors piecing together multiple original sources. Thus, in this particular case they propose that verses 50 and 51 come from two different source materials, each one giving a slightly different slant on the same episode being narrated. Their assumption is that the final editor did not know which account was the most historically correct, so he simply wrote down both narrations side-by-side, even though that might result in an apparent contradiction.

Verse 50 as a Summary Account

McKenzie, for example, accepts the previous scenario and deals with it in the following way: “These verses make it appear as though David killed the Philistine twice, once with the sling stone (v. 50) and once by beheading him with his own sword (v. 51). The repetition results from the combination of two versions of the story, but v. 50 can be read as an overview of the entire episode.”

Deletion of Verse 50

A sort of Gordian knot approach is simply to delete the problem verse 50 altogether as a later addition to the text. The Anchor Bible does just that, explaining “Here MT [the Hebrew text] and other MSS add a verse missing from LXX [the Greek version].” So basically, it rejects the older, majority Hebrew manuscripts in favor of a later one in another language. Few other modern translations have taken such a drastic approach.

Porter gives more textual information: “Chapters 17 and 18 seem originally to have existed in two different forms, a longer one represented by the present Heb. text...and a shorter one represented by the Vatican MS of LXX. This latter omits 17:12-31, 41, 50; 17:55-18:5.”

Other English Translations

Modern versions attempt to smooth over any problems in the original Hebrew by resorting to various expediencies:

NIV renders the end of v. 51 as “after he killed him, he cut off his head with a sword.” This assumes that Goliath was already dead at the end of v. 50.

NEB takes the opposite view that Goliath was still alive in v. 50 and so reads the two verses as David “gave him a mortal wound” (v. 50) and “dispatched him” in v. 51. The Message paraphrase agrees with this approach in their translation of v. 51 as a “finished the job by.”

NRSV reads the conclusion of v. 50 as “he fell face down on the ground” but omits “he killed him.” Similarly, Li states, “David first caused Goliath to fall [v. 50], and then he killed him [v. 51].”

Literary Approach #1

Tsumura comments on v. 50 during this explanation: “This verse interrupts the flow of the narrative from v. 49 to v. 51; it is a little off the main line, and the narrator exults over this seemingly impossible victory. Verse 51 returns to the main line of narrative, and the emphasis is again on what David did. Thus, vv. 49-51 constitutes an AXB pattern. By the insertion [of v. 50] the quick tempo of the narrative is slowed down 'so that the real significance of the day's victory over the Philistines can be underlined' (R.P. Gordon).”

The “quick tempo” mentioned by Tsumura has been also noted by Murphy, who counts no less than thirty-six action verbs in I Samuel 17:48-54.

Literary Approach #2

My own personal favorite way of treating situations such as this where duplications in the Old Testament are suspected to indicate multiple versions, is to ascribe it to the noted propensity of Hebrew writers to purposely say the same thing more than once. This is especially true in the poetry sections of the OT where practically every verse contains multiple stanzas, each one echoing the other(s) in thought. But the phenomenon can also appear in narrative accounts. Thus, one can outline the parallelism between verses 50 and 51 as follows:

        A. David prevailed over the Philistine (50a)

                B. killing him (50b)

                        C. And there was no sword in his hand (50c)

        A'. David stood over the Philistine (51a)

                        C'. He grasped Goliath's sword (51b)

                B'. and killed him (51c)

Parallel Passages

The history books of the OT relate some similar stories to the David and Goliath tale that are interesting to compare to it.

Perhaps the closest in theme and literary approach is the death of the attacking general Sisera at the hand of a housewife (Judges 5). As you may remember, she first rendered the general unconscious with a meal including hot milk, which put him to sleep. Then she picked up a hammer and tent peg and pierced his ear with it. Thematically, this is practically identical to the death of the giant antagonist Goliath at the hand of a mere shepherd youth with no military training. And in terms of literary technique, there is just as strong a correspondence.

In the first place, the account of Sisera's death in verses 26-27 is also loaded with action verbs – twelve in these two verses alone. Also, there is a form of symmetry in the story of his actual death:

        He sank

                he fell

                        he lay still

                                at her feet

                        he lay still

            he fell

       Where he sank

                                        there he died.

If one were to read this as a straightforward, chronological account instead, on would certainly see logical contradictions in the multiple sinking, falling, and laying still. And just as in I Samuel, it is fairly obvious that the method of narration, if taken chronologically, appears to give the false impression that Sisera died multiple times, as well as implying that he was sleeping while standing up. Otherwise why did he “sink” when the stake was pounded into his head? And did Jael have to stand up on a stool to reach up to where she could deliver the blow?

Another somewhat similar story, at least in theme if not in style, is found in Judges 9:52-54 where the attacking commander Abimelech is killed by a woman up on a tower who dropped a millstone on his head. But before dying, the commander has his aide finish him off with a sword so that no one can say that a mere women killed him.

The third parallel as far as style is concerned is found slightly earlier in the same chapter in I Samuel (17:34-36). The shepherd David gives Saul his qualifications before being sent out to battle the giant. It can be diagrammed as follows:

                A. Whenever a lion or bear came, I would strike it,

                                B. I would kill it.

                                B'. I have killed

                A'. both lions and bears.

David is basically repeating himself, using Hebrew poetic parallelism.

 

EZEKIEL 38

This chapter is really closely tied to the following one in the arrangement shown below:

CYCLE 1

Introduction (38:1-6)

        A. Readiness for attack on Israel (38:7-13)

                B. The attack (38:14-16)

                        C. Judgment on Gog (38:17-23)

CYCLE 2

Introduction (39:1-3)

                B. The attack (39:4a)

                        C. Judgment on Gog (39:4b-20)

                                D. Restoration of Israel (39:21-29)

As you can see, this type of organization takes the form of what is called “progressive parallelism” in which the same basic territory is covered twice, with the second version advancing the action somewhat chronologically. This identical structure is seen in the Book of Revelation, another eschatological writing.

Andersen and Freedman note: “The whole of [Micah 4,] vv. 11-13 is eschatological...Ezekiel 38-39 can be seen as an elaboration of the theme of vv. 11-13.”

Ezekiel 38:1-3 – “Following an exceptionally lengthy introduction, the challenge formula leaves no doubt about where the lines are drawn in this oracle. The conflict will inevitably touch Israel, but what Ezekiel envisages is essentially a duel between Yahweh and Gog.” (Block)

Most commentaries spend an inordinate amount of space trying to explain where each of the place names is located, but I will leave it to Chisholm to adequately summarize the situation: “Attempts to identify these proper names with modern Russian place names are anachronistic. The names Magog, Meshech, and Tubal (as well as Gomer and Togarmah; see v. 6) appear in Genesis 10:2-3 as descendants of Japheth. Some translations take the Hebrew word rosh in 38:2 as a proper name...However, it is far more likely that the word is appositional [i.e. parallel] to 'prince.'”

Chishholm adds that the coalition of nations includes those from the distant east, the distant south and the distant north. “Also the fact there are exactly seven such nations suggest both totality and completeness. Ezekiel's description of this battle was contextualized for his sixth-century B.C. audience. These distant, mysterious nations, located on the very perimeter of Israel's world, made apt archetypes because of their 'foreignness.'”

“Gog's invasion cannot be identified with any known historical event; the attempt to interpret the passage with reference to Alexander the Great (Browne, 1952) founders on the undoubted fact that Alexander and his followers did not meet their end on the 'mountains of Israel' (39:4).” (Bruce)

Ezekiel 38:4-6 – This reads, “I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws.” For this thought, Bruce refers the reader to “the language addressed to Pharaoh in 29:4, but the warning to Sennacherib in Isa. 37:29 provides a closer parallel.”
Rogers states, “In Ezek 38:6,15 and 39:2 the prophecy concerns nations that will march against Israel...The identification of this 'foe' is difficult because the context has eschatological overtones. Some hold that these people will occupy the geographical areas in the 'last days'...Others see in the structural development of Ezek 36-39 God's assurance that regardless of the opposition, represented by the enemies from the north, God will restore his people, console them, and establish his kingdom.”

“The account of Gog's attack (38:1-39:29) provides an example of apocalyptic, with a battle involving supernatural intervention at the end of the age and, significantly, after the coming of the Davidic ruler [the Messiah?]. The geographical identification of Gomer (38:6) with the Cimmerians suggest that Ezekiel has transposed the threat from the north, with its constant eruptions into Middle Eastern history, to the end-times and made it represent the powers of evil in general.” (J.B. Job)

Ezekiel 38:7-9 – “It is evident that Israel had begun to despair over the delay of the Day of the Lord for the nations (38:8; 39:8)...so chapters 38-39 function as encouragement...” (Bullock)

Beasley-Murray explains that the phrase 'After many days' indicates that “the invasion is not to occur for a long time. Cf. Is. 24:22.” Also, “'The latter years' indicates the period of the kingdom (cf. Is. 2:2).”

Block: “Yahweh's marching orders for God are spelled out. Although Jeremiah had also spoken of the enemy advancing from the north like storm clouds...at Yahweh's command (4:12-13), Ezekiel's use of so'a, 'storm', points to inspiration from Isa. 10:3. 'What will you do on the day of punishment (pequdda) in the storm (so'a) that will cover the land?' so'a means literally 'devastation,' but its pairing with 'anan suggests a destructive 'storm cloud,' a metaphor for a sudden invasion by vast numbers of troops.”

Ezekiel 38:10-12 – “The nom. perazot occurs only 3x (Esth 9:19; Ezk 38:11; Zech 2:4) and signifies villages without walls...Ezekiel (Ezek 38:10-11) warns of a future day when Gog will devise an attack against restored Israel...In all three cases, the Jews who lived in unwalled villages or cities were exposed to more peril than inhabitants of walled cities. However, in each instance Yahweh provides the necessary protection.” (Grisanti)

Verse 10 reads, “Thoughts will come into your mind.” Bruce interprets this as indicating “that the invasion as planned by Gog does not conflict with his being brought against the land by the divine overruling (v. 16f.); his thoughts as well as his actions are foreordained.”

Ezekiel 38:13-16 – Wakely says, “When Gog's huge army (...Ezek 38:15), which will come to oppress Israel, is eradicated by Yahweh, the slaughter will be considered a sacrifice to God's glory.”

“Since the normal deity-nation-land relationships are operative, for Gog to attack his people and invade his land is to hit their/its patron.” (Block)

Ezekiel 38:17 – Beasley-Murray: “ The reference to the earlier prophets in v. 17 would be to such passages as Zp. 3:8; Je. 3:6; and perhaps, seeing that the prophets spoke 'in former days', to prophecies known to Ezekiel but which have since perished.”

“The key to understanding the oracles is 38:17, 'Are you not the one...?' Most interpret this as a question to be answered positively, but this raises many difficulties...Others make it a positive statement, 'You are the one...'; Ezekiel is then seen to refer to earlier prophecies of a 'foe from the north' (e.g., Jer 1:13-15; 4:6), fulfilled by other invaders, now reapplied to Gog. If the verse is interpreted as a question to be answered negatively, as D. Block has perceived, the problems diminish. Gog could not assault Israel as God's agent to inflict merited punishment, like Sennacherib or Nebuchadnezzar; his onslaught would be directed wholly at his own self-aggrandizement, arrogant and cruel.” (Millard)

Ezekiel 38:18-23 – “Gog's destruction will be by earthquake (vv. 19,20), mutual strife (v. 21) and plagues like those on Egypt at the Exodus (vv. 22,23); it is presumed that Israel will be brought safely through these calamities as in that former time.” (Beasley-Murray)

J.B. Job: “Gog and his hordes, the archetypical enemies of Israel gathered from the four corners of the earth (chs. 38-39), are puppets brought in by the divine hand to prove Yahweh's enduring commitment to the safety of his people. By eliminating them he magnifies himself (gdl; 38:23), makes himself known...and sets his glory (39:21) among the nations. He is indeed concerned that all the world recognizes his person and his presence in their affairs, but his agenda is always focused on Israel.”

Peterson notes that while rain is withheld in Ezek. 22:24 as a judgment on Judah, in 38:22 it pours down excessively as a judgment against Gog and his army.

 

CHRIST'S PRESENT POSITION AND MINISTRY

 Christians are often so preoccupied with speculations regarding the time of Christ's coming to earth to set everything right that they forget the fact that Christ is already reigning universally. Here are a few comments from noted theologians belonging to varying doctrinal camps explaining the scope of that present ministry. On this issue, they appear to be remarkably in agreement with one another. You may want to look up the biblical references that are cited below to get a fuller picture of Christ's position, power and activities today.

Ladd: “He is now reigning as King at God's right hand (I Cor. 15:25). However, his reign and his Lordship are not evident to the world...In view of the Pauline emphasis that Jesus has now been exalted and is reigning as Lord at God's right hand (Eph. 1:20-27; Phil. 2:9), we must think of Christ as beginning his kingly reign at his ascension...Lord and king are interchangeable, expressing Christ's exalted sovereignty. His sovereignty rests...on his resurrection...The glory that is now his is known only by men of faith. So far as the world is concerned, Christ's reign is only potential and unrealized. Nevertheless, contrary to appearances, he is reigning and 'he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet' (1 Cor. 15:25). Then his reign must become public in power and glory and the Lordship universally recognized (Phil. 2:10-11).”

Ryrie enumerates the various activities of Christ that comprise His ministry since His ascension:

“He formed the body by sending the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost to baptize believers into the body (Acts 1:5; 2:33; 1 Cor. 12:13).”

“He sanctifies it [i.e. the body] (Eph. 5:26), a reference to the entire process of sanctification which begins at conversion and continues until we are presented perfect in His presence in heaven...His work of sanctifying includes nourishing and cherishing His body (Eph. 5:29. To nourish means to bring to maturity (as in 6:4).”

“Our ascended Lord also gives gifts to the body (Eph 4:7-13)...Here Paul uses an illustration from Psalm 68:18 in which the triumphant warrior is exalted when he returns with captured prisoners. He receives gifts from the conquered people and gives gifts to his own people. Christ conquered sin and death during His ministry on earth; now He gives gifts to His followers during His ministry in heaven. In 1 Corinthians 12:5 the giving of gifts is also related to the Lord.”

“The ascended Lord also empowers the body (John 15:1-10). This well-known illustration of the vine and branches makes clear that without the power of the living Christ flowing through us we can do nothing. Clearly that power is resurrection power dependent on a relationship of our being in Him and His being in us (14:17).”

“As a faithful Priest our Lord sympathizes, succors, and gives grace to His people (Heb. 2:18; 4:14-16). ..As a faithful Priest our Lord intercedes for His people (7:25)...As to the exact form this ministry may take in communication or mentioning our needs we cannot fully know; but it apparently focuses both on the positive aspect of asking that things be prevented from happening in our lives (Luke 22:23) and the negative aspect of cleansing us from evil things that do happen (1 John 2:1-2). We will not know until we are in heaven all that this ministry of our High Priest has meant in our lives, both in its positive and negative facets.”

“Just before his death the Lord informed the disciples that He was shortly going to prepare a place for them after which He would return in order to take them there (John 14:1-3).”

Furnish: “There are various aspects of Christ's lordship unfolded in Paul's preaching, but of first importance is the eschatological. It is true that the expectation of the future parousia of the Messiah who will judge and redeem is still alive in Paul, and that the title “Lord' is characteristically applied in this connection...But primarily the lordship is seen as already operative...Through his death-resurrection he has been enthroned in power to exercise his dominion already in the present age: 'For to this end Christ died and lived, that he might reign...over the dead and the living' (Rom. 14:9). ...Christ himself continues to reign, for God has put all things in subjection to him (I Cor. 15:25,27)...At its center, then, Paul's gospel of the Lord Jesus who lives and reigns is a declaration concerning the believer's relationship to Christ as Lord.”

Cullmann: Christ's present works even have their consequences in our own lives on earth. “The new element in the New Testament is not eschatology, but what I call the tension between the decisive 'already fulfilled' and the 'not yet completed,' between present and future. The whole theology of the New Testament, including Jesus' preaching is qualified by this tension...The tension between the 'already' and the 'not yet' is illustrated in various ways: 'We are holy; this means that we should sanctify ourselves. We have received the Spirit; this means that we should 'walk in the Spirit.' In Christ we already have redemption from the power of sin; this means that now as never before we must battle against sin.”

Marshall: And the same applies to Christ's present work through the Church as a body. “Acts refers to the Gospel's relation of 'all that Jesus began to do and teach' (Acts 1:1); the second book relates all that Jesus continued to do and teach through his followers who acted 'in his name' (Acts 3:6,16; 16:18)....It is...through the Spirit [of Jesus] that Jesus is active in the early Christians and their mission...His exaltation led to his 'reign', which will continue until the time when all opposition to him has been overcome and he hands over his kingdom to his Father (1 Cor. 15:24-25).”

Intercession: I was rather surprised to see that Jesus' continued intercession for us in heaven (Romans 8:34b; Hebrews 7:25) was not included in any of the above comments on His continuing activities in heaven. It turns out that it is a somewhat controversial subject, as you can see from the quotes below from some prominent scholars:

    Ellingsworth on Hebrews 7:25: “In both these passages the language is too general to determine whether prayer for help or for forgiveness is intended. Such partial parallels as 2:18; 4:15; 5:2,7 suggest the more inclusive meaning 'help.' Where the forgiveness of sins is specifically mentioned, as in 9:22; 10:18, it is linked with Christ's one sacrifice rather than with his continuing intercession...but there is no logical or theological reason why the author should not have linked the one sacrifice and the constant intercession as naturally as Paul does in Rom. 8:34.”

    Bruce says that “the teaching and action of Jesus on earth must have encouraged His disciples to recognize in Him their all-prevailing intercessor...(Luke 22:32). If it be asked what form His heavenly intercession takes, what better answer can be given than that He still does for His people at the right of God what He did for Peter on earth? He is not to be thought of 'as...standing ever before the Father with outstretched arms...pleading our cause in the presence of a reluctant God; but as a throned Priest-King, asking what He will from a Father who always hears and grants His request.'” (Swete)

    Murray: “Only here [i.e. Romans 8:34b] and in Hebrews 7:25 is the heavenly intercession of Christ expressly mentioned. But it is implied in other passages (cf. John 14:16; I John 2:1; possibly Isa. 53:12). That 'intercession' is referred to in this verse is beyond reasonable question – the same term is used with reference to the Holy Spirit in verses 26, 27. The reality of heavenly intercession on the part of Christ is, therefore, beyond question...the evidence will demonstrate that every need of the believer and every grace requisite to consummate his redemption are brought within the scope of Christ's intercession (cf. 7:24, 25)...Nothing serves to verify the intimacy and constancy of the Redeemer's preoccupation with the security of his people, nothing assures us of his unchanging love more than the tenderness which his heavenly priesthood bespeaks and particularly as it comes to expression in intercession for us.”

    Fitzmyer: “The risen, exalted Christ still presents his supplication to the Father on behalf of the Christian elect. So not only the Spirit intercedes for Christians ([Rom.] 8:26-27), but also the heavenly Christ. Cf. 1 John 2:1, where Christ is depicted as the Paraclete; Eph 1:20. Such an exalted intercessor cannot assume the role of an accuser or one who will condemn us.”

    Kasemann: “His [Paul's] first concern is with the death of Jesus which sets aside all condemnation. This event certainly belongs to the past but to to a past that has been overcome (cf. 4:25; 5:10). For he who died for us is now the risen Lord who according to the interpretation of messianic prophecy current in primitive Christianity sits as he exalted One at the right hand of God. He can thus be our constant Intercessor like the High Priest of Heb 7:25 or the Paraclete of 1 John 2:1, warding off even future accusations against us.”

These scholars above all agree that Christ is still actively interceding for us, even though they may have slightly different explanations of the exact nature of that intercession. But that is not a universally held opinion, as seen in the next two citations:

    Morris: “His [Christ's] death removes the possibility of condemnation for those who are in him...The death is important, and indeed central. But it does not stand on its own, and Paul proceeds to the thought that Christ was raised...Christ is at the right hand of God, an important part of New Testament teaching....It means that he is in the place of highest honor in heaven. The posture of sitting (Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, etc.) signifies 'the finished work of Christ'...This means that we should take 'is also interceding for us' with some care (cf. Heb 7:25; 1 John 2:1). We should interpret the intercession passages in the light of frequent references to sitting at the right hand of God. His presence at God's right hand in his capacity as the one who died for sinners and rose again is itself the intercession.”

    Wescott: “The modern conception of Christ pleading in heaven His Passion 'offering His blood,' on behalf of men, has no foundation in the Epistle (i.e. Hebrews). His glorified humanity is the eternal pledge of the absolute efficacy of His accomplished work. He pleads, as older writers truly expressed the thought, by his presence on the Father's Throne.”

REVELATION 10

Revelation 10

Just as Revelation 7 acts as an interlude of two scenes occurring just before the seventh seal is opened, chapters 10-11 with their two respective visions serve a similar function before the seventh trumpet is blown. And there is some shared language between these two sections to help confirm that analysis:

both contain “earth, sea,” “a loud voice,” something is “sealed,” “every nation, all tribes and peoples and languages / many peoples and nations and languages,” “standing,” “forever and ever” in a hymn-like passage, and “the sun.”

Revelation 10 itself can be divided into two parts which can be diagrammed roughly as follows:

                                                      The Structure of Revelation 10

an angel “from heaven” (1)

        “a little scroll open in his hand” (2a)

                “his feet on the sea and land” (2b)

                        “seven thunders sounded” (3-4a)

a voice “from heaven” (4b)

                         seal up what the seven thunders said” (4c)

                “standing on sea and land” (5a)

hand raised to “heaven” (5b)

who created “heaven,” (6a)

                “the earth and the sea” (6b)

                                God announced to his servants the “prophets” (7)

--------------------------

“the voice from heaven” (8a)

        “take the scroll that is open in the hand of the angel” (8b)

                “standing on sea and land” (8c)

        “give me the little scroll” (9a)

                                        “it will be bitter to your stomach” (9b)

                                                “but sweet in your mouth” (9c)

        “I took the little scroll from the hand of the angel” (10a)

                                                “it was sweet in the mouth” (10b)

                                        “but bitter in the mouth” (10c)

                                You must “prophesy” to the people (11)

There is no strict symmetry to the above organization. However, it does highlight the repeated phraseology throughout the section as well as the progression of thought contained in the closing statements in both halves: Thus, just as God had earlier announced His mysteries to the Old Testament prophets (v. 7), John himself is now to transmit His message to the people (v.11).

As to the exact content of that message, most commentators feel this must refer to what is in the scroll that John ate, and subsequently recorded in the rest of Revelation.

Here are a few specific comments on the verses in this chapter.

Revelation 10:1 – Beale states, “John sees a heavenly being 'descending from heaven.' Some commentators have noted that the seer's position now is no longer in heaven, in contrast to 4:1-2. But even there he was caught up into the heavenly dimension 'in spirit' and not in body. Nevertheless, there is a change in the location in which revelation is being received...Although this heavenly being is called an 'angel,' he may be more than an angel, and, therefore, in a different class from the 'strong' angel in 5:2 and 18:21...He is given attributes that are given only to God in the OT or to God or Christ in Revelation. Therefore this heavenly being is either the divine Christ himself or the divine angel of Yahweh.”

Revelation 10:2-3 – In agreement with the above, Ruiz says, “The little scroll is distinct from the seven-sealed scroll in the right hand of God in 5.1. This scroll is in the angel's left hand, since in 10.5 he raises his hand to heaven to swear an oath (Dan. 12.7).”

Mounce states, “Because the strong angel of 5:2 speaks with a great voice (cf. 10:3) and is connected with the opening of the book of destiny (cf. 10:2), it is quite possible that he is also the one who appears here in chapter 10.”

Ford says that “when the angel places one foot on the sea and the other on the earth..., it indicates that all things are subjugated to him, 'sea and land' being an OT formula denoting the totality of terrestrial things; cf. Mark 6:48; Matt 14:28-36.”

Revelation 10:4 – “The instructions to John are that he should seal up what the thunders said and write them not. This prohibition contrasts with 1:19 (Write what you saw, what is, and what will be) and 22:10 (Do not seal up the prophecy).” (Mounce) Note that these three passages appear at the start, middle, and conclusion of the chapter.

Revelation 10:5-6 – Morris comments: “The oath is made very solemn by the prolonged description of God. The angel singles out His eternality and His activities in creation. This is to bring out the point that what the angel is about to speak is not some panic device to which a surprised God must resort in reaction to the machinations of evil men and evil spirits.”

Revelation 10:7 – Ruiz refers the reader to Romans 16:25; Ephesians 1:9; 3:3-9; and Colossians 1:26-27 for an explanation of the phrase “mystery of God.”

“The more precise meaning of the oath 'that time will be no longer' is now given...The occurrence of etelesthe ('it will be completed) in Rev. 10:7 betrays the continuing influence of Dan. 12:7 (syntelesthestai, 'It will be completed,' in Dan.: 12:7 LXX). John views the 'times, time, and half a time' as the church age, leading up to the final judgment...” (Beale) Note that this phrase should not be interpreted, as in the KJV, as if the whole concept of time will cease to be meaningful after this period.

Revelation 10:8-10 – “There are innumerable explanations of this double character [i.e. sweet and bitter]; all, however unhesitantlingly refer to the Word of God: sweetness of the announcement of salvation, bitterness of the announcement of judgment; sweetness of the announcement of election, bitterness of the announcement of persecution. I believe, rather: sweetness of receiving the testimony of the immensity of the love of God, and bitterness of the difficulty of leading the life in which the 'little scroll' involves us. For, in fact, the witness must immediately prophesy.” (Ellul)

“One notes that Ezekiel eats the scroll before his denunciations of Jerusalem, the most potent of which is in ch. 16 concerning her adultery. Num 5, Ezek 3, and Rev 10 are the only biblical texts which refer to the words of a scroll being consumed.” (Ford)

Beale explains that, as you can see in Figure 1, “This is the third time that John mentions that this angel is standing on the sea and the earth. The repetition is not for mere rhetorical purposes [as Mounce thinks], but more likely emphasizes the fact that now this angel (Christ) exercises sovereignty over the whole earth....the book held by the angel and then given to John has a message applicable in some way to all the inhabitants of earth.”

Mounce's opinion is that “Some commentators see in the specific counsel to take the scroll the truth that God's revelation must be actively appropriated rather than passively received.” However, that may be reading too much into the imagery.

Revelation 10:11 – Charles: “It is interesting that this enumeration ['many peoples and nations and tongues and kings'], which occurs seven times in the Apocalypse...is here given a different form, and basileusin (kings) is put in the place of phulais (tribes). The 'kings' are especially those mentioned in xvii 10,12. The Seer is recasting this characteristic phrase with a view to the contents of his later vision.” This fact reinforces the opinion that the second half of the book will soon follow.

 

SACRED NAMES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

 

Philip Wesley Comfort, in his book A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament introduces the reader to the interesting phenomena of sacred names (nomina sacra) in the NT and the way they were originally written in Greek manuscripts. Below is a brief summary of that discussion. It is well known that Old Testament scribes wrote the personal name of God, Yahweh, in a special manner so that it would not be taken in vain when someone was reading it out loud. It was written as YHWH in all caps.

It is well known that Old Testament scribes wrote the personal name of God, Yahweh, in a special manner so that it would not be taken in vain when someone was reading it out loud. It was written as YHWH in all caps.

Taking that practice as an example, Christian scribes soon began to adopting it when copying the NT. Comfort notes a general trend over time in which Kurios (Lord) and Iesous (Jesus) were the first words to be written in an abbreviated form, soon followed by Christos (Christ), theos (God), and pneuma (Spirit). Nomina sacra for these were common in manuscripts by the beginning of the second century AD.

By that time, also dignified in the same manner were the Greek words for “cross” and “crucify.” During the next century, a few individual scribes experimented with showing the same sort of honor to words such as man (in 'Son of man'), Father, Son, David (in 'Son of David'), Jerusalem, Israel, and heaven.

However, an opposite trend set in with the arrival of the 4^th century by which the nomina sacra were confined to the earlier words: Lord, Jesus, Christ, God, Christian and Spirit.

At this time I should describe the actual method of denoting such sacred names in Greek manuscripts.

The most obvious tip-off is the fact that the scribes placed an an overbar (sort of like the opposite of an underline) for each occurrence. Keep in mind that merely writing these words in all capitals would have done little to set them apart from most early manuscripts since these were already written in all capitals. Thus, the next thing scribes did was to abbreviate the words, such as was done with “Yahweh” in the OT. But, as Comfort points out, “there was no official rule book as to the exact form in which the nomina sacra were to be written,” giving rise to several variations.

For example, some abbreviated “Christ” (XPICTOC) using the first and last letters XC; a very few wrote it with the first two letters XP; and others utilized XPC as a sort of combination form. And the same lack of consistency occurs for the abbreviations of the other sacred names.

Advantages of the Nomina Sacra

As with YHWH in the Old Testament, “One of the primary results of making a name a nomen sacrum was that it desecularized the term; it uplifted the term to sacred status. For example, scribes could differentiate between 'the Lord' and 'lord'/'sir'/'master'...and they could distinguish between 'Spirit' (the divine spirit) and 'spirit' (the human spirit)...The term pneuma in ordinary secular Greek meant 'wind,' 'breath,' or 'spirit.' Writing it as a nomen sacrum signals that this is the divine Spirit.” (Comfort)

He also notes, “The special written forms of the nomina sacra would not be enigmatic to Christian readers; they could easily decipher them. In fact, these forms would heighten their importance in the text and prompt the readers (lectors) to give them special attention when reading that text out loud to the congregation.”

Disadvantages of the Nomina Sacra

These are few and far between and are outweighed in importance by the advantages of using this method of writing. One notable example is found in I Timothy 3:16 which contains the following uncertainty, reading either:

    “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: God was manifested in the flesh...” or

    “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion who was manifested in the flesh...”

There is not a great deal of difference in meaning between the two, but one would like to pin down the precise wording of the original, which was either “who” (os) or God (theos), commonly abbreviated as a sacred name by using only the first letter (theta, which looks like an “o” with a line through it) and last letter, sigma, with a line over both (a superbar). It is easy to see how either word could be accidentally read as the other when a scribe was copying an earlier manuscript.

Metzger, writing for the translation committee of the RSV, opts for os as the original wording since almost all the earliest manuscripts read that way. As to theos instead, he says, “The reading theos arose either (a) accidentally...or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability to provide greater dogmatic precision.”

Comfort arrives at the same conclusion, citing the wording in the earliest manuscripts: “The documentation supporting 'who' (or 'he who') is very strong; many MSS were corrected to read 'God' – clearly the result of scribal emendation. Obviously, the pronoun 'who' refers to Jesus Christ, God incarnate.”

PSALM 33

Many Christians go to the Psalms to find comfort since the psalmists have a way of echoing the various feelings we have as we go through life. But it is selling the psalms short to think that they are only the uncontrolled outpourings of some overly emotional authors. Although they may very well speak to our emotions, the composition of each one of these is done quite carefully, as is the compilation of the entire Psalter. I have demonstrated the latter fact in my post titled “Psalms: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”

But before even going into the individual verses within Psalm 33, there are first some general items to discuss. Anderson alludes to two of the most perplexing overall issues when he states, “Some scholars have seen a connection between the twenty-two verses of this Psalm and the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet...yet this similarity may be more of a coincidence than a deliberate feature of the style. The Psalm has no title, but LXX [the Greek version] attributes it to David. This may be either a later addition, or it could have been accidentally omitted from M.T. [the accepted Hebrew text].”

Concerning the first point, Baigent agrees: “There is no evidence that the twenty-two verses were intended to correspond to the twenty-two letters of the Heb. alphabet (cf. Ps. 34).” What both Anderson and Baigent are referring to is the fact that in other places in the Old Testament, such as Psalm 94, poems are structured as alphabetical acrostics in which each of the 22 verses in the composition starts with a consecutive letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

But not all scholars agree, and it does seem rather a coincidence that the very next psalm in the collection (Ps. 34) is a true alphabetic acrostic, even though Ps. 33 does not contain that same regular progression of letters, and thus would be classified as a non-alphabetic acrostic. To me the deciding factor in favor of using that last label for our psalm in question comes from considering the overall structure of Psalms 1-41, often called Davidic Psalms due to the authorship assigned to 39 of them.

Figure 1: Structure of Psalms 1-41

A. Introduction (Ps. 1-2)

B. Seven Psalms of David, ending in an acrostic (Ps. 3-9)

C. Bridge (Ps. 10)

D. Psalms of David (Ps. 11-32)

C'. Bridge (Ps. 33)

B'. Seven Psalms of David, beginning with an acrostic (Ps. 34-40)

A'. Conclusion (Ps. 41)

Note the strong correspondences between the parallel psalms 10 and 33: (1) They are the only two in that collection which are not assigned to David in their superscriptions. (2) And whereas Psalm 10 is an incomplete alphabetic acrostic, Psalm 33 is, as I have stated, a non-alphabetic acrostic. As to the bridging function mentioned in Figure 1, Ps. 33 shares connections with both psalms 32 and 34.

M'Caw and Motyer note that Ps. 33 “picks up part of the concluding sentence of the previous psalm, but unlike it, is not a personal record of experience. It is a corporate expression of praise and worship marked by balance of thought and symmetrical structure.” More on that last thought below.

Holladay also remarks that Ps. 33 “seems to have had a peculiar relaton to Psalm 32 (one notes the likeness of 32:11 and 33:1).”

And, as mentioned earlier, Pss. 33 and 34 share an alphabetic connection.

These two commentators also provide some very helpful hints in constructing the organization of Psalm 33:

1. “The introduction (vv. 1-3) and the conclusion (vv. 20-22) are clearly distinguished from the body of the poem.”

2. “In the body of the psalm are two sections, vv. 4-12 and vv. 13-19, the first of which deals with God the Ruler, and the second with God the Judge.”

3. “Throughout all, He is faithful and steadfast to what He has spoken.” (vv. 4-5) And the same idea reappears in vv. 18-19: “The fundamental principle is simply that of the Lord's faithfulness.”

Supplementing the above three observations are the following: “steadfast love” appears in vv. 5 and 18; “heaven(s)” occurs in vv. 6-9 as well as vv. 13-15; and vv. 10-12 and 16-17 convey the thought that the nations and rulers by themselves are helpless.

Putting all these similarities together, it is extremely easy to reconstruct the overall symmetrical organization of this psalm, contra Jacobson's comment, “The structure of the poem is debated.”

                                                Figure 2: The Structure of Psalm 33

    A. Introduction (vv. 1-3)

            B. God's Faithfulness (vv. 4-5)

                    C. God as Creator (vv. 6-9)

                            D. The Helplessness of Nations (vv. 10-12)

                    C'. God as Creator (vv. 13-15)

                            D'. The Helplessness of Rulers (vv. 16-17)

            B'. God's faithfulness (vv. 18-19)

    A'. Conclusion (vv. 20-22)

The division into the above sub-units finds some confirmation in the scholarly literature. Thus, Anderson breaks the psalm into five units: verses 1-3 (A), 4-9 (B-C), 10-12 (D), 13-19 (C'-D'-B'), and 20-22 (A'). The RSV comes up with a slightly different combination of the groupings in Figure 2: vv. 1-3 (A), vv. 4-5 (B), vv. 6-7 (first half of C), vv. 8-9 (last half of C), vv. 10-12 (D), vv. 13-17 (C'-D'), vv. 18-19 (B'), and vv. 20-22 (A').

In addition, Freedman has done an extensive analysis of the number of syllables and stresses in each section of this psalm. Of most interest are the following results:

Verses         Section in Figure 2     # of Syllables     # of Stresses

1-3                 A                                  18                      48

20-22             A'                                 19                      49

4-5                 B                                  13                      32

18-19             B'                                 11                       32

Note how well the first two and last two sections of Figure 2 match up in this regard.

With all that as introduction, here are a few select comments relating to the individual sections:

Section A

Holladay: “binginot...is found in the superscriptions of Psalms 4, 6, 54, 55, 67, and 76. The NRSV rightly translates 'with stringed instruments, ' that is, various types of lyres or harps (compare 33:2-3).”

Regarding v. 3, Ryken asks, “Why does the psalmist command us to 'sing a new song' to the Lord? Don't the old songs express the truth adequately? They do, but they also gradually lose their power through sheer repetition and familiarity.”

However, Anderson says, “The reference to the 'new song' (verse 3) is occasionally taken to mean that it was intended for the ritual of the renewal of creation at the turn of the year, but it could also be linked with the renewal of the Covenant.”

Section B

“'He loves righteousness and justice'; i.e. loves to perform righteous and just deeds (cf. 99:4; Jer. 9:24). This may also imply that God is concerned both to do and to uphold righteousness and justice. 'Righteousness' (sedakah) is a term of relationships denoting that kind of conduct which serves to maintain the established ties.” (Anderson)

Section C

In regard to verse 6, “The psalm's emphasis on creation is unique, as Diane Jacobson notes, because 'it alone among all the psalms, speaks of God's creation by word.'” (R. Jacobson)

Baigent explains that verse 7 “could refer to the waters above the sky-vault (Gen. 1:7) poetically viewed as an ocean, or to the separation of waters from dry land (Gen. 1:9f; 7:11; Ps. 78:15). Some see the reference to Yahweh's mastery over the primordial sea...”

Section D

The Greek Septuagint adds to the conclusion of v. 10, “and he rejects the plots of princes.”

In verse 12, “the relationship between God and the people is stressed rather than any particular quality of the people. The nation is not even named! It is not called Israel, merely the nation whose God is the LORD. The point scored, again, is that it is the relationship with God that defines the people – the people do not author their own identity. They are those who have been chosen (bahar).” (Jacobson)

Section C'

Anderson states, “Yahweh is not an 'absentee landlord', but he is acquainted with everything that goes on in his world. Being the creator of all, he rules over all, and sees all...God, being the creator of men's minds, is the only one who knows what is in the heart of man (i.e. what determines his actions), and therefore he is able to judge between appearance and reality (cf. I Kg. 3:9).”

Section D'

Jacobson notes that in this section, “the theme changes to 'what saves,' or perhaps better, 'in whom can one trust?'...The theme of what saves is introduced with the stark declaration: 'There is no king who is saved by the greatness of his army.' The force here is dual – both that armies and military might cannot save, so trust not in their empty promises, and that kings themselves, mortal men, cannot save....the king is cast as the leader who in turn needs a leader, the king who in turn needs a lord – the Lord. The term saved (yasa) does not refer to spiritual, eschatological salvation, but to deliverance from earthly threats. That term, along with two synonyms, occurs a total of five times in...vv. 16-7.”

Section B'

Towner notes the similarity between I Timothy 3:11 ('what persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from them all') and Ps. 33:18b,20. He adds, “The theme of 'deliverance' begins in Ps 33:5, but Paul seems to have made his entrance at the point where it is applied specifically to the Lord's intervention on behalf of 'the righteous' in 33:18-20. Thus he makes explicit his interest in a theology of suffering built on the OT theme of the righteous sufferer.”

Section A'

The word nepes “refers to the total human being in both physical and psychological manifestations ...The word may be used not only of the will of an individual but of the will of the whole community: in Ps. 33:20 we read, 'Our nepes waits for Yahweh; he is our help and shield.” (Holladay)

 

JOHN 12:1-11

 

John 12:1-11

There are many ways in which one can divide up the Gospel of John, but let us just look at one particular passage in the first eleven verses of John 12, all taking place on the sixth day before the Passover. This was soon after the raising of Lazarus when that event was still fresh in the mind of those in the vicinity.

And as we reach here the half-way point in this book, we are overwhelmed with the many foreshadowings of Jesus' coming death and resurrection. See, for example, the dual reference to Lazarus' rising from the dead, specific mention of Judas' coming betrayal, description of Judas' greed which is part of the motive for his betrayal, Jesus' foretelling of his death in both verses 7 and 8, and the plan of the chief priests to kill Jesus. All of this is intended to prepare us for the second half of John's Gospel, which is devoted to the Savior's coming death.

Let's first take this narrative in a strictly chronological manner:

The Setting: John 12:1-2

Hendricks notes that Jesus chose to return to the vicinity of Jerusalem, specifically Bethany, in spite of the plot against his life mentioned in the previous chapter (see verses 53 and 57).

Metzger explains the controversy among scholars as to whether the phrase “who had died” to describe Lazarus in v. 1 was in the original. Early manuscripts are divided on this point, and that is reflected in the modern translations, most of whom delete these words as being redundant in light of the subsequent words stating that he was risen from the dead.

Mary's Action: John 12:3

Mary's anointing Jesus' feet with nard is described in this verse. Raymond Brown says, “This action is closely paralleled in Mark 14:3-9; Matt 26:6-16, where at Bethany two days before Passover an unnamed woman pours ointment on Jesus' head...Luke 7:36-50, another parallel, is a penitential scene set in Galilee where a sinful woman weeps over and anoints Jesus' feet. As with Mark/Matt, it is set in the house of Simon. In no Gospel account is Mary Magdalene the agent, despite artistic imagination.”

Ellis adds, “It has even been suggested that Simon was the father of Martha, Mary and Lazarus.”

Guthrie: “There are many similarities between John's and Luke's narratives, but it is unlikely that the two women concerned should be identified.”

As for the ointment used in the anointing, Blum states, “The pure nard was a fragrant oil prepared from the roots and stems of an aromatic herb from northern India. It was an expensive perfume, imported in sealed alabaster boxes or flasks which were only opened on special occasions.” And many commentators give the information that the worth of the nard in this case amounted to almost a year's wages for a laborer.

Judas' Response: John 12:4-6

Culpepper concentrates on the various literary devices John utilized in his Gospel, especially his use of irony. Thus, he says regarding this passage, “Judas protests the waste of precious ointment at the proleptic anointment of Jesus for his burial, yet Judas bears a heavy share of responsibility for that burial. His pretense is concern for the poor, but he was pilfering from the common purse (12:4-6). Then by an irony of events, the other disciples think Judas has gone out to 'give something to the poor' when he slips off into the night to betray Jesus (13:29). From another vantage point one can see that he gave more to the poor than they realized.”

Jesus' Reply: John 12:7-8

There are various ways of understanding the Greek wording in v. 7. For example:

    “The purpose was that she might keep it for the day of my embalming” (AB)

    “Let her keep it till the day when she prepared for my burial.” (NEB)

    “Against the day of my burying hath she kept this.” (KJV)

    “She's anticipating and honoring the day of my burial.” (The Message)

    “She did it in preparation for my burial.” (Living Bible)

Thus, the implication may have been that she (a) was doing it, knowingly or unknowingly, in anticipation of his approaching death, (b) she made a big mistake since she should have saved it until his actual death, or (c) she is being warned to save what still remained for his embalming.

Guthrie says in support of (a), “In light of Mk. 14:8, it is better to understand the meaning as...Mary's present act was in fact anticipatory of His burial.” And “Torrey makes the words a question: 'should she keep it for the day of my burial?'” (Morris)

Verse 8 has caused even more concern. That is mainly due to the fact that when Jesus states, “You always have the poor among you,” He almost sounds as if he is being more hardhearted than Judas in regard to His attitude toward those disadvantaged people (cf. verse 6). Scholars have tried to explain Jesus' words in various ways:

D.G. Miller simply states, “Such spontaneous love [as Mary demonstrated] will not neglect the poor.”

“The response to Judas's objection by Jesus in 12:8...probably involves an allusion to Deut. 15:11: 'There will always be poor in the land.' Jesus' point is that under normal circumstances concern for the poor has its place, but these are not normal circumstances.” (Kostenberger)

Hoppe: “Too often, texts such as Deut. 15:11...have been read as evidence that poverty is part of the natural order of things. But when these texts are read against the wider backdrop of the entire biblical tradition, it becomes clear that not poverty but mutual concern and support are to be the normal pattern of the community's life.”

“In short, the Scriptures are clear in that love of neighbor is among God's top priorities for humankind, but they offer no explicit policy prescriptions for modern nation-states.” (Blanchard)

Action of the Populace: John 12:9

The “great crowd” of the Jews comes to see both Jesus and Lazarus. “Lightfoot thinks that the unusual expression [in quotes] may be meant to recall the crowd of 6:2,5..., for that crowd had followed Jesus in Galilee and sought to make Him king.” (Morris)

And Borchert explains that unlike the meaning of the term 'Jews' elsewhere in the New Testament to imply Christ's enemies, that is not the case here.

Response of the Chief Priests: John 12:10-11

Verse 10 “is an important reminder than an evil thought or deed does not usually remain an isolated event, and those involved in such evil matters are generally forced further into evil in order to 'clean up the loose ends.'” (Borchert)

Morris expresses the same thought in different words: “It is interesting to reflect that Caiaphas had said, 'It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people' (11:50). But one was not enough. Now it had to be two. Thus does evil grow.”

Concerning the word “depart,” Morris states, “The verb is common in John. It may be used here with something of the meaning 'depart from one's allegiance' (i.e. to the chief priests).”

And Borchert adds, “The combination of the words 'departing' and 'believing' could well have also been viewed by the evangelist as a proleptic portrayal of what would happen in the conflict between the early Christians and the synagogue. The preaching and ministry of the early believers led to the departure (exclusion) of Jewish believers/converts from their cradle of Judaism into the fold of the Christian church.”

An Alternative Organization

However, if one wishes to take a more literary approach to divisions within this short unit, the following is another way to look at the verses. Notice the totally symmetrical arrangement.

Figure 1: The Organization of John 12:1-11

A. Jesus “came” to a dinner at the home of Lazarus “whom he had raised from the dead” (vv. 1-2a)

     B. Lazarus was at the table and Martha served (v. 2b)

          C. Mary anoints Jesus' feet with pure nard (v. 3)

              D. Judas complains the money should have gone to the poor (vv. 4-5)

                  E. Judas' real motive (v. 6)

        C'. The nard was meant for Jesus' burial (v. 7)

            D'. “You always have the poor with you” (v. 8)

A'. Crowd “came” to see Jesus and “Lazarus whom he had raised from the dead” (v. 9)

    B'. Chief priests decide to kill Lazarus as well as Jesus (vv. 10-11)

Some verbal parallels are shown in Figure 1 in quotation marks. In addition, we should note that Lazarus is only mentioned four times in the passage, at sections A, B, A', and B'.

ROMANS 2:1-11

Kasemann, as well as other scholars, recognizes the first eleven verses of ch. 2 as a discrete unit of thought with the basic principle that before God the Judge “there is no respect of persons.” There are two good reasons for delineating this section in that manner. Firstly, it begins, as do many individual units in Paul's writings, with a direct address to the audience: “O man.” And secondly, there are exactly seven (a number standing symbolically for perfection or completion) appearances of the Greek root krino in this passage in words such as “to judge,” the judge,” and “judgment.” This latter observation not only defines the limits of the unit but also provides us with the key topic holding it together.

Another characterizing feature of this passage is the number of dualities expressed within it:

        good and evil deeds

        Jew and Greek

        God's judgment vs. man's judgment

        glory vs. wrath

And as Kasemann notes, also defining the limits of this literary unit is the bracketing concept of God being no respecter of persons. It first appears in verse 1 with its universal address to “whoever you are” and finally it caps off the passage with a straightforward statement of God's impartiality towards all in v. 11.

To burrow down further into the makeup of this passage, we can break down into smaller units which each possess a measure of literary symmetry. These units are given below accompanied by comments from scholars who attempt to flesh out their meaning.

Romans 2:1-4

    1. “whoever you are” (v. 1)

                2. “you say” (v. 2)

    1'. “whoever you are (vv. 3-4)

        a. “Do you imagine?” (v. 3)

        b. “Do you despise?” (v. 4a)

        c. “Do you not realize?” (v. 4b)

This section starts out with the contention that those who cast blame on others are actually condemning themselves in the process. Several commentators point out that this statement doesn't necessarily mean that the self-appointed judges have committed the exact same sins as those they are judging, only that they are both equally guilty before God.

In reading this passage I am reminded of a classic political cartoon by Thomas Nast dating from the 1800's in which he pictures the infamous politician Boss Tweed and his cohorts standing in a circle and answering the caption “Who stole the people's money?” by each pointing to the person on his right. In that way, the blame inevitably goes back to the original source, Tweed himself.

Davidson and Martin: “Paul's style of writing, in which his argument takes on an imaginary disputant with whom he conducts a running debate, is fashioned on the 1^st century literary convention known as diatribe. This method of writing explains the question-and-answer procedure of...[verses 3 and 4] as Paul has alternately in view both a Jewish religionist and a pagan moralist, each of whom adopted a stance of moral self-congratulation and criticism of the failures and foibles of 'lesser breeds' who respected no moral code. The apostle turns upon this proud display by exposing its underlying error.”

Romans 2:5-6

        1. “You are storing up wrath for yourself (v. 5a)

                2. when God's righteous judgment will be revealed (v. 5b)

                2'. He will repay (v. 6a)

        1'. according to each one's deeds.” (v. 6b)

Man's actions in 1 and 1' are matched by appropriate responses by God in units 2 and 2'.

Brauch: “God's wrath [vv. 5a, 8b] is difficult both to understand and to believe. For some, the idea of a wrathful God has been a roadblock to faith...The Bible speaks about God's nature, work and purposes in terms analogous to what we know and experience as human beings. This is by necessity. God's absolute nature is not open to finite creatures But a corollary of this way of speaking about God is the resistance to ascribe to God human attributes of feeling which we perceive as negative...Wrath is clearly one of these...It is important to note here that wrath is God's personal response to sin, though unlike that of the various divinities of Greco-Roman religions and myths God's wrath is never capricious, vindictive or malicious.”

One other sometimes contentious point arises from these verses, at least in the mind of dispensational premillennialists. Witmer states, “the phrase 'the day of God's...judgment' (Rom. 2:5) taken by itself may seem to lend support to the idea of a single general judgment of all humanity. However, the Scriptures [of which he cites none] do not support such a concept.” I would have to take great issue with that contention since the singular “Day of the Lord” or “Judgment Day” is mentioned numerous times in both the OT and NT. The only group opposing that concept comes from some of the premillennial interpretations arising from John Darby in the 1800's. The most complicated, but still commonly believed, of such schemes of future events involves no less than seven separate “last” judgments occurring over a thousand-year period.

Romans 2:7-10

    1. to those who by doing good seek glory and honor and immorality (v. 7a)

        2. he will give eternal life (v. 7b)

            3. for those who obey not the truth but wickedness (v. 8a)

                4. there will be wrath and fury (v. 8b)

                4'. there will be trouble and distress (v. 9a)

            3'. for everyone who does evil (v. 9b)

                    5. the Jew first and also the Greek (v. 9c)

        2'. but glory and honor and peace (v. 9a)

    1'. for everyone who does good (v. 9b)

                    5'. the Jew first and also the Greek (v. 9c)

Notice how the key words found in the opening of this unit are repeated at the end. The concept that people will be judged by their works (vv. 1 and 9b) has been treated with varying degrees of criticism over the years by those who rightly believe in salvation by faith not works. Below are a few ways of dealing with these verses in light of that doctrine:

Allen starts out by reminding the reader: “The Christian is not exempt from a trial of works (14:10ff; 2 C. 5:10; Jn 5:19).” He then quotes C. Hodge as stating, “The righteous will be rewarded not on account of but according to their works. Good works are to them the evidence of their belonging to that class to whom for Christ's sake eternal life is graciously awarded.” So neither of those two firmly evanglical scholars feel that this verse should pose any problems.

Towner similarly begins by noting that being repaid according to one's deeds is found in the LXX [i.e. Greek] version of Ps. 27:4; 61:13; Proverbs 24:12 as well as II Timothy 4:14; and Matthew 16:27. He then proceeds to explain that “the standard of judgment that ensures impartial justice consists precisely of the deeds of the one judged (cf. 2 Cor. 11:15; I Pet. 1:17; Rev. 2:23; 18:6; 20:12-13).”

But the commitment of the dispensational premillennial branch of Christianity to strict adherence to the doctrine of salvation by faith alone is certainly not satisfied with the above arguments based on a more or less literal understanding of verses 6, 7 and 10, as evidenced by Witmer's words. In the first place, he translates v. 6 as “On that day 'God will give to each person according to what He has done' (quotation of Ps. 62:12 and Prov. 24:12).” The capitalization of the bolded word is either a convenient typographical error or a purposeful move on Witmer's part to subtly insinuate that people will be treated according to God's, rather than their own, works. And in fact, the two OT citations he mentions both confirm that we will be judged by our works.

But, of course, that OT theology is not nearly so cut and dried, and Witmer goes on to say, “A person's habitual conduct, whether good or evil, reveals the condition of his heart. Eternal life is not rewarded for good living; that would contradict many other Scriptures which clearly state that salvation is not by works, but is all of God's grace to those who believe.”

Two final comments on vv. 9-10 are in order:

    “It is perhaps significant that the Gk. words for trouble and distress [see v. 9a] occur three times in the LXX of Dt. 28:53ff in a curse on those who break the covenant-law. Paul is reminding the Jew of what he already knew but liked to forget. If the Jew's ancient priority of privilege counted for anything, it meant priority of responsibility (cf. Am. 3:2). (L.C. Allen)

    Elliott remarks on the repeated phrase in verses 9 and 10: “The Jew is first in salvation (1.16; 3.1-2), therefore also in responsibility.”

Romans 2:11

“Because God exercises impartiality in judgment (Rom 2:11), Jew and Gentile alike both face the prospect and the possibility of salvation through Christ.” (Travis)

“On two occasions he [Paul] asserted as axiomatic that God shows no partiality (Rom 2:11; Gal 2:6), the second of which deals with the apostolic office. The idea definitely excluded any notion of favoritism with God, which would not be in keeping with absolute justice.” (Guthrie and Martin)

“For Paul it is axiomatic that God is fair and would never do anything that shows partiality (Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25). Consequently, election does not mean that some people cannot come to God for salvation, nor that those who are elected are singled out on the basis of any virtue they possess.” (Elwell)

PROGRESSIONS IN EXODUS 20

 

I am always amazed at the new things I learn about the Bible even at my advanced age. Here is a quick insight that came from Sunday's sermon at Anacortes Christian Church.

The Ten Commandments outlined in verses 1-17 can be viewed as two progressions operating in different directions. Verses 1-11 demonstrate a forward advance in which one begins with belief in one God and ends up receiving life:

    Have no other gods before God (1-3)

        Do not worship idols (4-6)

            Do not take God's name in vain (7)

                Keep the Sabbath (8-11)

                    Honor your parents (12a)

                        Long life (12b)

However, if one starts out as if he or she is the ultimate god, then that can only lead ultimately to death, perhaps of others, but certainly spiritual death for oneself:

    Coveting everything for oneself (17)

        Bearing false witness (16)

            Stealing (15)

                Committing adultery (14)

                    Death (13)

There are additional correspondences between these two halves of the Ten Commandments, and they are presented almost a perfect in a mirror-image arrangement to one another. Thus, we might note that:

    The first series above consists of mainly positive admonitions while the second one contains all negative commands.

    Worshiping God is the opposite of worshiping oneself (coveting).

    Both the taking the name of God in vain and bearing false witness are sins of the mouth.

    Honoring one's parents and avoiding adultery are both necessary in order to preserve the proper family bonds.

Actually, the only thing which prevents this whole passage from being a perfect chiastic (i.e. mirror-image) construction is the lack of any obvious correspondence, negative or positive, between keeping the Sabbath and stealing (taken as kidnapping by some commentators). I will leave that as a challenge for my readers to see if you can find any such relationship between the two commandments.