LITERARY DEVICES IN ISAIAH 1

The Bible is amazing in that very little information is lost when reading it in different translations. This is unlike the Koran, for example, of which Muslims will tell you can't really be understood unless you read Arabic. But one must admit that there are some literary and rhetorical devices utilized in the Bible, especially in the poetic sections, which help to better emphasize the main points. Since most of you are probably like me in not having a deep understanding of the Hebrew language, I will admit that I am very grateful for scholarly commentators who bother to point out some of these often subtle rhetorical tricks.

For example, Schoekel discusses the various rhetorical devices employed in Isaiah. One such device is the pun: “Repetitions or similar sounds link words and parallel phrases which then unite or contrast with one another...The sound delights, surprises, emphasizes, and aids the memory.” Blenkinsopp adds, “Word play on personal names is as prominent in these opening chapters as it is in Hosea...” Some of these word plays will be discussed below along with comments on other literary techniques that experts discuss regarding Isaiah 1 in particular.

Isaiah 1:1

“The beginning chapters of Isaiah...illustrate a developed scheme of balance and antithesis...The poet syntactically arranges these contrasting terms...for greater rhetorical effect. In chapter 1 of Isaiah, a similar technique is used.” (Gentrup) His examples begin with the very first verse: “Heaven vs. earth” and continue with “animal versus human (literally 'sons' in vv. 2-3), Sodom/Gomorrah versus Zion/Jerusalem (vv. 8-9, 21-27), false worship versus true (vv. 10-17), and field/land versus city (vv. 7-9).” Gentrup concludes that “the pairs structurally echo the predominant theme of obedience versus rebellion.”

Isaiah 1:2

Blenkinsopp detects two examples of puns in this verse:

        sim'u samayim = hear, heaven!

        giddalti veromamti = I have raised and reared

Isaiah 1:4

“This next section of the speech [vv. 4-9] begins with the sound of death. The interjection 'ah' (the Hebrew word is sometimes translated 'woe') was a cry of mourning heard at funerals (see 1 Kings 13:30; Jer. 22:18-19; Amos 5:16). When Isaiah's audience heard this word, images of death must have appeared in their minds. By prefacing his remarks with this word, the prophet suggested that the rebellious nation's funeral was imminent.” (Chisholm)

Blenkinsopp notes the use of alliteration and a staccato effect formed by the words hoy goy hote (“sinful nation”). And Schoekel says that “the noun rhymes with the interjection, as if it were the echo of a shout.”

Isaiah 1:7

Since this whole chapter is written in Hebrew poetic style, it is good to remind ourselves that in general each pair of lines tends to say the same basic thing and that they should not be taken as totally separate thoughts. And as I have expressed several times in my posts, that repetition of thought may take several different literary forms. As just one example, consider four lines in this verse:

        Your country lies desolate,

        your cities are burned with fire.”

This form of poetry is called Identical Parallelism even though the second line may extend the idea of the first line. Thus, the second line expands somewhat on the first one in that (1) the destruction is said to include the cities as well as the country and (2) the specific method of destruction is specified.

        “Aliens devour your land;

        It is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners.”

This type of poetry has been labeled Introverted Parallelism since the key elements in each line are listed in opposite order. This might also be labeled as Symbolic Parallelism in that the metaphor “devour” in line one becomes the literal “overthrown” in line two.

Isaiah 1:7-10

“A kind of coherence is achieved by the recurrence of the same word. For example, Sodom and Gomorrah function as a simile at the end of 1:7-9 to describe the pillaged Israel. This usage is followed by a demand of 'you rulers of Sodom' and 'you people of Gomorrah,' sardonic references to Israel, to stop their hypocritical ritual sacrifices (1:10). The allusions to Sodom and Gomorrah have completely different contexts in these two prophecies but are a connecting link between them.” (Gentrup)

Chisholm states that “before the Lord speaks the prophet summons the citizens of Jerusalem into court, addressing them as 'rulers of Sodom' and 'people of Gomorrah' (v. 10). The sarcastic address reflects the Lord's perspective and emphasizes how sinful the nation was in his sight.”

Schoekel states that in “'am 'amora ('people of Gomorrah'), 'people' appears almost as if it were a part of 'Gomorrah.'”

Isaiah 1:11

This verse begins with a rhetorical question: “What are your multitude of sacrifices to me?” The question is posed so that the implied answer is “nothing.”

Isaiah 1:12-13

These combined verses form a sort of chiastic structure which turns around on itself in the following manner:

        1. Bringing offerings is futile

                2. incense is an abomination to me

                        3. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation

                                4. I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.

                        3'. Your new moons and your appointed festivals

                2'. my soul hates;

        1'. they have become a burden I am weary of bearing.

This form of composition is meant to focus the eye and ear squarely on the key statement in section 4 in which the reason for God's hatred of religious ceremonies is clearly spelled out.

Isaiah 1:15-17

Kidner points out an interesting phenomenon: “First the offerings are rejected, then the offerers (vv. 11,12); but while God's tone sharpens from distaste to revulsion, the specific accusation is held back to the final lurid phrase of v. 15, when at once the pace quickens with the rain of blows, the imperatives of repentance, in vv. 16,17, only to throw into relief the measured climax of the passage in the great offer of salvation in vv. 18-20.” Most translations attempt to make these changes in pace obvious.

Isaiah 1:16-17

“There is nothing more conventional than the opposition of good and bad which Isaiah takes advantage of in 1:16-17 in order to join intensity with urgency. Two alliterative verbs and two nouns say it all: limdu heytev dirshu misphat, 'cease to do evil, learn to do good.'” (Schoekel)

Blenkinsopp states, “Here as elsewhere (3:1-15: 5:18-23; 30:15) the target is the ruling class, and more particularly the princes or courtiers (sarim) who served in an administrative, military, and judging capacity.”

Isaiah 1:18

Several commentators note the way washing crimson and scarlet in v. 18 allude back to cleaning of 'blood' in 15-16. In addition, note the similarity between kashanim ('like scarlet') and kasheleg ('like snow'). “The sounds are linked here in order to contrast the opposed meanings.” (Schoekel)

Isaiah 1:21

“Beautiful city” in vv. 21 and 26 works together as an inclusio, marking off the limits of a separate literary unit.

Isaiah 1:24

“The verdict pronounced by Yahweh opens with a typically Isaianic play on words ('ennahem, 'innaqum)...” These mean to feel satisfaction at another's expense and to avenge oneself, respectively. (Blenkinsopp)

“The Lord (adon) means 'master,' and with the definite article signifies 'Lord of lords.' It often is followed as here by 'the Lord Almighty' or 'the Lord of armies'... the term hosts suggests powerful nations.” (Schultz)

Isaiah 1:25

“Developing further one of the metaphors utilized in verse 22, the Lord explained that his judgment would burn away Zion's impurities (v. 25).” (Ansholm)

Isaiah 1:26

“The prophet foresees a future in which Jerusalem will be restored and will receive a new name and designation (cf. 62.4,12); righteousness (Heb 'tsedeq') recalls the names of Melchizedek (Gen. 14.18) and Zadok (1 Kings 2.35).” (Blenkinsopp)

Isaiah 1:27

Yet another variety of poetic parallelism is seen here:

        “Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and

        those in her who repent, by righteousness.”

Note how the meaning of “Zion” is explained more fully in the second line, which has omitted the verb “shall be redeemed” in order that the lengths of the two lines become more balanced.

Isaiah 1:30-31

The poem ends in a burst of similies such as “like an oak,” “like a garden without water,” “like a tinder,” and “like a spark.”

 

SOUL AND SPIRIT -- HEBREWS 4:12

 

Hebrews 4:12 Soul and Spirit

The word “soul” (psyche) is actually used in three different senses in the New Testament:

    Soul = person

        “We were in all 276 souls in the ship.” Acts 27:37

        “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities...” Romans 13:1

        “...eight souls were saved through water.” I Peter 3:20

    Soul = non-material aspects of mankind

        “...fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10:28

This last passage is a clear example of a BIPARTITE DIVISION.

    Soul = Personality

        “...the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit...” Hebrews 4:12

        “...may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I Thessalonians 5:23

These passages further divide the non-material person into spirit and soul, resulting in a TRIPARTITE DIVISION.

However, we should keep in mind that whichever division one pictures, it isn't as if we can clearly identify which part of us is soul/spirit and which is body. We are all of them at the same time. It is somewhat akin to the nature of Christ, who was wholly God and wholly man.

Taking a tripartite definition of “soul,” it is usually further subdivided into three aspects that make up our personality: intelligence, emotion, and will. And these are easy to memorize by considering the Wizard of Oz, since each of Dorothy's three friends – the scarecrow, tin woodsman, and lion, respectively – is missing one of these three parts of a balanced personality. All three are really necessary for the integrated Christian life, or any life for that matter.

But what can we say regarding Hebrews 4:12 with its unusual statement regarding the word of God being able to pierce between soul and spirit? Here are the words of a few scholars attempting to explain the various aspects of this passage:

Distinctions Between Soul and Spirit

Buchanan: “Psyche comes from the verb psycho, 'to breathe,' 'make cool or cold,' as a breeze does. Pneuma also means wind, air, breath. Paul contrasted between the first Adam, who was a 'living soul' (psychen zosan) and the last Adam who was a pneuma zoopoioun, 'a 'life-giving spirit.' In religious circles, psyche was sometimes identified with secular life, which a person surrendered for 'life' (zoe) in a communal order under the covenant. Spirit (pneuma) was related more closely to zoe (religious life) than to psyche (secular life). The author of this poem may have wanted to distinguish between the spirit (psyche) which constituted physical breath that keeps animate beings alive, and the holy breath of spirit (pneuma) that provided religious life with its necessary basis.”

Authorship

The author of Hebrews is anonymous, and therefore there has been much speculation regarding his identity. This book was traditionally included among the Pauline epistles. However, as Lane says, the author “employs a distinctive range of images that are not found in Paul (Heb 2:1; 4:12,13; 6:7-8,19)...” On the other hand, Bruce notes: “With the 'living' word we may compare Stephen's reference to the 'living oracles' received by Moses at Sinai (Acts 7:38), and Peter's description of 'the word of God, which liveth and abideth' (I Pet. 1:23).” Interestingly, Luke has been closely associated with the writing of both those books.

And as D.L. Allen points out in much more detail, that is not by far the only correspondence the language in Hebrews 4:12 has with the writings of Luke:

Medical language has been detected first by Delitzsch in 4:12-13; 5:12-14; and 12:11-13. This is not unexpected in light of Luke's description by Paul as “beloved physician.”

Allen suggests that “scalpel”is a better translation than “sword” in 4:12.

“The first thing that strikes us about 4:12-14 is that only in Luke and here in Hebrews do we find the exact phrase 'double-edged sword.' Second, the phrase we translate as 'sharper than' where huper is the comparative preposition is compared by Westcott to Luke 16:8.”

Next, Travis states, “'Heart' (kardia) is the seat of human will and desire. It is the source of emotions and passions (Jas 3:14), understanding and reflection (Heb 4:12), and hence the whole inner being in contrast with the external aspect (Heb 10:22; I Pet 3:4; I Jn 3:19-21).”

For more concerning the Lukan authorship of both Hebrews and I Peter, see my posts titled “I Peter: Introduction to the Literary Structure” and “Book of Hebrews: Introduction to the Structural Analysis.”

Divine Power and Judgment

Kreitzer: “A number of NT passages speak of future eschatological judgment, particularly associated with the Parousia [Second Coming] of Jesus Christ.” He lists no less than fifteen passages within Hebrews, including Heb. 4:12-13.

Newman: “Disobedience cannot be hidden form the 'eyes of him' who knows and sees all (Heb 4:11-12).”

Ellingworth: “The main emphasis of these verses is on God's power, and thus the power of his word, to examine and discern. His power to judge is implied and perhaps indirectly his power to destroy the guilty...However, the destructive power of God's word is not emphasized...”

Seifrid:”Disobedience to the word that God has spoken in his Son brings about a more severe punishment than rejection of Moses (Heb 4:12-13; 6:7-8; 16:26-31: 12:25).”

Stibbs says that God's word “penetrates into a man's inmost being and, like a dissecting knife, forces open a radical division and distinction between things that differ in human life. It brings under judgment the thoughts and ideas of man's mind and will (cf. 1 Cor. 4:5).”

“To separate between 'soul and spirit' was as difficult as distinguishing between 'designs and intentions of the mind'...the author wished to show that there was no area out of God's reach, physical, spiritual...,and intentional or moral.” (Buchanan)

The Word

That leaves one major point to be pinned down – the exact nature of the “word of God” mentioned in this passage. And, as usual then it comes to scholarly opinions, there is somewhat less than a full consensus.

“For this Word is God's Word. It shares the very attributes of God Himself. It is living and acting, and full of activity and power to achieve. In it God Himself is active.” (Stibbs)

“Ho logos tou theou [the word of God] is found only here and in 13:7, where it clearly refers to the Christian message. In the present, largely nonchristological context, a wider reference is probable, namely to God's warnings to his people throughout OT and NT times (cf. v. 11). The genitive is subjective: not a message about God, but one spoken by God...The word of God is personified. However, the majority patristic and medieval view that the phrase refers to the Son, as in Rev. 19:15,21 (but not Eph. 5:17), has no support either in the immediate context here, nor in the epistle as a whole.” (Ellingworth)

“Recently a few scholars have tried to revive the traditional exegesis of Hebrews 4:12-13 in terms of the personal logos ['Word']. More likely, however, the word of God described in Hebrews 4:12 is the 'living' and 'discerning' address of God (Heb 4:13)...” (Rainbow)

Hodges treats the “word of God” as the Old Testament Scriptures and states that “it is able to discriminate successfully between what is spiritual in man and what is merely 'soulish' or natural...and does so even when these often-contradictory inner elements are interwoven as closely as joints and marrow. The inner life of a Christian is often a strange mixture of motivations both genuinely spiritual and completely human. It takes a supernaturally discerning agent such as the Word of God to sort these out and to expose what is of the flesh.”

“The expression 'word of God' may refer to that message of God spoken either through the prophets or by Christ and His apostles which in itself possesses a dynamic so great that when heard and retained it creates anew (cf. Rom. 1:16), or it may simply be a circumlocution for God himself, as was sometimes done.” (Hawthorne)

JOSHUA 11

Joshua 11

Literary Considerations

Figure 1: Structure of the Book of Joshua

I. Conquering the Land (chs. 1-11)

A. Introductory Scenes (1:1- 5:9)

B. Cities for the Lord (5:10-8:35)

C. Taking the Inheritance (9:1-11:23)

D. Summary of Conquered Kings (ch. 12)

II. Dividing the Land (chs. 13-24)

C'. The Tribes' Inheritance (chs. 13-19)

B'. Cities from the Lord (chs. 20-21)

A'. Final Scenes (chs. 22-24)

Appropriately, Section C concludes with “And the land had rest from war.” Interestingly, this identical statement appears only one other place in the book, near the start of Section C' (14:15), forming another symmetry between the first and second halves of Joshua. Also, this final verse in Joshua notes that all the conquered land was intended “for an inheritance to Israel according to tribal allotments.” And that allotment will be the sole subject of the last half of the book, as evidenced by the fact that the word “inheritance” occurs over forty times in Josh. 13-24 as the major theme of the second half.

By contrast, Butler sees the “rest theology” of the book announced in 1:12-18 ending the first major section with ch. 12, and summarized in 21:43-45. He states that “the entire book is to be read in light of these [latter] verses.” In fact, as I have said above (in agreement with Boling and Wright), it is more precise to state that this theme finds its more explicit statement at 11:16-23, rather than with ch.12.

As for the three separate sections constituting Section IC, Figure 2 demonstrates their parallel nature as seen in their respective opening statements.

Figure 2: Structure of Joshua 9-11

1. The Treaty with the Gibeonites (ch. 9)

“When the kings [of the seven Canaanite nations] heard of this, they gathered together...to fight Joshua and Israel.”

2. Defending the Gibeonites (ch. 10)

“When ...king of Jerusalem heard..., he...sent to [four other kings] saying, "Come up...and let us smite Gibeon; for it has made peace with Joshua and with the people of Israel. Then the five kings...gathered their forces, and went up with all their armies and encamped against Gibeon...”

3. Defeating the Kingly Coalition (ch. 11)

“When...king of Hazor heard of this, he sent to [various kings and the seven Canaanite nations]...And all these kings joined their forces and came and encamped together...to fight with Israel.”

Moving through these three subsections, there is a progression of sorts with the three sets of challenges becoming more and more overwhelming. Also note the important fact that in each conflict, it is Israel's enemies who make the first move. That may be considered as a somewhat mitigating factor lessening the impression of the Israelites as bloodthirsty conquerors.

Gray notes: “The pattern of this account [i.e. ch. 11] is the same as in ch. 10, a native coalition (vv. 1-5; cf. 10:1-5),...a sudden and decisive attack (vv. 7-9; cf. 10:9-14), the over-running of the country and the general destruction of certain towns under the ban (vv. 10-15; cf. 10:28-39) in the convention of the Holy War.”

Woudstra adds, “Each account speaks of a single instigator of the coalition: the king of Jerusalem in ch. 10, and the king of Hazor in ch. 11.”

That brings us to the organization of Joshua 11 itself. And here, the picture is not quite as clear. For example, my review of five modern English translations shows that no two agree exactly as to where the division points in the chapter lie. However, one may accept the structure in Figure 3 as a rough approximation in which at least the sections endings at verses 9, 15, and 20 are accepted by the majority of the versions.

                                           Figure 3: Structure of Joshua 11

    1. Introduction: Enemies Assemble Against Israel (vv. 1-5)

            2. God Hands Them Over (vv. 6-9)

                    3. Towns and Kings Taken (vv. 10-15)

                            4. Land Taken (vv. 16-19)

            2'. God Hardens Enemies' Hearts (v. 20)

                    3'. The Anakim Taken (vv. 21-22)

    1. Conclusion: Israel Has Rest (v. 23)

Throughout these battles, it is obviously Yahweh who is not only winning the battles, but also the one who ultimately initiated the conflicts. God's actions in those two respective regards are specifically mentioned in the parallel sections 2 and 2'. That latter fact also can be seen in the similar closing statements shown in the diagram below at verses 9, 12, 15 and 23. Actually, the only failure recorded is when the Israelites contravened the letter of the law by sparing the Gibeonites, much as Rahab and her family were spared in a previous section.

Sometimes confirming and other times supplementing the above symmetries based on topical considerations are the following mirror-image constructions present in the text which are based on repeated language:

        Israel (6a)

                I will hand over (6b)

                        struck them down (8a)

                the LORD handed them over (8b)

        Israel (8c)

-----

by the sword (10a)

                      struck their kings down (10b)

                                    utterly destroyed (11b)

                                                    took (12a)

                                    utterly destroyed (12b)

by the edge of the sword (12c)

                    struck them down (12d)

-----

        took (16)

                Israelites (19)

                        Israel (20a)

                                utterly destroyed (20b)

                                utterly destroyed (21a)

                        Israel (21b)

                Israelites (22)

        took (23)

And a final way in which the text is tied together comes from the exact number of times certain key words are repeated, keeping in mind that “seven” and “ten” represent completion or perfection in Hebrew symbology while 6 = imperfection Thus, Joshua 11 contains:

    “all” – 17x=10+7 (As Younger points out, “The word all characterizes these verses, emphasizing the totality of the conquest.”)

    “no/none/nothing/not any – 7x

    YAHWEH – 10x if “I” in v. 6 is included

    Joshua – 14x=2x7

    lands in the “hill country” – 6x=7-1

Problem Areas

Historicity of the Account

Blair talks about the excavations made by Y. Yadin since 1995: “Yadin found conclusive evidence that Hazor was destroyed about the middle of the 13^th century BC, and attributed this destruction to Joshua. Of special interest are the remains of a Canaanite temple and objects of worship, which reveal that the religion of Hazor involved the worship of the sun-god in association with a bull.”

Contra Yadin's assertion, however, Boling and Wright state: “It has been plausibly argued that the destruction of Hazor in the late thirteenth or earlier twelfth century [B.C.] can be as readily traced to the Sea Peoples.” But those same two authors admit that the lack of evidence for any other widespread destruction at that time is perfectly understandable: “The forts and villages were in fact so small that a serious military blow might very well not show in the form of a 'destruction layer.”

Holy Wars

Probably the greatest barrier people today have when they read passages like this is the apparently inordinate amount of bloodshed the conquering Israelites caused, especially in light of the fact that God hardened the enemy's heart. This is too large a topic to completely discuss here, but here are a few relevant comments from scholars:

The Jerusalem Bible: “Cf. Dt 7:2f and 20:16-18 where reasons for this massacre are given: the conquest is a holy war, the land of Yahweh must be purified of its pagan inhabitants, Israel is holy and therefore a people apart, Deut 7:6ff; it must use no half-measures or its faith will be compromised. This did not in fact happen...the reason for failure (the sins of Israel) and why God allowed it (to test his people) are explained in Jg. 2:20-3:4 (see Jg. 2:6ff).”

“Deuteronomy commanded Israel to obey God, destroy the inhabitants, have no mercy, make no covenant, make no marriages (7:1-3). Such a command had a divine purpose. It removed the temptations to follow other gods. From the days of the Judges and especially from the period of Solomon onward, the great temptation was to make political alliances through covenants and political marriages between royal families (1 Kgs 11:1-8; 16:31; 20:30-43).” (Butler)

Why Were the Horses Mutilated?

Woudstra states, “In view of what was said above [i.e. “Israel knew that reliance on chariots and horses was vain (see Ps. 20:7)], the command to hamstring the horses in order to render them unusable for further combat can be easily understood...Israel is to rely on the Lord, although the more common forms of combat are not thereby ruled out (see also v. 7; cf. 10:9).”

Freedman adds that hamstringing horses made them still “employable for domestic occupations.”

Why Did God Take Away the Enemy's Free Will?

“To protect Israel against the major sin of idolatry, God commanded her to show no mercy to the enemy. To enable her to keep the commandment, God caused her enemies to fight her rather than seek mercy and peace.” (Butler)

“This destruction of the Canaanites is due to God's hardening them, but this in no way exonerates the Canaanites. The other way was open, as is shown by what the Gibeonites did.” (Woudstra)

“God is not the author of evil. There is no suggestion that he violated the freedom of Pharaoh's will or that he manipulated Pharaoh in order to heap further vengeance on the Egyptian people. God is not opposed to the cooperation of pagan monarchs. Pharaoh could have cooperated with God just as Cyrus did in the Babylonian exile...It is Pharaoh, not God, who is to be blamed for the hardening of his own heart. Note that this same topic is raised again in Deuteronomy 2:30, Joshua 11:20 and 1 Samuel 6:6. While these allusions are briefer, one can be sure that the process of accountability and human responsibility was just as fair as in the case of Pharaoh.” (Kaiser)

Joshua and the Pentateuch

Schaeffer sates that “Chapter 11, like the earlier chapters insists on the continuity of the law of Moses...(Josh. 11:15,23). This insistence is important because liberal theologians try to drive a wedge between the Pentateuch and the rest of the Bible. It cannot be done. The rest of the Bible, beginning with Joshua, stands in total continuity with the Pentateuch. Joshua was acting on the basis of God's revelation through Moses.”

Who Conquered Hebron?

A note in the Jerusalem Bible on Joshua wiping out of the Anakim in v. 21 states, “This observation of the editor's does not square with Jos 15:13-14 where it is Caleb who conquers Hebron.” But as Lilley rightly replies, “This doubtless refers to Caleb's successes, here attributed to Joshua as overall leader.” He goes on to explain: “The Anakim were a symbol of terror to the early Israelites (Num. 13:13; Dt. 9:2). They may well have been foreign warlords, but the origin of the name is still a mystery.”

Why Was Hazor Singled out for Destruction?

Blair admits, “The utter destruction of Hazor was exceptional, perhaps because of its size and importance; other cities that stood on mounds (Heb. tel) were not destroyed. Perhaps now that the Israelites were established in the land these were no longer a danger, but rather an advantage to settlers.”

“The burning of Hazor was an exception [as a example to others]. Other cities that stood on their mounds were not burned (v. 13). This seems to mean, among other things, that the Israelites took possession of the other cities and lived in them. Such a procedure would bear out the truth of the promise made in Deut. 6:10, where Israel is said to be living in cities they had not built.”

And Younger points out that “Hazor, the most important northern city, is totally destroyed by burning just like Jericho and Ai (cf. 6.24; 8.8,19). Jericho and Hazor frame the 'conquest' of the land of Canaan.”

Was There Really “Rest in the Land”?

It has been rightly pointed out that even in the time after this statement in v. 23, much fighting continued in the effort to totally conquer Canaan. But Woudstra responds: “The enemy's chief resistance had been broken, though much work remained to be done (13:1). For purposes beneficial to Israel, the driving out of the Canaanites was meant to take along time (see Exod. 23:29-30; Deut. 7:22; but cf. Judg. 2:20-23 for a different application of the same thought).”

Blair: “The land had rest from war in the sense that no more pitched battles were required. But the completion of the campaign took 'a long time' (v. 18), and even at the end of Joshua's life there remained 'very much land to be possessed' (13:1). To deal with the parts of the country still unsubdued was now to be the responsibility of the individual tribes.”

 

PSALM 69

This is a longer than usual psalm. Holladay states that “the very length of Psalm 69 is striking...” Therefore I will confine my comments here to those which apply to the psalm as a whole rather than attempt to address each individual verse.

Place in the Psalter

This Davidic psalm occurs in the second of the five books in the Psalter, where it is symmetrically located in parallel with the other Davidic psalms in that book.

Figure 1: Structure of Psalms 42-72

A. Sons of Korah (Ps. 42-49)

B. Bridge (Ps. 50)

C. Psalms of David (Ps. 51-65)

D. Anonymous Praises (Ps. 66-67)

C'. Psalms of David (Ps. 68-70)

B'. Bridge (Ps. 71)

A'. Psalm of Solomon (Ps. 72)

Superscription, Author and Date

The note in the text before verse 1 reads, “To the leader: according to Lilies, Of David.” This raises several questions. Kselman speaks for most Bible scholars in feeling that the reference to Lilies “probably refers to a melody.” Similar references are found before psalms 60 (“Lily of the Covenant”) and 80 (“Lilies, a Covenant”).

Concerning Davidic authorship, it is interesting that Holladay notes that a papal commission of 1910 “stated that it is not necessary to maintain that David was the sole author of the Psalms, but one must maintain that David was the principal author, and in particular that he was the author of Psalms 2, 16, 18, 32, 69, and 110.” But with time even that requirement was dropped. Even conservative Protestant scholars are hesitant in ascribing authorship of this psalm to King David. The reasons are explained below.

Anderson: “If the concluding verses (35-6) are authentic, then the setting of the Psalm may be the period of reconstruction., soon after 537 B.C., and the author may have been one of the Jews anxious for the rebuilding of the Temple. On the other hand, the Psalmist may have advocated certain changes in the Temple ritual, or he may have been critical of certain aspects of the worship of the day.”

Kselman: “If this psalm is a royal lament, zeal for your house [v. 9] could refer to the king's responsibility for the construction and provisioning of the Temple. If in its final form it dates from the exile the zeal would be directed toward the rebuilding the Temple.”

Rather than taking the above as an anachronistic reference to David, Jacobson translates ledawid as “Davidic” instead of “Of David.” He explains: “We believe that it is likely that the superscription ledawid did not originally indicate authorship – particularly, it did not originally indicate authorship by King David...In Old Testament Hebrew, the name David itself does not always refer to the founder of the Judean dynasty, but can refer to the Judean people (Isa. 55:3), the Davidic dynasty (Jer. 23:5), Ezek. 37:25), or the expected future ideal Davidic king (Jer. 30:9; Hos. 3:5). The Hebrew phrase ledawid is translated most literally 'to David' (the preposition ['l'] in its most generic sense means 'to'). If the lamed is understood as indicating possession ('belonging to'), it is plausible to interpret it as indicating authorship. But a more likely construal of the lamed of possession would be as indicating that the psalm in question belonged to a group of psalms that belonged to the royal temple in Jerusalem...Alternatively, the preposition may indicate that a psalm was composed 'in honor of,' 'dedicated to,' or 'inspired by' the king.”

Theme

Scholars like to classify each of the psalms into categories so that Holladay, for example, calls Psalm 69 “a lament of the individual” along with psalms 6-7, 22, 31, 35, 38, 42-43, 51, 55, 63-64, 86, 88, and 140-141. But in the case of Ps. 69, the situation is not that clear.

As Tanner says, “Its petitions are complex, covering multiple themes.” These include descriptions of the Psalmist's troubles, confession of his sin, complaint concerning God's apparent inaction, suffering that appears to be due to God, and suffering because of following God. “In and of themselves, none of these motifs are unusual in prayers for help. What is unusual is that all appear in one prayer. This psalm shows just how complicated life can be...”

Organization

Since several subjects appear to be addressed by the Psalmist, it is helpful to appropriately identify those individual paragraphs or section divisions. But in this particular case, it turns out to not be an easy thing to do. Just witness how a number of modern English translations and scholarly commentators disagree with one another on this subject:

RSV, NRSV – 1-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-12, 13-15, 16-18, 19-21, 22-29, 30-33, 34-36

NEB – 1-18, 19-28, 29-31, 32-35

Living Bible – 1-4, 5-15, 16-19, 20-28, 29-33, 34-36

TEV – 1-3, 4-8, 9-12, 13-15, 16-18, 19-21, 22-28, 29, 30-33, 34-36

NIV – 1-4, 5, 6-12, 13-18, 19-21, 22-28, 29, 30-33, 34-36

JB – 1-5, 6-18, 19-28, 29-31, 32-36

Tanner – 1, 2-4, 5-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-21, 22-28, 29, 30-33, 34-36

Anderson – 1-4, 5, 6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-21, 22-28, 29, 30-36

M'Caw and Motyer – 1-12, 13-21, 22-28, 29-36

Baigent – 1-29, 30-33, 34-36

If we count the RSV and NRSV together as just one opinion, that leaves the following summary of the verses where the above sources see major breaks in thought:

vv. 3 (2), 4 (3), 5 (2), 6 (2), 12 (6), 15 (3), 18 (4), 21 (5), 28 (8), 29 (5), 31(2), 33 (6)

The only half-way agreements, besides the obvious break after the last verse, are found following vv. 12, 21, 28 and 33. Since this approach based on perceived changes in subject matter is far short of an overwhelming consensus, it is best to supplement it with a study of the specifically repeated language in the psalm. When one does that, the following exact verbal parallels can be seen:

O God (1a)

    I sink in deep mire (2a)

        deep waters and flood (2b)

my God (3)

            my enemies (4)

O God (5a)

                hidden (5b)

                    shame (6a)

O Lord God of hosts (6b)

                       dishonored (6c)

O God of Israel (6d)

                    shame (7)

                        children (8)

                      insult-3x (9-10)

----

   O LORD (13a)

O God (13b)

                            answer me (13c)

    sinking in the mire (14a)

            my enemies (14b)

        deep waters, flood (14c-15)

                            answer me (16a)

   O LORD (16b)

                   hide (17a)

                            answer me (17c)

            my enemies (18)

                      insults (19a)

                shame (19b)

                    insults (20)

-------

                                curses (22-25)

                                    reason (26)

                                curses (27-28)

-------

O God (29)

     the name of God (30b)

   LORD (31)

God (32)

   LORD (33)

----

 God (35a)

                                        live (35)

                children (36a)

     his name (36b)

                                        live (36c)

One interesting observation that can be gained from this outline is that there are exactly14 mentions of God overall. This is an indication that great care was taken in composing this psalm since the number 14 is twice “seven,” a number symbolizing in biblical usage completion or perfection.

As a first stab at combining the subject matter of the individual section together with the linguistic data, here are the respective titles given by M'Caw and Motyer for units which take the Psalmist through various stages of his experience. I chose their divisions since they most closely approximate the majority view:

                                                Figure 2: Organization of Psalm 69

                A. Despair under Affliction (vv. 1-12)

                                B. Dependence upon God (vv. 13-21)

                A'. Denunciation of Foes (vv. 22-28)

                                B'. Dedication to the Lord (vv. 29-36)

Note how these sections alternate between negative and positive reflections. In agreement with the above view I have omitted a division after 33 in view of the overall verbal pattern in v. 29-36:

                God

                                name

                                                praise

                                                                LORD

                God

                                                praise

                                                                LORD

                God

                                name

One can also note that there is a very close verbal correspondence between the Psalmist's complaints in A and his turning those same complaints over to God in Section B (see Figure 2).

REVELATION 11:15-19

Before the seventh angel blows his trumpet and after the second woe has passed, there occurs an interlude which may be diagrammed as below.

                                             Figure 1: Structure of Revelation 11:15-19

    “There were” great voices (15a)

                in the heaven (15b)

                        saying (15c)

                                statement (15d)

                        singing (16-17a)

                                song (17b-18)

                in the heaven (19a)

        “There were” lightnings and voices...and great hail (19b)

The identically paired-up language in this passage is indicated in this figure. In addition, the statement (15d) and song (17b-18) are related linguistically since both contain the words “Lord,” “earth/world,” “reign” and “great.” That makes four appearances altogether of the word “great,” symmetrically disposed at the start, end, and two in the middle of the passage.

Concerning the use of megas, “great,” in Revelation, Theile says the following: The megas word-group is attested 258 times in the NT...it is in Rev. that the greatest number of occurrences (80) are to be found...The reasons for the 80 instances of megas in Rev. are bound up the the literary form in which apocalyptic thought is expressed. Megas also occurs in the apocalyptic discourses in the Gospels (Matt. 24:21,24,31; Mk. 13:2; Lk. 21:11,23). It is used in the larger-than-life symbolism which characterizes the eschatological dimensions of events, e.g. the day (Rev. 6:17), the earthquake (16:18), and the city (18:2,10,16,18f,21). Particularly striking is the occurrence (21 times) of phone megale, 'with a great [i.e. loud] voice'. The expression indicates especially the sovereignty of God which drowns out all other sounds in the voices of his messengers (e.g. Rev. 1:10; 5:2; 7:2; 10:3; 11:15; 16:1; 21:3).”

Even within the song itself, there is a degree of symmetry with its alternation between God's respective treatments of the saved and damned. Also note how the damned are appropriately judged according to to their works.

                                            Figure 2: Structure of Revelation 11:18

        Your 'wrath' has come upon the 'wrathful' (18a)

                for rewarding your servants (18b)

        and for 'destroying' the 'destroyers' (18c)

So much for how this passage is organized. But since the book of Revelation cannot be understood without realizing that it is almost wholly built of of images, next are citations from a number of anonymous scholars writing in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery who have commented on these verses from that viewpoint.

Revelation 11:15

“The book of Revelation can serve as a summary of what music means to the biblical imagination. Trumpets serve a ritualistic purpose of announcing the advent of times of judgment and redemption.”

“In the Bible the word trumpet generally refers to ram's horns used as sound makers. The trumpets commissioned by Moses, however, were probably straight metal instruments (Num 10:10). All were used for a variety of proclamatory and signaling purposes. Probably none of the biblical trumpets were primarily musical instruments...The seventh, climactic trumpet (Rev 11:15) signals the complete investiture of Christ and beginning of his total and eternal domain of the world (the end of the battle and recall of troops).”

“The ultimate vindication of the city comes in the apocalyptic vision of the New Jerusalem, which descends from heaven (Rev 21:2), symbolic of its divine origin and its transcendence of human and earthly reality. With the appearance of this heavenly city, the kingdom of the world has become 'the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ' (Rev 11:15). Its ancient rival, Babylon, which attempts to subvert it, will ultimately be destroyed and cast down (Rev 18).”

“The seed of the kingdom of God is rooted and growing under the unwitting guardianship of the great Roman Empire where Caesar is king. Here is an anticipation of the time when 'the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ' (Rev 11:15).”

Revelation 11:16

Regarding the 24 elders in this verse, we must first understand the imagery behind the number 12: “As a symbol, twelve is one of the most important numbers in the Bible...the importance of this number derives from the emergence of the twelve tribes of Israel (Gen 49:28)...The significance of twelve carries over into the NT. Jesus appointed twelve apostles (Mk 3:14), probably as a symbol of the restoration of Israel...The symbolism of twelve appears frequently in the book of Revelation.”

At this point, the author of this comment cites Revelation 7:5-8; 12:1-2; 21:1-4,12,14,16,21; and 22:2. However, he/she leaves out 11:16 in which we see 24 elders, obviously representative of the leadership of God's chosen people in both the OT and NT.

Revelation 11:17

“References to harps lend an otherworldly atmosphere to the picture of heavenly realms (Rev 5:8; 14:2; 15:2). Most pervasive of all is the singing of the saints in heaven over their redemption and glory (Rev 5:12-13; 7:12; 11:17; 14:3; 15:3).”

Revelation 11:18

“In Revelation 11:15-19 the events surrounding the blowing of the seventh trumpet are given. This is the time for the 'judging of the dead' (v. 18). At the climactic moment God's heavenly temple appears, and within it is seen the ark of the covenant, God's mobile battle standard. This vision is accompanied by convulsions of nature associated with the appearance of the divine warrior.”

“In very many instances the Bible uses small as an opposite to great, in reference to rank, station, the range of society and possibly height. A common phrase refers to crowds, the 'small and great' (e.g., Esther 1:5: Job 3:19: Jon 3:5; Rev 11:18).”

Revelation 11:19

“Specific types of place fill out the spatial pictures of heaven. The nearly dozen references to God's throne in heaven lend a royal quality to it, indicative both of the splendor of the place and the authority of the God who rules the universe from heaven...Sometimes heaven has the features of a celestial temple (Is 6:1; Rev 3:12; 11:19; 15:5), in keeping with the worship that occurs there.”

“From [the] association of earthquakes with God's revealing himself comes the substantial presence of this imagery in apocalyptic literature. Thus Hebrews, drawing on Haggai 2:6, looks forward to the final shaking of the heavens and earth (Heb 12:16-17). Revelation, also drawing on the many references in Scripture, includes a number of references to earthquakes (Rev 8:5; 11:13,19; 16:18-20). The fact that the area of the seven churches in western Turkey is prone to earthquakes...must have heightened the imagery to the original hearers.”

“Revelation's images of Gods heavenly throne room allude back to the wilderness tabernacle. It contains an altar of incense (Rev 5:8), an altar of sacrifice (Rev 6:9), the ark (Rev 11:19; cf. Rev 15:5-8) and so forth...Revelation promises that the heavenly ark, once concealed (like the earthly one, behind a curtain), will be exposed to public view (Rev 11:19).”

Conclusion

And it is appropriate to close with one final comment on the passage as a whole:

“A final repository of imagery of worship is the book of Revelation, where worship is perhaps the central ingredient in heavenly ritual. Revelation 4 is an entire chapter devoted to the portrayal of worship. Elaborate attention is devoted to the transcendent setting of the worship and to the strange beings who conduct it. Worship occurs around the throne of God, and its keynote is praise of God's worthiness. Thereafter we find interspersed scenes that resemble the opening scene (Rev 5:6-14; 7:9-12; 11:16-19; 15:2-8). Much of the imagery in the Apocalypse draws upon OT references to temple worship and the theophanies [i.e. divine appearances] of God (with imagery of thunder and lightning).”

 

RIDICULOUS SINS IN THE BIBLE

I must admit that I enjoy reading the posts on the atheistic website Quora. They provide a wealth of misinformation regarding the Bible. One enlightening post came from Jason Brody, who offers as his credentials the fact that he had “studied with many Masters such as Osho, Gangaji, Ichazo, and Sat Shree.”

Forgive me for not bowing down to his superior education, but I must also admit that I have never heard of any of these “Masters” before. Instead, let's just consider his gripe with the Bible, which concerns the fact that it labels as “sins” a number of common human traits that by no means should be considered as evil at all. I will address these ridiculous “sins” one at a time.

Telling Jokes (Ephesians 5:4)

Among a litany of practices which Paul says are not pleasing to God is constantly engaging in foolish talking and jesting. Simpson explains that this refers to the sort of “drolleries verging on obscenity ...sallies of festal license in vogue, and squalid indecency” common in Ephesus at the time of writing. “

These crying evils would flaunt as established, conventions of society in such libertine environments as Ephesus.” Thus, this teaching does not at all apply to simple jokes themselves. After all, Jesus was actually known for his lighthearted and humorous approach to teaching others.

Killing a Bird in its Nest (Deuteronomy 22:6)

I am amazed that Brody, with all his training under Eastern “masters,” finds any objection at all to this overtly humanitarian treatment of animals that went far beyond teachings of any other nation at the time. After all, the Hindus treat all animal life, including gnats, as holy.

Craigie discusses the Jewish rationale behind such a prohibition, which only specifically applies to a bird which is raising young chicks at the time. He feels that it is a practical conservation measure since “to take the mother and leave the others would not be possible, for they would not be able to survive without the mother. Thus by taking the young birds (or eggs) but letting the mother go, food was acquired without the source of food for the future being cut off. The legislation thus has something in common with modern conservation laws. The large-scale killing of any species can lead to a serious diminution in its numbers and to eventual extinction.”

Being a Vegetarian (I Timothy 4:1-4)

Now with this objection I can certainly see why Brody, with his background in Eastern beliefs, would balk at labeling vegetarianism as a sin. But that is not at all what Paul is implying. His objection instead is on those who attempt to impose their own restrictive diets on others. And in a Jewish context this meant strict observance of the Jewish food laws as a means of earning God's favor. More specifically, in the specific context of living a Christian life in the midst of a pagan culture, that applied to abstention from meat not prepared by kosher standards and from meat sold in the marketplace that could have possibly been earlier offered as a sacrifice to a pagan god.

Such externally imposed limitations on what is and is not acceptable to eat have no place in the Christian life, which instead is to be centered on gladly receiving what God has provided mankind for nourishment, rather than becoming embroiled again in the nit-picky arguments of the rabbis concerning the minutia of a diet acceptable to God. So it is not at all a case of labeling vegetarianism itself as a sin, but just misguided attempts to force others into accepting your personal perspective on the issue and/or insisting that any other view is a sin.

Being Imperfect (Matthew 5:48)

As a conclusion to a litany of the various ways in which a believer can please God, most having to do with loving attitudes and behavior toward others, Jesus summarizes it all with the admonition: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

The first, and most important, thing to point out is that nowhere does Jesus even hint that lack of perfection in a Christian is a sin, as Brody states. Perfection is obviously being presented as the ultimate goal which a believer should pursue even though fully achieving it is impossible this side of the grave.

Secondly, as Albright and Mann note, “the word teleios in this context does not refer to moral perfection, but 'truth, sincerity'...It does not have here the later Greek meaning of being 'totally free of imperfection'...”

Seeking Wealth (I Timothy 6:9-10)

As most commentators will point out, being wealthy itself is not a sin and neither is even wanting to have more money. The problem is is what such desires can easily lead to, and it is these which are the actual sins. Both Jesus and Paul enumerate the nature of these very real temptations which are generally associated with an overwhelming desire for monetary gain – placing money rather than God as your idol, gaining money at the expense of other people, never being satisfied enough to stop accumulating more, and hoarding your possessions without sharing your blessings with others. These sins separate a person from both God and his fellow man. Knight notes that the desires here are called anoptos, 'foolish.' with “the primary emphasis being moral rather than intellectual...and blaberas, i.e., 'harmful' or injurious'...”

Planning Your Future (Matthew 6:34)

Hendricksen states, “Providing for tomorrow is one thing. To a certain extent this cannot be condemned. See Luke 16:8,9...becoming anxious for tomorrow is always wrong. The only right way to provide for tomorrow without at the same time being anxious is to take care that today the admonition of verse 33 ('But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness') is obeyed.”

Additionally, Jesus in his teachings warned against thinking that you are the complete master of your own fate and can by your own hard work achieve whatever goals you have set for yourself. To do that is to put yourself in the place of God and ignore the fact that you are ultimately dependent on Him as well as random circumstances totally beyond your control.

Asking for a Pay Raise (Luke 3:14)

This criticism is way out of line since it ignores the whole verse, which reads, “Soldiers also asked him [i.e. John the Baptist], 'And we, what should we do?' He said to them, 'Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusations, and be satisfied with your wages.'”

Ellis explains that these were probably Jewish soldiers who were assigned to protect the tax collectors or soldiers of the Jewish puppet ruler. In either case, they were obviously government workers who did not have a union to protect them and had no way of increasing their income without using their power and position to illegally defraud others. John tells them them that that is not a viable option pleasing to God. This example says absolutely nothing regarding an employee in the private sector who feels he is being underpaid and complains to his boss.

If Brody wished to find a more applicable example, he should have instead chosen Jesus' parable of the workers in the field who were hired as day-laborers. Those people reached a mutually agreeable wage with their employer but then later complained when those hired later in the day received the same amount of money for much less time worked. (see Matthew 20).

But even this far more appropriate Scripture passage does not prove Brody's assertion that sins in the Bible are ridiculous since (a) the landowner defrauded absolutely no one in the process and (b) the parable is really teaching about God's rewards in heaven being equal for each person independent of how much of their life was spent serving the Lord. As France puts it, “[God's] generosity transcends human ideas of fairness. No one receives less than they deserve, but some receive far more.”

Loving Your Life (John 12:25)

“The parable in v. 24 is followed by a maxim-like saying concerning loving and hating life. For people of the world, even today the idea of 'hating life' seem to be too much to swallow. But one must remember the Semitic love for absolute contrasts in argument. Similar types of argument can be found in Mark 8:35 and Luke 9:24 concerning saving and losing one's life and in Matt 10:39 concerning finding and losing life.” The commentator who framed these words (and I have unfortunately lost his name) also points to passages such as Genesis 29:30-31; Malachi 1:2; Matthew 5:43; and Romans 9:13 which utilize this same literary device.

Being Anxious (Philippians 4:6)

To some extent, this issue was already addressed above when talking about Matthew 6:34. In addition, the comments of Hughes bear citing here: “Paul wasn't lounging under a palm on the Isle of Capri sipping a cool drink, dictating, 'Don't worry, be happy!' No detachment here. Paul's whole existence was on the bubble; danger was everywhere. Few things were going right for him, humanly speaking. So understand that the apostle's command came with feeling...Paul's command is an echo of Jesus' teaching to his disciples in Matthew 6:25-34. There Jesus identifies worry as simply pagan (v. 32) and asked his hearers to consider the birds of the air as examples of God's provision...The corollary to not worrying is to take up Paul's following command to pray ...(v.6b).” The result will be the peace of God.

Conclusion

Before ending this post, it needs to be pointed out that not a single one of the examples above really falls under the category of SIN. Instead they constitute rather gentle reminders and valuable advice to believers as to actions and mindsets that may pose potential pitfalls to their pursuit of the godly life.

BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS THAT ARE NOT CONTRADICTIONS

The Quora website sent out an invitation for its atheistic readers to submit their favorite biblical contradictions. Most of them were the same old tired reruns that appear again and again in various places, and which I have attempted to address in numerous posts (see especially any posts starting with the words “Biblical Contradiction”). Now a biblical contradiction almost always means a conflict between two or more different passages of Scripture, and that was certainly what the editor of Quora intended. But apparently not all atheists are capable of understanding that concept. I have already dealt with one such “contradiction” which even the author admitted was no contradiction at all, but just some passages she couldn't stand. And below are two more such contributions:

“God couldn't be omniscient as it would violate this universe's speed of light limit on the transfer of information.”

That comment is of course a supposed contradiction between theological claims based on a number of passages in the Bible and what we now know regarding the laws of science. And it actually sounds rather similar to something I, when an aspiring scientist in high school, thought I had discovered in the Bible.

My naive “insight” was based on Revelation 8 which begins with silence in heaven for one-half hour followed by an angel given incense to mingle with the prayers of the saints. I figured that these must have been spoken prayers since that was how people prayed in biblical times. And since they couldn't travel any faster than the speed of sound, it must have taken one-half hour to reach heaven. Therefore from that information, I was able to calculate how far heaven was away from earth. As I recall, I managed to prove in that manner that heaven was located somewhere in our solar system between the orbits of two of the further planets.

I realize that this sounds utterly ridiculous, but it is no more audacious and an example of gross hubris than the sophomoric attempt to try to put limitations on a Being who created the whole universe along with the “laws” to govern it, and to do so by quoting one of those “laws” that He came up with in the first place. Assuming that there is such an omnipotent Deity, His thoughts and His ways are obviously so far above us, that the best we can possibly do, and then only partially due to our limited earthly and intellectual perspective, is to “think God's thoughts after Him,” as Johann Kepler put it.

By the way, this same general train of argument was used by the Deists generations ago. They were utterly shocked at the very concept that God would possibly resort to any miraculous means whatsoever to accomplish His will. They felt that this would be highly underhanded and unfair of Him and demanded that He not “disobey” the very rules that He was making the rest of us abide by.

We must also keep in mind that time after time, accepted and “universal” verities in science have later been overthrown or shown to apply only under certain conditions. For example, Einstein's findings were not accepted until verifiable experiments proved them to be true. And then in turn, Einstein refused to accept later theories that introduced uncertainties into the equation and spent the last part of his life vainly attempting to disprove them. And in my own restricted field of the synthesis of heterocyclic compounds, I have even been a very small part of that process of correcting past findings and breaking new ground during my career as a research scientist.

“The peaceful tale of shepherds visiting a new baby before the parents peacefully returned home to present their new offspring at their own home temple.”

I fully realize that there are difficult passages in the Bible which need careful study to properly understand. But understanding these is nowhere near as difficult as trying to make sense out of the above comment. It appears to be a total non sequitor. So please forgive me if I am just too obtuse to see what the above sentence has anything to do with a biblical contradiction. I am therefore going to try to read the author's mind and propose the following interpretations as to what that person is driving at.

We can first assume from the information given above that he or she is referring to the nativity story as narrated in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1-2 since neither Mark nor John record these particular events.

Possibility #1

Since the author of this “contradiction” repeats rather needlessly the word “peaceful(ly),” I might guess that it is to be read sarcastically. If so, then the point may be that this story is just too sickeningly sweet to take seriously. But in fact this narrative was never meant to be taken as a peaceful story. It is anything but that, as evidenced from the following taken from those same passages in the Synoptic Gospels:

Mary is a teen or pre-teen who, probably though an arranged marriage, is forced to marry an elderly widower who may have already had two sons who could have been older than Mary herself.

Not only that, but she becomes pregnant while still engaged to Joseph, and it is only by the goodness of Joseph that he decides to cancel the marriage quietly rather than bring total disgrace on Mary. But that would of course have left her alone to raise her child.

They must travel to Bethlehem from their home in Nazareth while Mary is nine-months pregnant.

The reason they need to travel is to obey the command of their conquerors, the Romans, who ruled the land at the time.

The purpose of the travel was to conduct a census of the people for the purpose of assessing future taxes on them, which the poor, such as the Holy Family, could ill afford to pay.

The town is so crowded that they can't even find a decent place to stay and are forced to occupy a stable, which may have been nothing more that a simple lean-to.

They share their abode with a group of smelly animals.

Mary has to put her newborn baby in an empty feeding trough.

They have to put up with a group of even smellier shepherds, generally accepted to represent the very dregs of Jewish society.

Possibility #2

Perhaps the objection is that Luke's account purposely ignores the gory details found in Matthew's version. Thus it leaves out the subsequent events in which Herod attempts to kill Jesus; he murders the children of Bethlehem instead; and the family is forced to flee to Egypt in exile until Herod dies. There is no disputing the fact that of the four Gospels, each one contains details that the others leave out. So you can chose to take that as a contradiction if you wish. However, there is a good reason for all four narratives being included in the Bible. All are needed to get what one commentator calls a stereoscopic view of the events that transpired. It is only natural that different people would emphasize or de-emphasize one or another of the details in order to make their own theological points. In short, no one who has really read the story in all four complementary accounts would take it to be a pleasant, whitewashed account of reality. And the differences between the accounts, at least concerning the nativity and early events in Jesus' life do not contradict one another.

Possibility #3

Or perhaps the “contradiction consisted of the fact that it is unrealistic to assume that the parents would have had an audience with a group of mere shepherds before presenting Jesus at “the local temple.” That would have been an insult to God.

This approach makes just as little sense. Did the author of the objection really think that there would be any high officials, political or religious, around at the time of the birth in a tiny backwater village? Or perhaps he/she thinks that Joseph and Mary should have sent the shepherds on their way because they were too unworthy to see their child. But then why didn't they alternatively go to the “local temple” immediately instead of waiting a whole eight days before doing so?

At this point, it is helpful to inject a little reality into the situation. The fact is that even the mention of a “local temple” would have been considered heretical to a Jew at the time. There was only one temple and that was in Jerusalem.

As to waiting eight whole days before getting the child circumcised, that was the legally specified waiting time. And the procedure was not carried out at the Jerusalem temple at all, but done by some local person trained to do it, presumably in Bethlehem itself although that fact is not mentioned in the narrative.

Also, the Jewish law said that a whole 40 days after the birth needed to transpire before the mother and son were allowed to go to the Jerusalem temple for a purification ceremony. Thus, the biblical story demonstrates how Joseph and Mary were quite scrupulous in obeying all of the Old Testament laws governing their situation.