THE CROWN OF THORNS (MATTHEW 27:29; MARK 15:17; JOHN 19:2,5)

All but Luke of the Gospel writers mention the mock crowning of Jesus before his crucifixion. The symbolic significance of this detail is sometimes overlooked in favor of the symbology of the cross itself, but it is also rife with theological meaning. But before considering how those with a biblical understanding might have interpreted this action, it is necessary to get into the mindset of the Romans soldiers as they carried out this form of mocking.

Pagan Viewpoint

“The crown of thorns suggests the laurel wreath crowning the emperor's head, the hailing suggests the acclamation of the emperor, and kneeling in homage suggests the prostration to the emperor.” (Horsley)

R.E. Brown explains: “In mocking Jesus as a king the soldiers seem to follow an established ritual, and some customary actions are involved. We find similar details in Philo's report of the mob's mocking of [the lunatic] Karabas in Alexandria...Philo points out that this was in imitation of familiar pantomimes. Similarly, in mocking Jesus the soldiers were probably copying practices frequently seen on stage and in the Roman circuses.”

Short attributes the soldiers' actions to a common pastime of playing 'the game of the king' in which someone was dressed up as a king, mocked, and finally killed.

Hemer: “stephanos is used of the 'crown of thorns...To the soldiers it meant mock royalty...The view that stephanos could never be used thus of kingship is overstated.”

Albright and Mann: “It is possible that the circlet of thorns was meant as a cheap (and painful) imitation of the radiant circlet depicted on the coins of Tiberius Caesar.”

Nixon says, “The crown of thorns was probably a 'radiate' crown, a symbol of divinity.”

France: “The term stephanos does not in itself necessarily mean a royal crown. It is a wreath such as was worn by successful athletes, or as a mark of honor. But the context requires that we think here of a parody of a royal crown.”

The preceding comment is a good introduction to another symbolic meaning attached to such a “crown.” Morris states that “stephanos strictly denotes a wreath of victory rather than a royal crown (diadema). It was awarded, for example to the winners of the Games...Hart argues that it was a caricature of the 'radiate' crown, a crown in which spikes radiate outwards. He suggests that such a crown might well be made from the palm tree. It was a form of crown which pointed to the ruler as divine...This is, of course, not proven, and the traditional idea that the crown was an instrument of torture may be correct. But we do not know for sure, and Mr. Hart's suggestion is an interesting one. Tasker is inclined to accept it.”

Morris' comments provide a good summary for the Roman soldiers' motives in crowning Jesus. As well as alluding to the victor's wreath, they help to resolve the question as to whether this “coronation” is meant to parody Jesus's pretentions as a king or a divine being since, in fact, the emperors at the time did not hesitate to claim both titles. Also, Morris mentions in passing the obvious fact, overlooked or taken for granted by other commentators, that physical and mental torture of their victim was the main motivation behind their actions.

Biblical Viewpoint

More important than what the Romans thought they were accomplishing at the time is what subsequent light it might shed on the theological meaning behind their actions. And commentators differ on this point, in part dependent on what they do with the soldiers' thoughts at the time and which, if any, Old Testament scriptures they feel might be behind this detail during the Passion.

The first thing to note has been expressed well as follows: “From Genesis to Jesus, from the prophets to Paul, Bible writers sprinkle thorn imagery throughout Scripture to emphasize their messages of punishment, worthlessness and nonproductivity.” (DBI)

In fact, there are over twenty different Hebrew words and approximately six Greek words found in the Bible which describe various types of thorn bushes, thistles, nettles and brambles. Such a concentration on these plant forms is not at all surprising considering the mainly agrarian societies being addressed.

Christ as Victor and King

Hendricksen asks, “Did the molesters realize that they were doing this to him who is 'King of kings, and Lord of Lords?'”

Nixon: “...Christians have seen the life of Jesus as a royal road from the manger of Bethlehem to the cross of Calvary, and the very incidents in which He least seemed to be a king have won their allegiance more than anything else. For John especially the moment of Christ's humiliation is the moment of His glory (xii. 31-33; cf. Heb. 11.9).”

Hemer states that “stephanos to the evangelists...constituted testimony to the true kingship of Christ over a spiritual kingdom, while perhaps also implying his forthcoming victory over death. stephenoo in the New Testament is often the prize of athletic victory as a metaphor for the eternal reward of the faithful.” See passages such as I Corinthians 9:25; II Timothy 2:5, 4:8; James 1:12; I Peter 5:4; Revelation 3:11; 4:4,10, etc. “stephanoo is used in Heb. 2:7,9 in a messianic application of Ps. 8:5. Some have seen here reference to the Transfiguration or to the crown of thorns as preceding Christ's death and prefiguring his heavenly glory. Probably the words are not to be pressed in this way, and the reference is to Christ's future glory, as in Phil. 2:9 and elsewhere in Heb.”

“Christ, the sinless one, became sin for us; he laid aside his crown of honor and put on a crown of thorns (...cf. Phil 2:6-8; Lam 5:16). As the exalted Christ, however, he is adorned with a new crown fitting his authority and universal dominion (Rev 6:2; 14:14).” (DBI)

Christ as the Suffering Servant

“The mocking actions of the soldiers ”were all part of Jesus' deep humiliation as He was identified with human sin as the Servant of the Lord (cf. Isa. 50:6; 52:14-53:6).” (Blum)

“Unbeknown to them [the soldiers], their actions fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy concerning the Savior's marring (Isa. 52:14).” (Barbieri)

“The shameful tearing of his flesh is the outward display of inner suffering. Whether physical or metaphorical, briers and misery go hand in hand.” (DBI)

Christ as Sin-Bearer

This is a rather popular way in which to view the crown of thorns, and for very good reason. Grassmick, for example, states, “With this 'crown' the soldiers unwittingly pictured God's curse on sinful humanity being thrust on Jesus (cf. Gen. 3:17-18).

Hendricksen adds: “Here in Matt. 27:29a and its parallels Jesus is pictured as bearing the curse that lies upon nature, in order to deliver nature and us from it.”

“Christians have seen the thorns as symbolic of the effects of sin (Gn. Iii.18; Nu. xxxiii.55; Pr. xxi.5; Mt. vii.16, xiii.7; Heb. vi.8).” (Nixon)

In my own mind, the most powerful confirmation of this concept is found by consideration of the whole context of Adam and Eve's original sin in comparison with a harmony of the events surrounding Christ's Passion. Below are the many parallels, all listed in chronological appearance.

A. creation is finished (Genesis 2:1)

       B. they sin (3:6)

               C. they clothe themselves (3:7)

                       D.  God questions them (3:9-13)

                               E. thorns and thistles are their lot (3:18)

                                       F. condemned to death (3:19)

                                               G. they are driven out of the garden (3:23-24a)

                        D'. Jesus is questioned by Roman authorities

                             E'. crown of thorns put on Jesus

                                       F'. condemned to death

                                               G'. taken outside the city

               C'. his clothes are taken away

        B'. Jesus takes on sin

A'. “It is finished”

And even in the events immediately following Jesus' death, there are some parallels to Genesis 2-3, although they do not appear in any significant order such as those above. These include:

access to the Holy of Holies made – a reversal of the first couple's expulsion from the Garden, resurrection of dead bodies illustrating the revoking of the curse of death brought about by Adam and Eve's sin,

a Roman soldier with a spear in an analogy to the angelic guard blocking access to Eden with a sword, and

blood and water flowing from Jesus' pierced side, just as water flowed out of Eden to water the world.

Rejection of Jesus as a Prophecy of Coming Destruction

To the above well-attested opinions I will now append my own rather off-the-wall possibility. In considering the number of OT passages which contain references to thorns, I came across the story in Judges 9 in which the only remaining heir to the throne, Jotham, is rejected in favor of a worthless candidate named Abimelech. Before escaping with his life, Jotham addresses the people of Shechem from a safe distance with words of judgment which may be taken in a prophetic manner.

D.R. Davis summarizes that “Jotham's theme is the foolishness and peril of accepting clearly unqualified leadership...”

Webb adds, “The rulers of Shechem are...'city fathers' or 'chief citizens' – those who had control of the town's affairs.” He notes one feature of Shechem, “ a notable tree; the oak ('elon) [no obvious relationship to Elon Musk] which had been set up.”

With the above in mind, the story can be briefly summarized as follows: The worthless Abimelech is portrayed by Jotham as a pretentious bramble bush who has been chosen by the leaders of Shechem over a more qualified candidate. The fable continues with the bramble bush telling the trees who wish him to rule over them, “If you are truly about to anoint me king over you, come and take shelter in my shadow [clearly ironic in the case of this puny bush]; but if not, fire will go out from me and devour the cedars of Lebanon (v.15).” The curse proves true some time later, as narrated in vv. 50-57.

I can see some definite parallels with the rejection of Jesus as their king by the Jewish leaders and their Roman partners in favor of the Emperor, both countries of whom will eventually be destroyed. Remember that it was the Jewish leaders who influenced the people to demand that the robber-insurrectionist Barabbas (a perfect parallel for Abimelech) be chosen to save from death rather than Jesus. And the Roman soldiers, of course, would not even consider Jesus' claim to be the king of the Jews as anything but obvious rebellion against the Emperor. The Romans would soon destroy Israel just as the hordes from the north would later conquer Rome.

There are additional details which go towards relating these two stories:

The betrayal and killing of the legitimate heirs to the throne of Shechem were bought at the cost of 70 pieces of silver coming from the temple of Baal just as Jesus was betrayed by a payment of 30 silver coins no doubt originating from the treasury of the Jerusalem temple.

Some of the main action in Judges 9 took place in the vicinity of a tree which was set up just as the incidents in Jerusalem played out near the area where the crosses of wood were set up.

An evil spirit was sent by God to bring emnity between the populace of Shechem and Abimelech (Judges 9:23) just as it was Satan entering into Judas which brought about the crucifixion and thereby inadvertently furthered God's original plan for mankind's salvation and the defeat of Satan.

I will certainly not vouch for the fact that such parallels were intended, but they are at least worth consideration.

 

MARKS IN THE BIBLE

This reference to “Marks” above does not refer to John Mark, the author of the second Gospel, and the otherwise unknown disciple of Peter mentioned in I Peter 5:13. Instead I am referring to physical marks on the body and how they figure in biblical narratives and teachings.

Of course, such disfigurations can take various forms. So correspondingly, there are several Hebrew and Greek words which have been translated as 'marks.' In the Old Testament we encounter oth, qaaqa, and tau, while stigma, charagma and kausteriazo are represented in the New Testament writings. The definitions of these words overlap to some extent, but linguistic scholars see the following distinctions between them:

oth – Strong and others call this “a sign.” Kruger says that “it serves as a mean of transmitting information. The content of this information is determined by the context in which it is used.” Thus, it may serve as a memorial, evidence, something leading to faith in God, confirmation, motivation, etc.

qaaqa – This was specifically a cross mark. (Strong) It only appears in Leviticus 19:28 (see below),

tau – Kruger defines the noun as a mark or signature (as in Job 31:35) and relates it to the last letter in the Hebrew alphabet which took the form of a cross.

stigma – It was a point or puncture according to Strong and is defined by Vine as “a tattooed mark or mark burnt in, a brand.”

charagma – This word represented an impressed or engraved mark (Strong) and it is used exactly seven times in the book of Revelation. Vine states that a “stamp” is another translation. And Martin relates it to verbs indicating to burn or brand with a hot iron.

kausteriazo – Here we have a rare Greek word specifically meaning “to mark by branding.” It is the origin of our English word 'cauterize'.

The main occurrences of these words in the Bible are discussed below with comments from scholars regarding their significance in specific passages.

Genesis 4:15

In this verse we are introduced to the famous “mark of Cain,” which in popular parlance usually means a visible sign that a person is evil. Thus, during my lifetime it was applied by Christian teachers and preachers to the prominent birthmark on Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's forehead. But, in fact, that is not the meaning in the context of Genesis at all.

It was granted at Cain's request after he had killed his brother and was exiled by God. This whole passage brings up a host of questions that are not answered in the Bible: Why did Cain feel that people would harm him? Who were these people? What did the mark look like? How would these presumably hostile people understand the nature of the mark?

One thing the text makes clear is that it was intended as a mark of God's protection on Cain. And thus we can see that it is actually the second time in the Bible that God showered his grace on sinful mankind. The first such event was when Adam and Eve similarly disobeyed God's directions and were exiled. But before that happened, God fashioned garments for the pair of them to protect them from the elements.

Leviticus 19:28

Ross explains that the Old Testament prohibition against putting marks on your body referred to pagan customs. But for followers of the true God, “There should be no disfiguration (see also 1 Cor. 6:18-20 which reminds believers that their bodies belong to God).”
Wenham adds: “This is usually taken to be simply a prohibition of pagan mourning rites, but there is more to it than this. Mourning was not discouraged, only those customs which involved physical disfigurement. This law conforms to other holiness rules which seek to uphold the natural order of creation and preserve it from corruption...Man is not to disfigure the divine likeness implanted in him by scarring his body. The external appearance of the people should reflect their internal status as the chosen and holy people of God (Deut. 14:1-2).”

Isaiah 44:5

This is a difficult passage to decipher since the literal Hebrew reads, “will write his hand to Yahweh.” As Whybray says, “There is no agreement about the meaning of this phrase. The two main possibilities are that such a person will inscribe the words “property of Yahweh” on his hand (perhaps by tattooing) or that he will write the words on a document with his hand...The reference may be to the practice of marking slaves with the names of their masters (cf. also Ezek. 9:4), but it is not to be taken literally.” Because of the interpretive difficulties involved here, no further comments would be helpful at this time.

Ezekiel 9:4-6

Martin points out that “the remnant of Israelite faithful are marked with the Heb. letter Tau as a pledge of their safety against the day of judgment (Ezek. 9:4); the letter Tau in ancient script was a cross, a feature giving rise to later Christian speculation); and especially where Yahweh's people are bidden to inscribe his name on their hands as a promise of fidelity (Isa. 44:5).”

“This sign functioned as a symbol or mark of identification. In Ezek 9:4,6 an angelic being is told to 'put a mark (taw) on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament.' This mark was meant to distinguish them from those unconcerned over the apostasy of the city and to protect them in the day of judgment.” (Kruger)

Galatians 6:17

In this verse, Paul says, “Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.”

“It is probable that the Apostle refers to the physical sufferings he had endured since he began to proclaim Jesus as Messiah and Lord...It is probable, too, that this reference to his scars was intended to set off the insistence of the Judaizers upon a body-mark which cost them nothing. Over against the circumcision they demanded as a proof of obedience to the law he set the indelible tokens, sustained in his own body, of his loyalty to the Lord Jesus. As to the origin of the figure, it was indeed customary for a master to brand his slaves, but this language does not suggest that the Apostle had been branded by His Master...It is true such markings [made by devotees of pagan gods] were forbidden by the law, Lev. 19:28, but then Paul had not inflicted these on himself. The marks of Jesus cannot be taken to be the marks which the Lord bears in His body as a consequence of the Crucifixion; they were different in character.” (Hogg and Vine)

And Mikolaski treats Paul's words as “an appeal born of deep feeling that he be spared the further distress of persecution in view of the sufferings he has already experienced (cf. Acts 14:8,19; 2 Cor. 11:23-28), which are sufficient evidence of his devotion to Christ.”

There is another Old Testament reference which I feel may be at the back of this passage, namely Genesis 4:15. In that earlier narrative, Cain is condemned by God to be an eternal wanderer, and Cain replies by bemoaning the fact that wherever he goes people will try to kill him. God's mark on him will, however, save him from that fate. To me, this is at least superficially similar, in a quite different way, to Paul claiming the marks on his body as immunity from others “bothering” him.

I Timothy 4:2

This sole occurence of a derivative of kausterion is found here. Knight mentions several alternative interpretations of this verse but discards them in favor of understanding the mark as being 'cauterized,' “i.e., made insensible to the distinction between right and wrong (see Eph. 4:19).” This understanding “seems more in accord with Paul's evaluation in Rom. 1:18, 28-32, of conduct contrary to God's moral standards, where a sense of self-consciouslness is also present, as here.” Thus, we are obviously not thinking of a physical mark but a figurative one instead.

Book of Revelation

There are two classes of marks mentioned in this book. Martin explains in regard to Revelation 13:11-18 that “all trading is possible only as men have the 'mark' (charagma) of the first beast on their right hand or forehead. That 'mark' is identified with the beast's name or number (v. 18). Contrast Rev. 7:3ff. where a similar 'mark' denotes divine protection.”

Again, in my mind I am powerfully reminded of the parallel to Genesis 4:15, where the mark on Cain similarly indicated that he was under God's protection. That background is certainly more sure than the flights of fancy of Hal Lindsay and other “experts” who explain that in the future, only those who are loyal to the satanic world leadership will be given a tattoo that scanners can read as they attempt to check out at a grocery store.

A Probably Irrelevant and Irreverent Conclusion

I was attending our usual Sunday school class one morning when it was not my turn to teach. The teacher for the day ended up his lesson early and so he opened up the class to any questions whatsoever that anyone might have relating to the Bible. (That is certainly something that I would never have had the nerve to do.) Sure enough, out of the clear blue, one of our class members said she needed some advice on how to handle a problem in her extended family. It concerned a young man, a Christian, who had had an ichthys tattooed on his arm. The man's parents were very upset since that appeared to disobey God's command in Leviticus (see above).

After our teacher hemmed and hawed trying to think of something to say, I came to his rescue (sort of) by quoting Paul's words in Galatians 6. I don't think it answered the lady's question in the least, but it did get a big laugh from the rest of the class and took up enough time that the teacher could quickly close the class with a prayer.

REVELATION 19: ONE OR TWO UNITS?

 The main question I would like to answer here is whether this chapter constitutes a single discrete message or whether it should be better divided into two separate parts having little to do with one another. But before doing that, I should remind the reader that our present chapter divisions should not be considered as sacrosanct as the text itself since they were only formulated over 1,000 years after the writing of the New Testament. Now for the most part these divisions do a fairly good job of grouping together the separate sections of the text, but we should not by any means consider them cast in stone.

In fact, there is good reason in the present case to wonder whether Revelation 19 shouldn't be divided right down the middle into verses 1-10 and 11-21. The main reason for that possibility is that the first of those two units consists of what John “heard,” namely a series of songs or hymns. In stark contrast, the second half of the chapter concerns what the author “saw.” And confirming this sort of division, both the NIV and NRSV indicate a major break at this point. Thirdly, the two units appear to employ words and phrases which differ from one another.

Actually, noted commentators such as Beale and Ruiz have proposed that verses 1-6 or 1-8 should instead be considered as part of Revelation 18 instead. But the data below makes this possibility highly unlikely.

                                            Figure 1: Key Wording in Revelation 19:1-10

I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude (1a)

        hallelujah (1b)

                glory (1c)

                        our God (1d)

                                true (2a)

                                        great whore (2c)

                                                his servants (2e)

        hallelujah (3)

                                                        fell down and worshiped (4a)

        hallelujah (4b)

                        our God (5a)

                                                his servants (5b)

I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude (6a)

        hallelujah (6b)

                        our God (6c)

                glory (7a)

                                                                marriage of the Lamb (7b)

                                        bride (7c)  

                                                                marriage supper of the Lamb (9a)

                                true (9b)

                                                        fell down and worshiped (10a)

                                                 servant (10b)

Note that besides the parallels above, there is a deliberate contrast between the fornications of the great whore of Babylon of v. 2 and the marriage of the church, the spotless bride, with Christ in v. 7. In addition, the two units within this section (vv. 1-5 and 6-10) both begin and end with the same words.

                                           Figure 2: Key Wording in Revelation 19:11-21

white horse (11a)

        rider (11b)

                makes war (11c)

                        fire (12a)

                                crowns (12b)

                                        name written (12b)

                                                out of his mouth came a sharp sword (15)

                                        name written (16a)

                                king of kings (16b)

                                kings (18a)

horses (18b)

        riders (18c)

                                kings (19a)

                make war (19b)

        rider (19c)

horse (19d)

                        fire (20)

                                                sword (21a)

        rider (21b)

horse (21c)

                                                sword that came from his mouth (21d)

However, this is not the whole story by any means since there are also a number of verbal correspondences between the two halves which act to unify the whole chapter:

                                              Figure 3: Key Wording in Revelation 19

After this I heard (1a)

        loud voice (1)

                true (2a)

                        judged (2b)

                                blood (2c)

                                        small and great (5)

                                                marriage supper of the Lamb (7)

                                                        clothed (8a)

                                                                fine linen bright and pure (8b)

                                                                        words of God (9)

                                                                                prophecy (10)

Then I saw (11a)

                true (11a)

                        judges (11b)

                                                        clothed (13a)

                                                                        word of God (13b)

                                blood (13c)

                                                                fine linen bright and pure (14)

        loud voice (17a)

                                                supper of God (17b)

                                        small and great (18)

                                                                                prophet (20)

As in Figure 1, we see similar opening and closing words in both halves of the chapter.

This confirms what our pastor said recently in a sermon. Often in the book of Revelation, auditory revelations from God (“I heard”) are coupled together with visual ones (“I saw”). And actually, those two phrases appear roughly thirty times each in this book.

Since the above example is taken from the end of Revelation, just compare it with the first few chapters in which John first “sees” Christ walking in the midst of the candle stands representing the seven churches (Rev. 1). But then in Revelation 2-3, we “hear” the specific messages Christ reveals through John to each of these congregations. All three chapters belong together as one unit even though the basic genres differ.

We see the same thing toward the end of the book in Chapter 19 except that here the order is reversed in that the auditory revelation is given first and the visual one second. This AB...BA pattern is very typical of what is called an inclusio – a pair of bookends for the whole of Revelation.

But if the two halves of Rev.19 are closely related in thought, what are some examples? For one thing, as Morris points out, the supper of v. 17 “is in sharp contrast with the marriage supper of verse 9.” Beale echoes this thought: “The link may be that the meal in v 9 is a metaphor partly for vindication and the meal in v 17 is a metaphor for the judgment that vindicates.”

Phillips states, “Two great events are now to be described, one in heaven and one on earth. One is a wedding; the other is a war. The church and the world both come to the consummation of their ways. Joy, long delayed, is the happy portion of the one; judgment, delayed even longer, is the portion of the other. The Lord Jesus fills both scenes.”

And Beale states that verse 10 “has a transitional or interlocking function with the preceding and following sections, binding them together into one larger segment [although his personal definition of the limits of that hypothetical segment goes beyond chapter 19].”

He goes on to compare the white garments which appear in both verses 8 and 14: “Throughout the Apocalypse 'white' has represented a reward for purity or purity itself, resulting from persevering faith tested by persecution [with]..'white' garments not only representing righteousness but also as a reward of vindication for those who have persevered through persecution.”

Similarly, “the bright, pure linen” of 19:8 is associated with priestly connotations. Christ's followers [in v. 14] reflect their representative's priestly character as they accompany him when he executes judgment.” (Beale)

In addition, Beale says, “The metaphor of 'his eyes as a flame of fire' [v. 12]...evokes Christ's role as divine judge, as is clear from vv. 14-21...” But that same idea is expressed even more directly in v. 2.

A final indication of the unity of Revelation 19 is seen in the way God's enemies are totally disposed of. First it is (the harlot of) Babylon who is sent to the pit where her smoke will rise forever (v. 3). And then in the second half of the chapter it is the beast, the false prophet, and their followers who will meet a similar fate, being thrown into the lake of fire which also burns forever and ever (v. 20).

I will leave it to the reader to uncover other parallels between Revelation 19:1-10 and 11-21.

HOW WAS CHRIST CRUCIFIED? -- JOHN 20:24-29

 

How was Jesus Crucified? – John 20:24-29

In a recent issue of Biblical Archaeology magazine, Jeffrey Arroyo Garcia discusses whether Jesus was nailed or tied to the cross. His conclusion is that he was tied to the cross despite what John's Gospel says. What follows is a brief presentation of his evidence followed by critiques on that position from various scholars.

Archeological and Literary Evidence

The most famous discovery relating to this issue was made in Jerusalem in 1968. From an ossuary (box containing bones of a deceased person) dating roughly from the 1^st centuries BC to AD, a calcified heel bone containing a 5” nail was recovered. There was a similar find in England dating to the Roman occupation of that land.

Bruce provides more details concerning the 1968 find: “It was dated to about the beginning of the 1^st century A.D. One nail had been driven through each of his forearms, and a third, which was still in situ, through both his ankles together. His legs had been broken like those of Jesus' two companions in John 19:32.”

In addition, the historian Josephus definitely refers to the nailing of Jewish rebels to crosses by the Roman forces. He also mentions that a Roman procurator of Judea nailed some of Judah's citizens to the cross during 64-66 AD. But due to the sparseness of any more hard archeological evidence coupled with the fact that almost all literary evidence for this form of crucifixion dates from a later time period, Garcia somehow concludes that the Romans must have changed their standard method of crucifixion from tying to nailing sometime after Christ's crucifixion.

Green notes that “it is clear that no standard form of crucifixion was uniformly practiced...Josephus reports even among the Romans the method of crucifixion was subject to the whims of military leaders.”

Unfortunately, the two Greek verbs used in the New Testament to describe crucifixion – stauroo and kremannymi – simply mean “to hang,” without at all defining the method of hanging.

“Nailing is testified to only in isolated instances [such as in Herodotus]. It is uncertain whether this was done to the feet as well as the hands...It must be remembered that the secular writers of the period did not deign to provide a detailed description of this disgraceful and cruel form of execution. Many questions must be left open.” (Brandenburger)

“Some have suggested that the detail is unhistorical, urging that nails would not support the weight of a body and that ropes must have been used in crucifixion. J.A. Baily, however, cites O. Zockler as showing that the hardness of the nails used in crucifixions was proverbial, and that Xenophon of Ephesus mentions the use of ropes in crucifixions in Egypt as though this was unusual...It seems clear that the detail is historical.” (Morris)

Biblical Evidence

John 20:24-29

Concerning what the New Testament has to say on the subject, Garcia limits the majority of his comments to the sole Gospel specifically mentioning nailing – John 20:24-29. In that passage, Jesus invites Thomas to investigate the marks and holes in His hand and feet caused by the nails. He attempts to dispose of this evidence in the following way:

“First, the author (or his audience) was perhaps located in a region, such as Ephesus or elsewhere in Asia Minor, where nailing of the hands was well known. Second, there are aspects of John's crucifixion and resurrection accounts that are unique. John alone describes the piercing of Jesus's side (19:34) and views it as a fulfillment of prophecy, namely, 'they will look on the one whom they have pierced' (19:37; cf. Zechariah 12:10). John also appears to be rewriting Luke 24:36-43, where the disciples are directed to 'touch' and 'see' Jesus's hands and feet. Of course, it is clear in Luke (v. 39) that Jesus's hands and feet are intended to prove the resurrection of his body and not to demonstrate the nail wounds. Therefore, John might be creatively weaving together these elements, portraying the crucifixion as real, even a fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy, for a community who had to believe without seeing.” His conclusion is that “this account may have come from a time after the revolt or somewhere in the Diaspora where nailing was more common, while John's crucifixion story was adapted from his sources, likely the other Gospels.” Note his use of the weasel words “perhaps,” “appears to be,” and “might” which together reveal that he is just hazarding a guess.

Luke 24:39-40

Note how quickly Garcia attempts to dispose of Luke's version of the post-resurrection appearance. He states that Jesus was merely trying to prove to the Apostles that he was flesh and bone, and not a ghost. But if that was all Jesus had in mind, then why did He specifically point to his hands and feet and not to any other part of His body? Garcia is clearly off-base here as confirmed by other commentators quoted below.

Fitzmyer: “His [Jesus'] challenge to the disciples to look and touch is aimed at establishing his identity; but his challenge reveals the incredulity that still besets them. Luke presupposes here details of the crucifixion that he did not recount, e.g. the use of nails.”

Craddock: “Even Paul, whose letters make few references to the life of the historical Jesus, insisted on joining crucifixion with resurrection. He proclaimed Christ crucified (I Cor. 1:23; Gal. 3:11); the risen Lord of the church had nail scars in his hands. This is Luke's point here: 'See my hands and feet' (v. 39).”

Martin: “Not only did He stand in their presence so they could see Him and His wounds (vv. 39-40), but He also ate food...before them to show He was not a ghost.”

Marshall: “It was really He Himself, and He showed them His physical body with its flesh and bones, and His hands and feet with the nailprints in them.”

Mark 16:14

To demonstrate the historical inaccuracy of John's version, Garcia notes that Mark 16:14 specifically says that the eleven apostles were present at the first appearance of the resurrected Jesus. Since Judas was already been eliminated by that time, it implies that all the remaining apostles, including Thomas, were there, in stark contradiction to John's report that Thomas was missing at that time.

I am frankly surprised that any scholar would try to utilize this apocryphal ending to Mark's Gospel to prove a point. Horsely rightly labels Mark 16:9-20 as “two attempts to provide a more satisfactory ending to the Gospel of Mark.” He dates these additions to “the early second century and appended to the Gospel later in the second century. These sentences borrow some motifs from the other Gospels and contain several unusual apocryphal elements. To this conclusion, practically all Bible scholars today would agree.

Colossians 2:14

This verse refers to nailing at the crucifixion, but it doesn't, according to Garcia, refer to Jesus being nailed to the cross, only to the placard affixed over his head. Other scholars are not nearly so sure:

Melik: “Interpreters differ as to the exact meaning Paul had in mind. Most likely it referred to the indictment hung over the prisoner's head when he was crucified.”

“Cancelling the certificate of independence and nailing it to the cross go together, though it is not certain how the latter action referring to the historical crucifixion of Jesus bears upon the wiping out of the charge...Dibelius-Greever suggest that the bond is like the titulus or sentence of condemnation which was posted over the criminal's head as he died on the gibbet (Jn 19:20).” (Martin)

N.T. Wright: “The images are so overlaid here that it is hard to see how they are to be related to one another.” Nevertheless, he concludes that it referred to the sign “The King of the Jews” nailed to the cross, not to Jesus.

Dunn, however, sees it as a metaphor: “The thought is rather of the indictment itself being destroyed by means of crucifixion, as though it was the indictment which was itself nailed to the cross” (i.e. just as Christ was nailed to the cross).

Seitz: “'God made him to be sin in whom there was no sin' (2 Cor. 5:21), so that in killing this Son of God, the note of death is killed, cancelled, and rendered null and void.” He sees problems with the interpretation that it was the law which was nailed to the tree.

Barth and Blanke discuss this difficult verse at length, but do conclude that it appears that “This 'document of guilt against us' is our body and flesh which Christ took up and which is nailed to the cross” so that it is a “curious imagery of the crucifixion of a document of guilt.” And for that metaphor to work, the phrase must refer back to a physical crucifixion also involving nails.

Geisler: “Jesus 'took ...away' this criminal charge, this certificate of indebtedness, by His death. It is as if He were 'nailing it to the cross with Him, showing He paid the debt.”

Green points to this verse as well as Luke 24:39; John 20:25; Acts 2:23; and Gos. Pet. 6.21 as indicating that Jesus was nailed to the cross.

“An unstated premise seems to stand behind this text. It was Christ's body that was nailed (proseloo, Col 2:14) to the cross, metaphorically portrayed as a 'hand written document' (cheirographon)...” (Reid)

In short, there is no reason at all to jettison John's account of Christ's crucifixion as unhistorical.

DID HOMOSEXUALITY CAUSE THE FALL OF ROME? (LUKE 13:4-5)

 The fall of Rome is generally dated to 476 AD when the invading Germanic troops deposed the last of the Roman emperors. Much harder to pinpoint, however, is why that powerful empire fell.

An Italian scholar has recently made the unusual proposal that its fall was due to the introduction of homosexual practices into the Roman Empire by the defeated Carthaginians following Rome's conquest of that northern African empire. He believes that practice subsequently became so widespread that it caused a population decline which weakened the Roman world to the point that it could be easily conquered by the Huns.

First, let's look at some problems with this thesis, which include the following:

Carthage was defeated in 146 BC. It is highly improbable that any event separated in time by over 600 hundred years from the actual fall of Rome could be considered as directly responsible for it.

The thesis assumes that homosexual activities were largely unknown in the ancient world before a few such deviant practitioners introduced it to others. Actually, numerous examples of Greek artwork going back as far as 500-400 BC picture homosexual scenes, and the Romans had much better opportunities to be exposed to that sexually lax culture than to a few Carthaginians.

Adding to the above improbability was the fact that Rome absolutely despised all the immoral practices of the Carthaginians, including the giving of human sacrifices to their deity. Therefore, after its capture, all the populace of their cities was dispersed to other countries and their fields sowed with salt so that the culture would never arise again. To suppose that some of these displaced and disgraced “pagans” would have had the clout to influence the widespread Roman Empire is laughable.

Also, there is no hard evidence that the Carthaginians ever condoned homosexuality in the first place. It is actually unlikely due to the fact that Carthage was under the influence of the Persians for centuries and Persia had a long history of anti-homosexual tradition.  

Rome, on the other hand, even before conquering Carthage, condoned homosexual relations of men with participants of lesser social status (slaves, captives, freedmen, etc.) although they did not tolerate it among military personnel, unless the man was the active partner in the relationship.

Among Romans, the practice of homosexuality among the men did not at all displace their attraction to women. And carrying on their bloodline remained of prime importance to the men. It was a common saying at the time that women are for bearing children while boys are for love.

There was indeed a precipitous population decrease in the Roman Empire beginning at the latter part of the 2^nd century AD. But the reasons had nothing to do with the rise of homosexuality in the Empire. Among writers of the later Roman Empire, there was sharp disagreement as to the actual causes of the west's decline. In general, the pagans blamed the Christians for weakening the moral fiber of the men, and vice versa. And this divide is still present with those such as as the noted historian Edward Gibbon in his massive treatise on the subject making the case for the fall of Rome being primarily due to the negative influences brought about by the rise of Christianity. But far more likely causes have been identified, including a series of plagues, unfavorable economic conditions, climate change, over-reliance on slave labor, constant bombardment from hostile armies, and corrupt or incompetent government officials. There has even been a credible minority of scholars who feel that it was the lead content of Rome's drinking utensils and water supply which caused a decline in the general vitality of the populace.

Conclusion

We should become well aware of the trend in history and human nature to put the blame on others when tragedy strikes. Without denying that God can punish a nation or group of people for their immoral behavior if He wishes, we should also recognize that such blame-setting is often quite selective and one-sided. It was not that long ago, for example, that Jerry Falwell placed the blame for the flooding of New Orleans on the gross immorality of the inhabitants of the French Quarter. Now I am certainly not going to say that there is no such problem there since I have witnessed it personally, but such self-appointed “spokesmen for God” conveniently ignore the fact that the French Quarter was one of the areas of New Orleans that was actually spared from the worst of the damage.

And I am sure that there will be Christians who say that the bombing of the Twin Towers was God's judgment on all those politically liberal New Yorkers. At the same time, it is interesting that the yearly death and destruction caused by tornadoes and hurricanes in the so-called Bible Belt of America are never attributed to any sins that those Christians might have committed or any political party they may have supported.

As usual, the New Testament gives us the best counsel on such issues. Jesus presents two pertinent illustrations followed by a general message to all believers in Luke 13. The first one concerns some Jewish inhabitants of Galilee who were executed by Pilate, and the second example was an incident in which eighteen people were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them. After each of these historical examples, Jesus asks his audience, “Were those individuals worse sinners than any other Jews at the time?” And then he concludes with words we should all keep in mind when we are tempted to point a finger at others as sinners because of some tragedy which occurred in their lives: “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did.”

We should always judge ourselves rightly before attempting to judge others. And when doing so, we should also keep in mind Paul's teachings in Romans 1. After zeroing in on homosexual activity as being unpleasing to God in verses 26-27, he goes on with a litany of twenty-one equally condemned sins in verses 28-31. We may pat ourselves on the back since we have never even have been tempted to engage in homosexual activities, but I would guess that few of us are completely free of having been a gossip, envying someone else, being boastful, etc., etc. We should read that list carefully and repent of our own sins rather than going around attaching blame to others. If we don't, we are no better than Job's not-so-helpful friends.

BREAKING VOWS (NUMBERS 30)

As Wenham says, “In times of crisis men turn to God in prayer. And their prayers often take the form of vows...Many examples are found in the Scripture...But when the crisis passes and the prayer is answered, there is a temptation to forget the vow. Ecclesiastes warns: 'When you vow a vow to God, do not delay paying it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you vow (5:4; cf. Dt. 23:21-23)...But sometimes the vows could not be literally fulfilled.” Thus the need for the regulations in Numbers 30 arose.

There are a few problem issues concerning the legislation in this short chapter. I will briefly address them one at a time.

Definition of a Vow

“Vows either took the form of a promise to give something to God, usually a sacrifice, or a pledge to abstain from something.” (Wenham)

“The practice of making promises or vows to God seems ancient, both in Israel (Gen. 28:20-22) and in the rest of the ancient Near East. Vows may be positive promises to do or perform something (Judg. 11:30-31; 1 Sam. 1:11), or they may be negative promises to abstain from something (Num. 6). In general, the Hebrew word that encompasses both kinds of promise is neder. The present text uses neber only to express the positive vow. The negative vow is expressed, uniquely in ch. 30, by 'issar.” (Ashley)

Wakely points out that the noun 'issar is found only in this chapter and occurs seven times as 'issar and four times as 'esar...The vow is one of abstinence, i.e., it is a negative promise to abstain from something.

Negative View of Women

This is perhaps the harshest criticism levied against Numbers 30, with feminist scholars accusing the Jews of treating all women as if they had no sense and needed to have their every decision approved by either their father or husband. But as Stubbs says, “the ability of husbands and fathers to limit their wives' or daughters' religious commitments – and the portrayal of women as apt to make rash vows – does not seem to match well with the New Testament's trajectory toward the full equality of women.”

Ashley adds, “Ch. 30 reinforces the right of women to make vows to Yahweh, and limits a husband's right to void a vow by requiring that his objection be made when he first hears of his wife's vow and not after a long period of reflection.”

Evans has the same opinion on the subject. “Women were seen as having the right and the ability to make vows and were held fully accountable for the fulfillment of any vows they might make (Num. 30:3-16). The only exception to this was if a father or husband specifically overruled a vow. Thus..., there is recognition within the text of the realities of a patriarchal society alongside the recognition of women as independent and responsible beings.”

Wakely has even more to say on this subject, including the following: “A man was considered to be legally responsible for his own actions, and any vow made by him was automatically binding (Num 30:2). The situation was different in the case of women. Only the vow of these women in positions of independence (the widow and the divorced women) were unconditionally binding (v. 9). The majority of women had no independent right to make a vow...According to L'Heureux, the implication of Num 30 seems to be that, generally speaking, women had to be protected against their own lack of responsible judgment. A more likely explanation is that, given the economic dependence of women on men in ancient Israelite society, it was felt necessary to protect fathers and husbands from excessive commitments made by women who were not ultimately responsible for finding the resources necessary to fulfill those commitments. Another possibility is that this legislation was designed to prevent women from undermining the authority of men by, e.g., vowing away a child without the consent of its father.”

Two Old Testament examples add to our understanding of this ruling. The first one is found in Judges 11-12 and concerns one of the Hebrew judges, Jephthah, who rashly promised to devote to God the first thing that greeted him on his way home if he could win a key battle. Unfortunately, that happened to be his daughter, who was then doomed to death (or to eternal virginity, according to which scholar you listen to). This clearly illustrates that you can't accuse only women of being liable to make unthinking vows with which they must follow through.

The second pertinent story is that of Hannah, who vowed to give her first child to the LORD if she could just become pregnant (I Samuel 1:11). Later she did in fact have a son, but only offered him to the LORD after her husband had ratified her vow (see vv. 21-23).

Contradiction by New Testament Teachings

Kotva discusses the apparent complete repudiation of oath-taking in NT passages such as Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12. “Martin Luther rejected an individual's initiating an oath but taught that the state's command to swear must be obeyed...Most commentators do not believe that Jesus abolished oath-taking. They point to Matt. 23:16-22, where Jesus does not explicitly reject oath-taking but instead attacks a corrupt oath-taking system in which swearing by symbols for God's name were claimed to be nonbinding. Commentators also point to Paul's taking of various oaths and vows (2 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8) and to Heb. 6:13-20, where the practice is cited without criticism...What most commentators agree on is that in requiring of us a simple yes or no, James is calling us to straightforward and truthful speech at all times.”

Stubbs agrees with Kotva on this point when he says, “His [i.e. Jesus'] words point to one principle that guides the Numbers passage: followers of God must be people of integrity, people whose word is truthful and trustworthy.”

Placement of this Chapter Within Numbers

Ashley admits, “The connection of ch. 30 with its context is not immediately obvious...”

Stubbs speculates: “Given that Numbers gives prominent attention to both vows (6:1-21; 15:3,8; 21:2; 30:1-16) and laws concerning women (5:11-31; 27:1-11; 30:1-16; 36:1-13), one wonders if there is a deeper significance to the placement of this passage...”

And Wenham says, “Finally, one should ask why this group of laws is placed here.” He feels it has something to do with the fact that “vows were usually sealed with a sacrifice.” And this was the specific topic of Numbers 28-29. I believe that Figure 1 below provides a much fuller rationale since most of Numbers 30 deals with regulations protecting women, the subject which ends both the opening (A-C) and concluding (A'-C') series of three sections as well as in the exact center of the overall unit.

                                                 Figure 1: The Structure of Numbers 26-36

A. The Tribes Numbered (26:1-56)

B. Levites Numbered (26:57-65)

C. Inheritance Laws for Daughters of Zelophehad (27:1-11)

D. End of Moses' Leadership (27:12-23)

E. Final Legislation Before Crossing Jordan (ch. 28-29)

F. Women's Vows (ch. 30)

E'. Final Narratives Before Crossing Jordan (ch. 31-32)

D'. Summary of Moses' Leadership

A'. The Tribes' Inheritance (33:50-34:29)

B'. Levites' Inheritance and Cities of Refuge (ch. 35)

C'. Inheritance Laws for Daughters of Zelophehad (ch. 36)

 

   Figure 2: The Structure of Numbers 30

    1. “This is what the LORD has commanded” (v. 1)

            2. Men's vows unbreakable (v. 2)

                    3. Girl's vows breakable by her father (vv. 3-5)

                            4. Girl's vows breakable by her fiancee (vv. 6-8)

            2'. Widow's and divorcee's vows unbreakable (v. 9)

                    3'. Wife's vows breakable by husband without penalty (vv. 10-12)

                            4'. Wife's vows breakable with penalty (vv. 13-15)

    1'. “These are the statutes which the LORD has commanded” (v. 16)

And as you can see in Figure 2, Ashley is correct when he states, “The binding nature of the male vow [appearing only in v. 2] is not the point of the present law...but only a principle against which the issue of vows for certain classes of women may be approached.”

This symmetrical organization also addresses a concern pointed out by Ashley, namely, “A few scholars have concluded that this verse [i.e. 9] is a later interpolation or gloss [which]...interrupts the sequence of vv. 6-8 and 10-15.” That criticism is only valid if one expects a strictly logical presentation of ideas in the Bible, which is not always the case.

 

MIXED METAPHORS IN THE BIBLE

 Andrew Wilson has written an interesting article in the recent Christianity Today magazine in which he starts out by saying that “figures of speech influence how we think about the subjects themselves – probably more than we realize. They constrain our thinking, for better or worse.”

Thus, he gives the example of the various examples of imagery used to characterize the people of God: salt of the earth, light of the world, city on a hill, a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a field, a garden, branches on a vine, sheep in a fold, crops at harvest, warriors in battle, citizens of heaven, the bride of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Spirit. “Each metaphor highlights different aspects of what it means to be God's people as well as the privileges and responsibilities we carry as a result. We need them all. If any of them is missing, we will quickly become imbalanced in ways that threaten to damage or divide.”

Wilson then zeroes in on two specific images of the church to illustrate his point. It is pictured in the Bible as both a body (Romans 12:4-5; I Corinthians 12:12-31) and a household (Gal. 6:10; Ephesians 2:19; I Timothy 3:15). In a body, each component of it is necessary in order for the whole to function adequately. The important implication of that imagery is to stop anyone thinking that they are independent from the others or superior or inferior to the others.

But from the household metaphor we learn that there is a certain type of order and structure to be maintained, and therefore it may be up to some within the household to shoulder more responsibility than the others.

Both images need to be kept firmly in mind at the same time. Otherwise the church may descend into chaos (the danger of the body metaphor taken to an extreme) or become a rigidly authoritative to the point where only one or two people in the church run the whole show (the danger of the household metaphor only).

Wilson also applies these two metaphors to the question of the role of women in the church. I Timothy 2:11-12 appears to strictly limit women's participation in church life whereas Paul in I Corinthians 14:26 has them prophesying, offering prayers, and teachings. The first passage reflects the image of the church as a household while the second one is based on the idea of the church as a body.

One can also look at the three “lost” parables recorded in Luke 15 as another example. First we are given the parable of the lost sheep as an example of God's love for each single one of us. But taken by itself, it could be misinterpreted as the Gospel of Thomas does, namely that the one sheep was more beautiful than all the others and that was why the shepherd lavished all his care on him to the detriment of the 99 who were just left to fend for themselves while the shepherd went off and ignored them. And that concept appears to be reinforced by the moral of the story: “There will be more joy in heaven over the one sinner who repents than over the 99 righteous who needed no repentance.”

The second parallel parable is shorter and describes the woman who finds her missing coin and restores it to the other nine of hers. She rejoices with her neighbors over her good fortune just as the the angels rejoice over one sinner who repents.

Thirdly, we are given the most elaborate, and famous, example of all in the parable of the lost son.

Just look at what we would be left without if any of these three stories were missing. Taken to its extreme, I have at least twice in my church life witnessed a misapplication of the lost sheep parable. One occurred at a congregation in which the youth pastor spent so much time trying to win over one rebellious teenager who occasionally attended the youth group that he totally ignored the rest of the junior high and senior high sons and daughters of regular church members that were in the group. If he had followed the example of the lost son instead, he would have gone out of his way to assure the loyal attenders of the group that they were valued as well.

A second example occurred in a very small start-up church I attended. The unofficial leader of the congregation had attended seminary and had made friends with a man who was a very nominal member of another church. That man's wife preferred to attend our services instead and so the man did everything he could to sabotage our church. But our church leader was so intent in trying to win his friend that he sided with him instead of with my wife and myself over a trumped-up charge made by the friend. As a result, we were forced to leave that church without comment rather than cause a church split which the congregation could not afford.

The second parable, that of the lost coin, is incomplete in itself since a coin has no volition in itself. So perhaps the only takeaway message we can safely glean from it which is not found in the other two is that we should share the good news of the gospel with others.

We get by far the fullest story from the longer parable of the prodigal son, which addresses the issue of the older brother, who is assured by the father that he is also well appreciated and will inherit all that the father has as well as having the blessing of never having to leave the father's house to suffer the way his errant brother has.

Wilson's conclusion can best be summarized by the sentence he gives right after the title of his essay: “A right understanding of the church depends on keeping the whole spectrum of biblical images in view.”

PROVERBS: KING JAMES TRANSLATION -- PART 2

In continuation of a review of phrases in the King James Version of Proverbs which happen to be used as chapter titles in Ashes to Ashes by Emma Lathan, here are those given in the last half of Proverbs.

Proverbs 18:8; 26:22 – The Words of a Talebearer

What exactly is a “talebearer”? Is it someone who tattles on someone else, a professional storyteller, a liar? Modern translations clarify the underlying meaning of the Hebrew word nirdan as “gossip” (TEV), “slanderer” (AB) or “rumor monger” (Living Bible).

Proverbs 20:17 – Bread of Deceit

This misleading translation is better rendered as “bread gained by fraud or deceit” since there is nothing deceitful about the bread itself. Murphy notes that there is an untranslatable catchword tying together verses 16 and 17 formed by the Hebrew 'rb, which can mean either “sweet” or “surety.”

Proverb 21:9 – A Brawling Woman

There are several probable problems with this rendering of the original Hebrew text. To start with, the modern image conjured up by “brawl” is a physical fight without any rules and perhaps involving more than two parties. Secondly, the NEB translates the end of this verse as “than to have a nagging wife and a brawling household” in place ot NRSV's “than in a house shared with a contentious woman.” Thirdly, Whybray offers “a shared house”, “a spacious house” and “an alehouse” as possible alternative translations for “a brawling household.”

Proverbs 22:5 – Thorns and Snares

Martin says that “the wicked shares the difficulties of the sluggard (15:29), though 'thorns' is a rare word that may mean 'hooks' and so (with 'snares') symbolize the difficulties in which he is caught, for all this scheming.”

Waltke devotes a number of words discussing this phrase, arriving at his own translation of “snares, the bird-trap sort.” He points out that the word “and” is found nowhere in the Hebrew text and therefore would have to be supplied in order to translate this phrase as any A+B combination. A second problem arises with the word sen, which is uncertain in meaning. One scholar changes the word to sammim 'traps' while another one substitutes sepunim 'hidden.' 'Thorns and snares' comes from seninim 'thorns' in Numbers 33:35 and Joshua 23:13. He mentions that several other possibilities have been suggested in the literature.

Proverbs 22:28; 23:10 – Remove Not the Old Landmark

I have witnessed demonstrations in which people in a city protest the removal of a historical building and fight to preserve it for posterity. But that is not the sort of landmark that is in mind here. As Martin says: “Boundary markers [a superior translation] were important in the ancient world, as witnessed by the Israelite Law (Dt. 19:14; 27:17; and see Prov. 15:25)...The Heb. word is generally used for boundary, but this could be marked in various ways – by a cairn of stones (Gen. 31:51), a stone (Jos. 15:6) or a hedge (Isa. 5:5). There might also be other prominent features by reference to which boundaries were determined. 'set up by your forefathers': shows respect for ancient agreement and settlement.”

Waltke notes that this “refers to the time when Joshua distributed the land by casting the sacred lot (Joshua 14-19)...Throughout the ancient Near East people had a great respect for private and tribal boundaries so essential for a family's life.”

Modern counterparts are the survey markers put into the ground to designate the legal edges of one's property, but in ancient times rocks generally served the same purpose. The main problem, as you can imagine, came about if you had an unscrupulous neighbor who would secretly move the rocks a little at a time until he illegally gained property that was rightfully yours. That is the background to this saying.

Proverbs 23:28 – Transgressors Among Men

The whole verse in the KJV reads: “She [i.e. the strange woman] also lieth in wait as for a prey, and increaseth the transgressions among men.”

Transgressors (bogedim) is translated more accurately as traitor or the disloyal by Waltke. He says, “'Bagad expresses the unfaithfulness of a person to an existing and established relationship. Specifically, the people in view are the men and women 'who abandoned' their heritage of having a relationship with God and with their leaders.” Thus, the RSV translates the verse as “She lies in wait like a robber and increases the faithless among men.”

However, The Jerusalem Bible takes a different interpretive stance and reads, “Yes, like a robber she is on the watch and many are the men she dupes.” And their footnote to this verse adds, “Lit. 'she increases dupes (corr.' Hebr. 'deceivers') among men'.”

Proverbs 25:6-7 – The Place of Great Men

This location is where, according to the author, a person should not deign to stand. The best commentary on this passage is found in Luke 14:8-11 where Jesus counsels people not to push themselves forward by taking the best seats at a banquet or royal occasion. The possible embarrassment resulting from that hubris is that you may be asked to vacate your seat in order that a more honored guest can take your place. Instead, you should humbly take a less desirable seat and leave it to your host to elevate you to a more honored place if he wishes.

Waltke pictures a slightly different setting for this saying: “In the place has the more restricted sense of the court or some other place where influential people congregate. Great refers to people of rank and influence (see 18:6). Do not stand (see 12:7) cautions the courtier, who alone could face this temptation, not to take up a position with men and influence.” In other words, do not consider yourself higher than you really are.

Proverbs 25:21-22 – Coals of Fire

This is probably one of the most recognizable phrases in Proverbs due to its being quoted by Paul in the Greek version to teach that the best way to overcome evil is with good (see Romans 12:17-21). However, that meaning is not exactly obvious to most readers. Waltke concludes after a page and a half of discussion on the subject: “Some think that heaping coals of fire on a person's head is a form of punishment and of appeasing one's need foe vengeance, but the parallel, 'the Lord will reward you,' negates that interpretation...Most interpreters agree that 'coals of fire' is a morally good deed, one pleasing to the LORD.”

Proverbs 26:1 – As Snow in Summer

The comparison here is between getting snow in the summer and the honoring of a fool. Buzzell says, “Snow in summer or rain in harvest is is inappropriate, highly unusual, and potentially damaging to crops. Putting a fool in a position of honor (cf. 26:8) is inappropriate (cf. 19:10) and may injure others who follow him as a model.”

Proverbs 27:23 – Be Thou Diligent

The KJV “Be thou diligent to know the state of the flocks, and look well to thy herds” is replaced by Waltke with the less stilted “Be sure you know the condition of your flocks, pay attention to [your] herds.” But the general meaning remains the same in each rendering.

Proverbs 27:24 – Riches Are Not Forever

This proverb certainly contradicts the title of the James Bond novel “Diamonds Are Forever.” But to what exactly does forever refer? Waltke explains that it “could refer to an individual's lifetime (cf. Exod 19:19; 21:6), but the parallel shows that it refers to the farthest, distant time in the sense of unceasing.”

The parallel to which he is referring is the second line of the verse, which reads, “and does a crown endure to all generations?”

Proverbs 29:9 – There is No Rest

Martin labels this verse as a “contribution to the paradox of 26:4,5. 'goes to court' means a legal case , and the proverb suggests it is a waste of time prosecuting a fool, because 'there is no peace', either in the hearing or, more likely, no satisfactory end to the case.”

Alternatively, RSV translates the whole verse as “If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.” As an alternative to “quiet,” it also can mean “no satisfaction.” This translation thus partially agrees with Martin except for the proposed setting of the proverb.

Proverbs 31:15 – She Riseth Also

The general meaning of this proverb is clear: “The figure connotes that in keeping with her character she puts the well-being of the household before her own comfort.” (Waltke)

The only real problem with the KJV is the addition of “also,” which is not present in the Hebrew original. Its presence can cause an undue association with the more famous “the sun also rises” in Ecclesiastes 1:5.

PROVERBS: KING JAMES TRANSLATION -- PART 1

Although some people swear by the KJV, some of the wording has not stood up to the test of time since 1611 when it was first published, As a random test of this statement, I was reading a mystery story by Emma Latham called Ashes to Ashes, in which each chapter title came right out of the book of Proverbs, as written in the KJV. This was quite appropriate to the subject of the mystery, which involved the potential sale of a parochial school, since in a sense Proverbs served as a sort of primer for Jewish boys.

Here are the first half of those phrases from Proverbs with comments regarding the King James translation. The second half of chapter titles will be discussed in a subsequent post.

Proverbs 1:21 – The Chief Place of Concourse

Hulst discusses the translation “concourse” as coming from the root verb hama(h), meaning 'to make a noise.' “The word probably indicates the busiest places in town, and thus the translation can be 'where the busiest (streets) begin'...Others render 'above the bustle', but this is an unlikely translation in view of the first word bro's 'at the beginning', or 'at the head', or 'on the top'. In place of the Hebr homiyyot, the LXX [Greek Septuagint] read homot 'walls'. The RSV has accepted this change and rendered 'on the top of the walls'.”

Thus, we have a number of potential problems here caused by a rare word of unknown derivation in conjunction with the textual issue as to whether the Hebrew or Greek text is the most reliable. In addition, the modern definition of “concourse” is a large space in front of or inside a building, such as an airport concourse.

Proverbs 5:14 – In the Midst of the Congregation

This is where the author has been disgraced in some way. If any of us were asked where this might be located, I am sure the answer would be, “At a church service.” However, Walls sets us straight by explaining that “the phrase...is viewed as a corporate designation for Israel as the people of God, and the fact that the sin was committed in the midst of such a people would constitute an aggravation of it (cf. Heb. 12:15).”

Proverbs 8:14 – Counsel is Mine

Since the verse goes on to add “sound wisdom” and “insight” to God's attributes, this phrase stands as a good translation unlikely to be as misunderstood as the use of “counselor” in Proverbs 11:14, discussed below.

Proverbs 8:33 – Hear Instruction, and Be Wise

The whole verse concludes with “and do not neglect it” according to NRSV. This seems like such a simple verse that one wonders how there could possibly be any problems with its translation. However, it turns out that the original Hebrew is not that easy to decipher. Waltke notes that several letters in the original may have dropped out accidentally and need to be restored; Scott translates it as “Give heed to instruction and reject not wisdom,” leaving out “be wise” altogether; and the Jerusalem Bible somehow feels the need to rearrange the order of the poetic lines so that v. 33 is sandwiched between the first and second lines of v. 34 in order to make sense out of the whole. Fortunately, the general idea of the verse is conveyed in all of these variations.

Proverbs 10:26 – Vinegar to the Teeth

This is an example of emblematic parallelism in which a figurative expression such as above is compared to a literal situation, in this case to show what the author feels about a lazy employee, in other words “an irritant.” However, some people may not see what is wrong with vinegar at all – what about vinegar and oil dressing? The answer lies in the lack of dental care during those days. Thus, it probably refers to the great pain caused when an acidic substance such as vinegar hits a broken or diseased tooth. This is explained in the Syriac version of Proverbs.

Proverbs 11:14; 24:6 (cf. 15:22) – A Multitude of Counselors

The only possibly confusing thing regarding this translation is that “counselor” immediately conjures up images of a school counselor, a marriage counselor, or a lawyer. And it is actually in that last sense that my mystery story uses it. However, in each of the three verses cited above, this phrase occurs in one line of a two-line proverb and can be seen to be parallel to those who give guidance in general. Thus, most readers would probably not be misled by this translation.

Waltke explains: “Counselors (yoles) is a technical term from a root that means “to determine,' plan,' or 'advise.' Any competent person, male or female...could act as a counselor in a specific case (cf. 12:20). In a multitude (berob) denotes the many whose arguments and counterarguments guarantee that their agreed-upon plan will not miscarry but succeed in spite of danger...The proverb counters the danger of caucus-dominated political practices.” Thus, he notes, “Significantly, Proverbs always represents counselors as in a group (11:14; 15:22; 24:6).”

Proverbs 11:25 – The Liberal Soul

In view of the current preoccupation with political differences, it is no doubt best to entirely avoid the use of the word “liberal” here. In addition to that problem, Whybray employs the more appropriate and usual translation of “generous man” and points out that the phrase in Hebrew literally denotes the 'person of blessing.' “This phrase could equally mean 'a person who has received divine favor'.”

Proverbs 14:2; 28:6 – Perverse in His Ways

This property of those who despise the LORD has alternatively been rendered as “devious in conduct” (NRSV, NIV), “a degenerate life” (The Message); “sin” (Living Bible), “paths are crooked” (JB), and “immoral man” (AB). Probably the best translations are those which do not appear to point to sexual perversions only.

And the safest approach is to note that both the verses in Proverbs in which this word appears are in the form of antithetic parallelism. In other words, “perverse in his ways” is the opposite of “walking uprightly” and “walking in integrity.”

Proverbs 15:1 – Grievous Words

Walls translates it in the singular as “a harsh word” and explains that the adjective in the Hebrew suggests one that hurts others. By contrast, the word “grievous” in today's parlance tends to indicate sadness instead because of the verb “grieve.”

Proverb 15:17 – A Stalled Ox

The King James Version of this whole verse reads, “Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.” This is probably an incomprehensible statement to most people, conjuring up the vision of an ox who has wandered out on the road and stops there, snarling up traffic until someone kills him and drags him home to eat.

Scott notes that although a great number of Old Testament proverbs have entered into the popular parlance, others such as this one, “might have done so had the terms in which they are put been less strange to our ears.” Thus, the pretty much incomprehensible KJV starts to make sense only when we realize that a “stalled”ox is one which was purposely left in his stall to fatten up for food, rather than one slaughtered after spending its life working in the field. It is a “fattened ox” which was fit for a royal banquet.

“The NIV renders the only other occurrence of the verb 'abus [fattened'], which is used in connection with the fowl on Solomon's table, by 'choice' (1 K. 4:23).” (Waltke)

Conclusion

Note that most, but not all, of the above translation difficulties stem simply from the way the English language has changed over the more than 400 years since the KJV was published.