PARABLE OF THE RICH FOOL (LUKE 12:13-23)

Years ago a friend of mine at work explained his lack of interest in God with his theory of life. He said that a man goes through three stages of life: in his 20's he is preoccupied with sex, in his 30's and 40's his major interest is sports, and he turns to religion when he reaches about 50. Assuming that is true, what happens to him if he dies before he reaches 50? The necessity of being prepared spiritually at all times is therefore stressed in several "Watchfulness" parables of Jesus. The first to consider is that of the rich fool.

Context

 Most of Luke 12 deals with issues of fear, anxiety, money and security and is held together by repetition of the same or similar words: fear (4,5,7,32), worry (11,22,25,26), divide / division (13-14; 51-53); soul (19,20,22,23); possessions (15,33,44); five (6,52); thief (33,39); and barns (18,24).

Verse-by-verse

Hardly anyone treats this straightforward parable as an allegory so it is best to just go through it verse by verse.

verse13: Someone in the crowd interrupts Jesus' spiritual teachings with a purely worldly matter so Jesus takes it as an opportunity to address the root problem of greed.

verse 14: “Man” (not "friend" as in NRSV) in this context is a severe form of address” (Plummer)

Craddock perceptively asks, “Who can judge whose greed is right?”

verse 15b: Jesus will explain what he means at the conclusion of the parable.

verse 16: Similar stories are found in the Apocrypha with significant differences: In Sirach 11:18-19 the wealth is obtained by hard work, and in I Enoch 97:8-10 the man becomes rich through cheating others. This parable differs from both those situations. The farmer is not evil in the sense of cheating or stealing, but that doesn't keep him from being a fool. In contrast to the account in Sirach, notice that the field prospered as a hint that God, not the man, was responsible. (Snodgrass) And in contrast to the second story, “His life was not characterized by sins of commission, but by sins of omission.” (Kistemaker)

verse 17: Saint Ambrose: “The rich man has storage plenty in the mouths of the needy.” Ambrose himself was a wealthy man who was drafted by the crowd to be a bishop. At that point, he gave all his wealth to the church and to the poor. (Snodgrass)

verse 18 “Other goods” expands the application to those besides farmers. (Fitzmyer)

verses 18-19: He felt that building bigger barns was all he needed to make himself perfectly content, but experience shows that there are never enough goods to accomplish that. One will always be wanting more. Look at the repeated words “I” and “my.”

verse 19: There are a lot of parallels with the book of Ecclesiastes here. This same trilogy “eat, drink and be merry” or a variation appears in four times in Ecclesiastes (as well as in Judges 19:4-9; Isaiah 22:13; and I Corinthians 15:32). In Ecclesiastes 1:16 and 2:1-3, a person has a conversation with his heart or soul. And in Ecclesiastes 5:10 it states: “The lover of money will not be satisfied with money; nor the lover of wealth with gain.”

verse 20: Snodgrass points out that this is the only parable in which God is an active participant.

It literally reads, “This night they require your soul from you.” “They” probably is an indirect way of referring to God (see 6:38 which reads, “ give and it will be given you...they will put a good measure into your lap” ) although others think it refers to angels of death, robbers, mistreated neighbors or the possessions themselves. That last explanation may seem strange but consider James 5:1-3 where the rust on a rich man's possessions acts as evidence against him after his death. There are two variant forms of the verb “require” in the manuscripts. One of these Greek words has the added connotation of giving back something that was on loan (from God). (Metzger)

verse 21: “Being rich in God means to live productively, reflecting the character of God in all our relations.” (Snodgrass) Being “rich in God” means using wealth on behalf of others.

verse 23 forms an appropriate framework for this story along with 15b. It provides an explanation of Jesus statement there. 

It always helps in interpreting a parable when the same point is taught elsewhere in Scripture. In this case:

    Jeremiah 17:11 on the treasures of the rich deserting one at death and the person proving to be a fool.

    The parable is a narrative form of Luke 9:25. (Fitzmyer)

    Matthew 6:19-20 on not storing up treasures on earth.

    “We brought nothing into this world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that, etc.” I Timothy 6:6-10

    James 4:13-14 teaches exactly the same point.

 The major issue is on the proper focus for our lives, specifically in regard to possessions. The financial advisor I have been using for years is a Christian and so are all the members of his firm. Their motto of “Finish well” refers to leaving a spiritual as well as a financial legacy when you die.

 

I AND II THESSALONIANS: INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERARY STRUCTURE

The unedited version of the analysis below will be sent upon request to anyone writing to elmerphd21@hotmail.com.

 Malherbe praises the first epistle for its lively style but notes that Paul’s passion in writing the letter did not result in any weakening of its overall structure, as evidenced by his extensive use of inclusions.  Regarding the organization of this same letter, Goulder says, “The clarity of this brief writing enables us to see its literary structure without difficulty.” That may be the case, but it has not resulted in much consensus among commentators regarding the exact nature of that structure.

For those who do see a literary pattern for these letters, important clues are provided by the presence of prayers/prayer reports and the use of the vocative “brothers” as key structural markers. Due to these indicators, there is fairly good agreement as to the limits of the individual literary units that comprise each letter. There is somewhat less agreement when attempts are made to group the various pericopes into larger sections. However, with the realization that similar prayers or thanksgivings are used in each letter to bracket the intervening material, the overall structures of the two epistles become clear (see figs. 1 and 2).

Figure 1: The Structure of I Thessalonians

I. Address (1:1) Lord Jesus Christ...Grace

II. Thanksgiving (1:2-10) Faith, Love and Steadfastness

Excursus 1: Past Events (2:1-12)

III. Thessalonians’ Past Behavior (2:13-3:6)

A. Apostles’ first visit (2:13-16)

B. Timothy’s visit (2:17-3:6)

II'. Thanksgiving (3:7-10) Faith, Love and Steadfastness

_____

II'' Prayer (3:11-13) May God himself...at the coming of our Lord Jesus

III'. Thessalonians’ Future Behavior (4:1-12; 5:12-22)

A. Old Exhortations (4:1-12)

We ask and urge you, For this is the will of God, Abstain from immorality, Love one another

Excursus 2: Future Events (4:13-5:11)

B. New Exhortations (5:12-22)

We ask and urge you, For this is the will of God, Abstain from evil, Do good to one another

II'''. Prayer (5:23-24) “May God himself...at the coming of our Lord Jesus”

I'. Final Words (5:25-28) Grace... Lord Jesus Christ

Figure 2: The Structure of II Thessalonians

I. Address (1:1-2) Grace and Peace

II. Thanksgiving (1:3-10) “We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren.”

3. Satan in Action (1:11-2:12)

II'. Thanksgiving (2:13-15) “We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren.”

_____

II''. Prayer (2:16-17) “Now may our Lord...”

III'. Christians at Rest (3:1-15)

            II''' Prayer (3:16) “Now may our Lord...”

I'. Final Words (3:17-18) Peace and Grace

The use of prayers/thanksgivings as markers is more than an artificially added structural feature. In each case these elements capsulize major theological points present in the intervening material. Thus, commentators have noted that the material located in between the two thanksgivings at I Thessalonians 1:2ff and 3:9 is also properly part of the Thanksgiving section. Hendricksen expresses a variation on this view by labeling the first thanksgiving section as a “Thanksgiving with an Undertone of Defence” while the subsequent writings prior to the second thanksgiving are labeled “Defence with Continuing Thanksgiving.” 

Similarly, sanctification is the theme of the two prayers in I Thessalonians labeled II'' and II'''. Elias demonstrates the role of sections II'' and II''' in both recapitulating the previous literary unit and preparing for the subsequent one. Prayer is also a major emphasis of the unit, labeled III'B, that is enclosed within the two prayer sections in I Thessalonians.

The organizational symmetries built into these two letters can be seen in figs. 1 and 2 by comparing the subject matter and key phrases of parallel sections. Some additional confirmation of these proposed structures is summarized below, starting with the simpler structure of the second epistle.

A glance at Fig. 1 immediately reveals that the structure of I Thessalonians is not nearly as neat as that of the second epistle. However, if one ignores for the moment the sections shown in italics, the remaining elements of the letter are seen to be organized exactly as in II Thessalonians. Each of the italicized passages is labeled as an excursus for convenience sake to distinguish them from sections that have structural parallels in II Thessalonians. However, the designation is a misnomer since these passages are actually quite germane to the purpose of the letter and are firmly attached to their immediate settings in I Thessalonians.

Authorship of the Letters

While Paul is almost universally held to be the author (or at least co-author) of I Thessalonians, many scholars in the past have held that II Thessalonians was a later product of a pseudonymous writer who attempted to imitate the language and style of the genuine letter. Evidence usually evinced for this viewpoint includes supposed differences in eschatology, the lack of reference to a previous letter, the use of OT apocalyptic literature, the more formal character of II Thessalonians and its slavish imitation of the language and format of I Thessalonians. This opinion is not as popularly held today, as evidenced by several recent commentaries which express the strong opinion that the same writer is behind both letters.

A comparison of the structures of the two letters (see Fig. 3) demonstrates that the intertextual relationships are certainly more than superficial. Malherbe has performed a similar identification of parallels in the two epistles and notes that the similarities are especially strong between the same structural elements, although he emphasizes in his treatment the different order in the presentation of the specific content items in each letter. 

Both observations are reflected in a complete mapping of the two letters side-by-side (not shown here because of their complexities). That  reveals tht the many strictly parallel elements are supplemented by a crisscross relationship between the two extra elements in I Thessalonians (given in italics in Figure 1) and the two major content sections of II Thessalonians. Such a purposeful ordering of the contents of these two epistles is too obvious to deny and, at the same time, subtle enough in detail to argue against a superficial copier attempting a pious fraud. Goulder sees other non-obvious features in the structures and the common use of previewing passages that drive him to the same conclusion – both epistles were written by the same person.

If, therefore, the same hand is behind the composition of both letters, whose hand is it? An attractive possibility, suggested often in the literature, is that one or more of Paul's co-authors given in the opening verses was responsible for the unusual overall format of the letter. The mere inclusion of co-workers in the introductory greetings of the epistles is no real evidence for multiple authorship since that practice “remains a traditional convention,” to use Childs’ words. However, the pervasive use of the first person plural throughout these two letters differs from the usage in all other Pauline epistles. Strong confirmation of Silvanus as a major contributor to the writing of both letters comes from structural analysis. A study of figs. 1 and 2 reveals that each is divided into two definite parts using standard epistolary elements (thanksgivings and prayers) to create the divisions. This feature is found in no other Pauline letter. However, as will be seen in a subsequent chapter (see I Peter: Introduction to the Literary Structure), it is also present in I Peter. That letter is, tellingly, written “by Silvanus, a faithful brother” (I Peter 5:12).

The Order of the Letters

The relative size of the books in the Bible is often the determining factor in the order in which they are given in the canon. Therefore it is logical that I Thessalonians appears before II Thessalonians. In recent years, however, it has been questioned whether that is indeed the order in which they were written. A growing voice is being heard defending the chronological priority of II Thessalonians, although a consensus is a long way from being reached. Structural analysis appears to supply several more pieces of evidence that II Thessalonians. was in reality the first of the two existing canonical letters written to that Christian community.

A. First is the observation that the church is addressed in II Thessalonians as “brothers” exactly seven times, and that most of these occurrences serve to introduce a new section of the letter. In I Thessalonians, the vocative “brothers” again often signals a new literary section, but this time appears fourteen times, a number only symbolically significant by way of extension (i.e., 2 x 7) to the usage in II Thessalonians.

B. A more important argument comes from a comparison of the structures of the two epistles. Taking the common assumption that one of the two letters was firmly in mind when the author wrote the second one, either (a) the structure of I Thessalonians was derived by inserting elements (shown in brackets) into the totally symmetrical format of II Thessalonians or (b) the asymmetrical structure of I Thessalonians was tidied up by deletions to produce that of II Thessalonians. The first possibility appears to be more logically defensible.

 

CREMATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

A question came up in our home Bible study regarding the practice of cremation and whether it was appropriate for believers. The New Testament really has nothing to say on this matter, but there are a few pertinent passages in the Old Testament that may guide us.

The normal burial practice for Jews in biblical times was to first bury the body in the ground or in a crypt. The bones were then dug up a year or more later and placed in a pottery or stone container called an ossuary. The greatest sacrilege was to leave a dead body unburied.

Joshua 7:25: Achan disobeys God. They stone him and his family and burn the bodies. But the Anchor Bible and New Bible Commentary note that the “them” which were burned probably refers to their belongings instead of their bodies. Read verses 22-26. Also, the Greek Septuagint and Latin translations of these verses do not mention burning anyone.

I Samuel 31:12: Saul's dead body is desecrated by the Philistines. Valiant Israelite soldiers rescue his body and burn it before burial. It is felt that their actions were probably done to avoid any further desecration. The Philistines were still seeking vengeance on Saul's family many years later (II Samuel).

II Kings 23:16, 20: Josiah desecrates pagan altars by burning human bones on them. However, the reason for his actions was to defile the sanctuary, not to defile the corpses. It does say in verse 18 that Josiah forbade the burning of a prophet's bones that were buried nearby, but that is not the same as forbidding cremation. Note that although v. 20 says that he killed the pagan priests, it does not say that he burned their corpses to dishonor them.

Amos 2:1 condemns the practice of digging up buried bones and burning them.

Amos 6:9 probably alludes to the practice of burning the dead bodies of relatives in the time of plague to prevent the spread of disease.

If the first reference is discounted as dubious, then the remaining verses condemn burning bones that have already been buried, but have no objection to the practice of burning of bodies before burial (in other words, cremation).

The opposition of modern Jews to the practice of cremation is explained (in the website “Ask A Rabbi”) as being due to two reasons:

       1. They want to show honor for the body that housed the spirit and the breath of God.

       2.Too many Jews were burned to death over the centuries. Therefore it is inappropriate to willingly add to the cremation of their people.

And among some people there will always remain the illogical belief that God is somehow unable to resurrect a body that has been burned to ashes, but can resurrect one that has no flesh remaining on it. 

The bottom line is that there are no biblical injunctions against cremation that I am aware of. So it remains a matter of individual preference for a Christian.

 

YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION (YLT)

A fellow Christian I have corresponded with has a great aversion to Bible commentaries. The reason is that he feels they just represent man's ideas and are strongly colored by the author's preconceived doctrinal stances. He might be surprised to learn that good scholarly commentaries are quite open-minded in their approach and often take views contrary to the denominational communities they come from. These authors are sincerely driven by pursuit of the truth, wherever it may lead them. Some of my favorite Gospel commentaries were actually written by Catholic scholars who happen to question the doctrine of Mary's eternal virginity.

My friend desired to try to get as close as possible to the original text so that he could make up his own mind, free from the prejudices of others. I applauded this goal, but questioned his method of going about it, which was to rely on a “literal translation,” namely Young's Literal Translation. YLT was certainly not the translation I would have suggested since I have several major objections to its use in any but an ancillary way. My reasons are given below.

1. YLT was published by the biblical scholar Robert Young in 1898 and influenced by the KJV. The English language has changed a lot since that time. So unless one is thoroughly steeped in archaic King James English, a number of the words Young uses will be open to misunderstanding. Just one example from a passage in Acts:  YLT has the people “magnifying” the believers in 5:13. A modern dictionary lists several definitions for magnify including intensify, exaggerate, increase in significance, enlarge, laud, and esteem. A good translation will zero in on the appropriate modern translation of the original Greek word rather than leaving the ambiguous or outdated King James language for the reader to wrestle with.

2. Our knowledge of ancient Greek and Hebrew languages has grown by leaps and bounds since 1898, especially since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and a myriad of commonplace letters, bills, etc. in Greek which differ in usage from Classical Greek documents. Thus, what Young felt was the most literal translation in his time may often differ from our current understanding. If one truly wants to know what each key Greek word meant at the time, a multi-volume word study like the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is invaluable since it will trace a word from its earliest appearance in Classical Greek to common (koine) Greek to translation from the Hebrew in the Septuagint to all major occurrences in the New Testament, with a thorough study of all the word's nuances. Similar resources are available for biblical Hebrew.

In lieu of that somewhat expensive option, the best alternative is to purchase an analytical concordance or consult one on-line. My favorite is actually Young's Concordance, by the same man who came up with YLT! You will not only have a short definition of each Greek or Hebrew word, but will also see at a glance what synonyms the Biblical writers might have used, but chose not to. Most importantly, you can do your own word study by identifying every instance in the Bible where that particular word appears. Develop your own definition by considering and comparing the word's use in each of these contexts.

3. Another objection I have to YLT is that the word “literal” misleads the reader into thinking it is the only translation free from human error. Actually, it is in the worst category of all translations – one developed by a single person, rather than a team. Other than the modern paraphrases of the Bible, all reputable translations are joint efforts conducted by carefully chosen teams of experts in Hebrew, Greek, ancient history and theology. And these teams almost always go out of their way to have representatives from most Protestant denominations and a fairly wide spectrum of stances from conservative to more liberal. This is about the only way that bias in translation can be kept to a minimum. With a single author, even one who tries to be strictly literal, it is much more likely that human factors will enter into the final product.

If you carefully compare the original Greek with Young's translation, you can see that he constantly had to make value decisions involving not only the proper English word to use, but also the proper word order of each sentence, its punctuation, whether to capitalize a word or not, and whether to include articles like “the” or “a.” Every translation, even YLT, is in effect a commentary, whether we like it or not. My friend cited the fact that Young did not use the word "Satan" in his translation, and therefore that invalidated the concept of a literal devil. But Young did chose to include the definite article “the” and to capitalize his preferred word "Adversary," thus indicating that the Bible was talking about a specific entity or official office, not a mere internal impulse.

4. Now to my major objection! Translation from Greek or Hebrew is actually the second step in a process, not the first. To translate, one must first have a reliable document in the original language to work from. If you don't, then all your effort is tainted from the start. When Young was preparing YLT, the standard OT text was the Masoretic Text and the standard NT text was called the Majority Text. Since Young's time, the Dead Sea Scrolls have given us original Hebrew manuscripts for OT books dating some 500 years closer to the original time of writing than the documents Young relied on. Scholars have also recognized that sometimes the Septuagint translations of the OT dating to about the time of Christ also reflect readings which appear to be closer to the original than the Masoretic Text.

The NT situation is even more changed than when YLT was written. The conventional wisdom at the time was to look at all the NT manuscripts and go with the reading that was present in the majority of those manuscripts. We now recognize that sheer numbers are not what counts; we need to look at the age of those manuscripts instead. So all modern translations generally go with the Greek readings that are present in the oldest manuscripts and give preference to them. YLT is based strictly on the  Majority Text of the NT and for that reason alone I would consider it practically useless. Most good modern study Bibles will even have extensive textual footnotes listing which manuscript sources they used for those cases where there is a question. Again, that helps the reader to make up his own mind regarding how sure we are of the original upon which the translation was made.

The epitome of this textual issue can be seen in reading Young's translation for the end of Mark's Gospel. If all you had was YLT to go on, you wouldn't have the slightest clue that the verses after 16:8 are highly dubious. Even in minor cases, the presence of explanatory footnotes (not included in YLT) can be valuable. For example, going back to Acts 5, my NRSV Study Bible footnotes the first half of verse 6 with the comment “Meaning of Gk uncertain.” That is helpful in cases where one might be tempted to otherwise read too much into a verse that is in fact difficult to understand in the original.

The bottom line is that however badly one might want to directly know the precise meaning of every verse in the Bible without any translation errors, one must always be somewhat reliant on fallible human experts for help.

 

JOHN 10: ALLEGORY OF THE SHEEP AND THE SHEPHERD

 It is interesting that by the time of Christ, shepherds had a generally low reputation among the people, but with the coming of Christ, the image is again redeemed starting with Jesus' birth being first announced to the shepherds in the fields, of all people. And then Jesus specifically identifies himself as the Good Shepherd, as recorded in John 10. But in this case, the figurative language has become even more elaborate, and we have progressed from simile to metaphor to parable to allegory. And since this example is not really a parable, it is the only one in John's Gospel that will be discussed in this series.

Regarding parables in the NT, there are four things that set John's Gospel apart from the Synoptic Gospels.

1. The word parabole does not appear in John's Gospel, but paroimia is found in 10:6; 16:25,29. This latter word means a figure of speech, an adage, a dark saying, something enigmatic that needs explaining. Kostenberg calls them “symbolic discourses, an image field in which a given metaphor...provides the background for extended reflection.” Ellis calls it “a veiled utterance as distinct from forthright speech.”

2. Whereas the Synoptics contain a number of Jesus' parables, John's Gospel only contains three parables, which are really allegories that take up large portions of chapters 6, 10, and 15.

3. When Jesus addresses his audiences in the Synoptic accounts, he speaks in short “sound bites” that are so concise as to be almost incomprehensible at times or in short parables. By contrast, the parables in John's Gospel are long and contain detailed explanations so that almost all commentators consider them to be true allegories rather than parables at all. Raymond Brown feels that verses 1-5 consist of various parables while the following verses are allegorical explanations. Donald Guthrie says that it is an allegory, “but the allegory must not be pressed in its details even here.” Two examples of this are (1) the gatekeeper is never identified and (2) Jesus takes on two identites: shepherd and gate. Leon Morris summarizes the situation by saying that chapter 10 does not fit into any one neat category.

4. Lastly, and most disturbingly, there are definite stylistic differences in the way Jesus speaks, compared to his words in the Synoptics. It is a sort of “elevated prose” that is similar to the Hebrew poetry found in the Psalms and the writing prophets. As a short non-parabolic example, look at John 1:3-5:

John 1:3: All things were made                     through Him

                and without Him                          was not anything made that was made.

This verse is constructed using a combination of antithetic parallelism (the second line expressing the same idea as the first line but using a negative construction) and introverted parallelism (the second line expressing the same idea as the first line but reversing the order of the subject and verb).

John 1:4-5: In him was life

                        and the life was the light of men

                                                  the light shines in the darkness

                                                                         and the darkness has not overcome it.

This sort of poetic construction is called stair-step parallelism, for obvious reasons.

It would be easy to feel that this sort of elevated prose is an invention of John and doesn't reflect Jesus' way of talking, if it weren't for one fact. In Matthew 11:27 (and the parallel in Luke 10:22) we have what has been called an unexpected “bolt out of the Johannine blue.” Jesus' words there read as follows:

All things have been handed over to me       by my Father;

                    And no one knows the Son except the Father,

                And no one knows the Father except the Son

                                           and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

This passage has striking stylistic parallels to John 1:3-5 with its combination of introverted and stair-step parallelism and provides clear evidence that Jesus did indeed use this style of speech on occasion.

It has been proposed that the difference in speaking style is due to the fact that the Synoptic Gospels concentrate on Jesus' public ministry while John deals mainly with Jesus' teaching to his closest followers. And he used a different mode of teaching for each group.

Immediate Context

1. Jesus’ work: healing the blind (9:1-34)

        2. The Shepherd and the sheep (10:1-18)

1'. Jesus’ work as a witness: Feast of the Dedication (10:22-25)

        2'. The Shepherd and the sheep (10:26-30)

1". Jesus work as a witness (10:32-38)

John organizes the first part of his Gospel around the different Jewish feasts. Here the identification of the appropriate feast is made the center of the section. The similar passages (9:3-4 and 10:37-38) concerning the works of the Father that bracket chapters 9-10 confirm that both these chapters belong together. Also, the messianic overtones of Chapter 10 have been noted as appropriate to the setting of the Feast of Dedication, but this theme is also present in 9:22, providing additional evidence tying together John 9:1-10:42. It may be more than coincidental that there are exactly seven appearances of the designation “the Jews” in this section.

The Feast of Hanukkah commemorated the cleansing and re-dedication of the temple in Hellenistic times and the miraculous supply of consecrated oil that kept the lamp burning for eight days until more could be found. It is celebrated by lighting another candle for each of eight days to gradually increase the illumination. This theme is demonstrated spiritually in John 9 by the blind man's gradual realization of Jesus' identity. And in v. 5, Jesus specifically says, as an echo of 2:19-21, “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

Other possible parallels between John 9-10 and Hanukkah have been detected. John 10:8 refers to the false shepherds who are thieves and bandits. This may hark back to the false priests Jason and Menelaus who cooperated with the Syrians, leading to the desecration of the temple in the first place. Also, John 10:36 mentions the sanctification of Jesus by the Father, just as the earthly temple was reconsecrated.

As best as can be determined from later practice, the Scripture reading in the synagogues for that year during Hanukkah was Ezekiel 34 condemning the false shepherds of Israel at that time. By contrast, sections 2 and 2' describe Jesus as the Good Shepherd.

Getting down to the more immediate context of Jesus' words in chapter 10, there are a number of indications that it is intimately connected with the events in the preceding chapter regarding the healing of the blind man:

1. Verse 1 begins with the solemn “amen, amen” or “verily, verily.” This phrase is never used in John's Gospel to start a new subject, but always refers back to what precedes it.

2. There is a double inclusio (bookends) formed by division among the Jews in 9:16 and 10:19 and by opening the eyes of the blind in chapter 9 and 10:21. (Kostenberg)

3. Hostile enemies form the emphasis in both. (Borchart)

Verses 1-5

In the case of John 10, Jesus starts out telling a fairly simple parable contrasting the shepherd with a stranger and the contrasting responses they bring out in the sheep. It is written in elevated prose and doesn't follow a strictly logical order of presentation. D. J. Ellis adds that “the alternation between symbolism and reality has to be followed carefully by the reader.” I think it is easiest to understand if it is first diagrammed:

    Only thieves and bandits enter the sheepfold by another means (v. 1)

            The shepherd enters by the gate (vv. 2-3a)

            The sheep follow the shepherd (vv. 3b-4)

    The sheep will not follow strangers (v. 5)

Verses 6-10

As we often see in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus' audience doesn't understand the meaning of this parable (v. 6) and so Jesus needs to elaborate with a series of addresses, beginning with vv. 7-10. But notice that he uses a different metaphor for himself this time:

I am the gate (v. 7)

        Those who preceded me are thieves and the sheep ignored them (v. 8)

I am the gate (v. 9a)

Whoever enters by me will be saved (v. 9b)

        The thieves came to kill (v. 10a)

I came that they might have life (v. 10b)

Those who demand logical precision out of a parable are disturbed that Jesus first describes himself as a shepherd who goes through a gate and then he becomes the gate itself. An elaborate, but improbable, scenario has been proposed to get around this perceived problem by proposing two different sheepfolds. The one in verses 1-5 is a large permanent structure holding several different flocks while the one in verses 7-10 is constructed in pastureland where the sheep can come and go as they wish, with the shepherd lying down in the opening as the “gate.” At least one example of a shepherd acting as a “gate” in relatively recent times has been cited. (E. A. Blum, Bible Knowledge Commentary)

But Leon Morris has pointed out that in John's Gospel, Jesus says he is the bread of life and that he gives the bread of life; he speaks the truth and he is the truth; and he shows men the way and he is the way. And Borchart adds that “The power of symbols lies in part in their flexibility and possibility for refocusing attention.” He notes that, for example, the gate-keeper might even be equated with the gate itself.

verse 7: “to turn again” Manuscript evidence is very confused here. Compare different translations, such as “This is the gate of the LORD through which the righteous may enter.”

verse 8: The present tense “all before me are thieves and robbers” shows that it refers to current Jewish leaders, not past ones. (Morris)   Some manuscripts lack the phrase “before me.” Assuming that it is original, it may indicate a temporal reference and refer to the earlier false prophets, selfish kings, and false messiahs. (Blum) However, the phrase may also indicate a higher position, in which case it could refer to the Pharisees. This is probably the preferred interpretation considering the context. (Guthrie)

Verses 11-15

Jesus continues using this same type of reinforcing repetition, returning to the Good Shepherd metaphor.:

I am the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (v. 11)

        The hired hand runs away when trouble comes (vv. 12-13)

I am the good shepherd...and I lay down my life for the sheep (vv. 14,15b)

verse 11: In contrast to Ezekiel's parable, the shepherd here is not only prepared to die, but has planned to die. See Zechariah 12:10 and 13:7-9 for a shepherd laying down his life. In contrast to the abundant life of his followers, Jesus will be sacrificing his on their behalf. (Guthrie)

In OT teachings, it is usually God the Father who is the Good Shepherd. This hint of the oneness of God and the Son will become clear in a few more verses.

verse 14: This emphasizes personal knowledge between Father and Son and between sheep and shepherd. There is no shepherding without a personal relationship.

Verses 15-18

Next, Jesus begins with a statement in v. 15 regarding the Father and develops it further with a new thought:

    The Father knows me and I know the Father (v. 15a)

            There are other sheep that will join the flock (v. 16)

    The Father loves me (17a)

                because I lay down my life (17b)

                    to take it up again (17c)

                            I lay it down of my own accord (18a)

                I have the power to lay it down (18b)

                    I have the power to take it up again (18c)

    I received this command from the Father (18d)

verse 16: Culpepper lists five interpretations of the other flock:

1. Jewish and Gentile believers: see John 11:51-52

2. present and future believers: see John 17:20

3. Johannine and Petrine Christians

4. gathering of the Jews of the dispersion: Ezekiel 34:11-13

5. gathering of Jewish Christians scattered when they become excluded from the synagogues: see John 9:22

Twelftree adds a sixth possibility: the uniting of all Christians divided by denominational or theological differences (see John 17:20-21)

Culpepper feels that the fifth explanation fits the immediate context the best, but the overwhelming majority of commentators go with the first interpretation. Believing Gentiles as well as Jewish ones will form one unified flock not two separate ones. This was anticipated in the OT. As an aside, Mormons, in their characteristic way of latching on to vague references to make them fit their own theology, say that this refers to the North American Indians.

verse 17: “For this reason” may either refer to the fact that Jesus is the Good Shepherd or because he lays down his life. In either case, it might be easily misconstrued to say that God only loves the Son because of what he does. Borchart says it is “not a causal relationship but rather the reverse.” So he translates the verse as “Because the Father loves me, that is the reason I lay down my life.” Check other translations.

Jonker notes that although this allegory is based on Ezekiel 34, there is definitely a new idea being expressed here. In Ezekiel the shepherd defends his sheep against wild beasts whereas here the shepherd dies for them. In addition, this is a subtle indicator that not only is Jesus the shepherd and the gate; he is also the sacrificial lamb.

verses 17-18: Although it is more usual to speak of God raising Jesus from the grave, there are a number of NT references cited by Morris to Jesus rising himself. There is really no need to separate the actions of the Father and the Son. “Power” could be translated as “authority” received from the Father (Morris) or “supreme freedom” (Ellis). Look at other translations.

Verses 26-30

After the Jews begin disputing about Jesus' words, he completes his comments about sheep and shepherds with echoes of his previous statements, leading to a bold pronouncement that takes us back to v. 15a:

You do not believe because you do not belong to my sheep (v. 26) (see vv. 4,8,16)

My sheep hear my voice and they follow me (v. 27) (see vv. 4,16)

I give them eternal life (v. 28a) (see vv. 9-10)

They will never perish (v. 28b)

No one will snatch them out of my hand (v. 28c)

        What my Father has given me is greater than all else (v. 29a) (see v. 18d)

no one can snatch it out of the Father's hand (v. 29b)

The Father and I are one. (v. 30) (see v. 15a for the start of the inclusio)

verse 26: The fact that the Pharisees even had to ask the question in verse 24 demonstrates that they are not his sheep.

verse 27: Earlier it was the knowledge the sheep had of the shepherd that was stressed. Here it is the knowledge the shepherd has of the sheep. (Morris, Brown)

verse 28: Note the present tense “I give them eternal life.” It begins now. (Guthrie) “This is one of the clearest statements in the Bible that one who believes in Jesus for salvation will never be lost.” (Blum)

verses 28-29: However, Borchart stresses that eternal security doesn't negate the important role of appropriate and continuing response on our part, as many NT warnings attest.

verse 30: Almost all commentators note that the pronoun “one” is neuter rather than masculine, indicating that they are the same yet distinct. “Identity is not asserted, but essential unity is.” (Morris) Borchart calls it oneness of purpose and will.

 

SHEEP AND SHEPHERD PARABLES (EZEKIEL 34; ZECHARIAH 11)

Israel is often compared to a grape vine in the Old Testament, but another popular image was that of sheep with their shepherds. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery counts 400 references in the Bible to sheep and 100 to shepherds. We think first and foremost of Jesus as the Good Shepherd (Luke 15:3-7; Hebrews 13:20; I Peter 2:26, and Revelation 7:17), but the symbolism started back in the OT,. Perhaps the earliest example of sheep and shepherd being used this way is the simple simile used by Moses in Numbers 27:15-18 where he prays to God for someone to take his place in the future “so that the congregation of the LORD may not be like a sheep without a shepherd.” And God has him appoint Joshua to help him out. Then the image begins to change further in David's writings where he pictures God himself as the shepherd in the famous 23^rd Psalm which is a sort of expanded metaphor beginning “The LORD is my shepherd.” But when we get to the writing prophets we advance from similes to metaphors to extended prophecies and finally parables.

This process starts with Jeremiah, who pronounces God's denunciation of the wicked leaders of Israel in 23:1-4. This passage begins with “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture” and ends up with the prophecy “I will raise up shepherds over them who will shepherd them, and they shall not fear any longer...says the LORD.” In the next few verses, God actually promises the coming of a Branch for David (the Messiah) who will save the people. So we have one of the first identifications in the Bible of Jesus as the Good Shepherd.

Evil Shepherds (Ezekiel 34:1-16)

And an even stronger indictment of the evil shepherds is found in Jeremiah 25:32-38 in terms that 

could refer to their final judgment by God. Next we come to an actual parable by a later prophet, which 

is actually an expansion of Jeremiah 23:1-4. 

 

The accusations against them include both sins of commission: (ate the milk/cheese, fleeced the sheep,

and slaughtered them) and omission (didn't tend them or round up the strays). They didn't mind ruling 

over the flock, but couldn't be bothered to take care of them. Once a church I was attending was going 

through a difficult interim period between pastors and someone at a business meeting said that we were 

suffering from a power vacuum.  I corrected that comment by stating that actually we were suffering 

from a servant vacuum. There were plenty of candidates for those who wanted to take charge, but no 

one who wanted to truly serve the flock. The main sin of the false shepherds in this story, however, was 

in not recognizing God as the true owner of the flock (“my flock” in v. 6) and their boss (“my 

shepherds” in v. 8).

This extended parable has an elaborate literary structure in which the accusations against the false shepherds in vv. 1-6 are countered by God in the opposite order in vv. 11-16 (slight expansion of the structures in Greenberg and Block). The verses in between are arranged in such a way as to compare the shepherds with wild animals:

a. “Therefore you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD” (v. 7)

        b. Sheep were food for wild animals (v. 8a)

                c. Shepherds cared for themselves, not the sheep. (v. 8b)

a'. “Therefore you shepherd, hear the word of the LORD (v. 9)

                c'. Shepherds will no longer care for the sheep (v. 10a)

        b'. Sheep will not be food for the shepherds (v. 10b)

The reversal in this parable demonstrates that although the emphasis appears to be on the worthless 

shepherds, it is really on the appearance of God, the Good Shepherd. (Block) 

 

Verses 1-16 deal with the actual rulers of Judah, the previous kings. In the remainder of the chapter, the 

ruling class is next addressed and accused to taking the best pasturage and water and fouling the rest 

for the others. I attended one church where the elders made it a practice of disrupting Sunday school 

classes by arbitrarily taking over the best classrooms and making the previous class move to whatever 

room was left over. And then they would suddenly disband their new class without warning, leaving 

the members with no teachers. 

 

Lastly, the people as a whole are addressed. It is in this later portion of the passage that the promise is 

given of “one” shepherd to lead them. This may refer to an earthly king over the reunited tribes or, 

more likely, the Messiah.

 

Worthless Shepherds (Zechariah 11:4-17)

Commentators feel that an even later prophet, Zechariah, based this second parable on that of Ezekiel. 

Echoes of Ezekiel 34 are seen in this parable by David Ellis, who notes that some of the greatest 

leaders in the OT were shepherds by profession earlier in their careers (Abraham, Moses, David).

In 10:3, Zechariah introduces the metaphor of Israel's leaders as worthless shepherds. Then in 11:4-17 

he expands this into what has been variously called a sign-act (enacted parable), parable or allegory. 

Commentators are practically unanimous in labeling Chapter 11 as “one of the more elusive in the 

OT,” “among the most cryptic in the Bible,” and “an obscure symbolic description.” For example, back 

in 1912 one commentator counted 40 different interpretations of the three worthless shepherds 

mentioned in v. 8. (Meyers and Meyers) They may actually represent in general terms the kings, priests 

and prophets of Israel. (Higginson)

 

Rather than trying to treat this as an extended allegory with each detail matching an historical event. It 

is best to look at the general plot and imagery in the story. Thus, the prophet portrays himself as a 

shepherd who denounces the false leaders of the land, only to be rejected by the people themselves. He 

then quits his job and demands pay, which he returns to the temple treasury, meanwhile breaking two 

symbolically labeled wooden staffs. Finally, he dresses up as a future worthless shepherd who will 

suffer God's judgment for his misdeeds.

 

One comment on the two shepherd staffs is in order. They are labeled as Favor (or Pleasant) and Unity 

(or Allotment) and represent, respectively, God's covenant with all of Israel and the unity of the 

Northern and Southern Kingdoms (Brooke). Both of these will be destroyed. It is, in effect, a reversal 

of an earlier sign act of binding together two sticks in Ezekiel 37:15-20 (Block).

 

This parable may symbolize the rejection of previous prophets from God and their replacement by 

worthless leaders. This trend has its ultimate climax in the rejection of God's Son himself and the 

destruction of Jerusalem that followed as a consequence. An obvious application of this parable to the 

Christian church today is that we are to respect godly leadership and be on our guard against bad 

leaders.

 

Finally, details from this chapter were combined loosely with Jeremiah 19 in Matthew's Passion 

account (27:1-10) as presaging the actions of Judas, although not as a strict prophecy. Thus, it is 

important to note that the pay given to the prophet when he resigns his office is 30 pieces of silver.

 Zechariah sarcastically calls this “a lordly price.” In fact, it is the same price required to recompense a 

slave owner if someone's ox injures a slave (Exodus 21:32) and approximately the price Hosea paid to 

get back his adulterous wife (Hosea 3:2).

 

The other detail needing some explanation regards what the prophet did with the money he was given. 

The Hebrew text says he gave it to the yaser, generally translated as potter, but also used to denote a 

craftsman or metalworker (Boda). The Septuagint translates it with the Greek word meaning smelter or 

foundry. The Aramaic version translates it as “treasury.” A rough consensus combining these 

translations arrives at the idea that the temple employed a metalworker who received all offerings made 

out of precious metals. He would melt them down and fill them in earthen pots until a later time when 

the pots were broken and the metal remelted for fashioning into temple vessels.

 

PARABLE OF THE FIG TREE (LUKE 13:6-9)

Immediate Context

Most commentators agree that the preceding stories of people dying serve as an introductory explanation of the parable.  Fitzmyer says, “The guilt that comes from one's own procrastination or lack of decision is greater than that implied by a death at someone else's hands or unexpected calamity.” In addition, Snodgrass feels that the following story of the healed cripple indicates that salvation is still possible.

Was the destruction of Jerusalem or the Final Judgment in mind in this parable? Snodgrass feels it probably referred to the former in light of verses 34-35.

Physical Picture

Kistemaker: Since the fig treet was planted in a vineyard (common practice), the space could have been more profitably used to grow vines. Marshall adds that the fig tree takes away nourishment from nearby vines.

Several possible symbolic meanings to the three-year time frame have been proposed: (a) a reference to the three years of Jesus' ministry to Israel, (b) God's dealings with the nation before the law (or during the Law), under the Law (or by the prophets), and under grace (or by Gospel teaching), (c) Jesus' three visits to Jerusalem, or (d) as a connection to the “today and tomorrow and the next day” of verses 31-35. None of these symbolic explanations is without criticism. The most likely explanation is the simple fact that no matter how young the fig tree was, it certainly shouldn't have gone three years in a row without bearing any fruit.

Symbolism

Symbolism: plant = people of Israel, fruit = actions, owner = God. Less certain is that Jesus = the caretaker and the significance of the three years. Calling the caretaker Jesus can give the false impression that Jesus with his grace is pleading against the harsh judgment of God's wrath.

Audience

It is a general call for repentance directed to the nation and its individuals. But there are obvious applications to a Christian audience as well. “If the privilege of being God's people does not lead to productivity, it still leads to judgment. The Christian church stands under the indictment of this parable as much as Israel ever did.” (Snodgrass)  And Fitzmyer reminds that each of us is "faced with the prospect of a sudden end of life." Marshall concurs that there is an application to "every individual who remains unrepentant."

Main message:

The majority evangelical position is that both the fig tree and the vineyard usually stand for Israel. If it doesn't repent, the nation will be removed from its protected position as the chosen people of God (all but a remnant) and that position given to the Gentiles as taught in Luke 13:28f and 20:16. This message is even more clear if the fig tree itself stands for Israel, but that identification is not as sure based on the few proposed OT references (Jeremiah 8:13; 24:1-10; Hosea 9:10; Micah 7:1; and Joel 1:7). Since the fig tree is among the most common fruit-bearing trees in the region, it was an apt symbol to use, whether or not it refers to the nation. (Beale and Carson)

Dispensational commentators, as expected, generally deny that the parable is any condemnation of the nation of Israel at all. They base this partially on the strong verbal connection between this parable and Isaiah 5:1-7, which is addressed only to the leaders of Israel. But most other scholars feel that only a little wording (watchtower, wine press, fence) has been borrowed from Isaiah to show the care the owner took.

Relation to the withering of the fig tree

This is a controversial subject among scholars, and Fitzmyer, for example, sees no connection between the two accounts. Kistemaker reads significance in the fact that among Synoptics, only Luke has this parable and only he omits the cursing of the fig tree (in Mark 11 and Matthew 21). J. A. Motyer draws the same obvious conclusion that Luke's parable is the counterpart to the negative miracle found in these other Gospels. L. E. Porter agrees and notes that Luke's is a slightly milder version in which hope is held out if the people repent, unlike the miracle, which carries the air of inevitability of judgment. If the parallelism between a parable and a miracle bothers some people, keep in mind that Jesus' action in cursing the fig tree is not much different from the enacted OT parables of the prophets we studied earlier.

 

 

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS: MARRIAGE

1. Marriage approved: Genesis 1:28; 2:18; Matthew 19:5; Hebrews 13:4

Marriage disapproved: I Corinthians 7:1, 7-8

Nowhere in I Corinthians does Paul “disapprove of marriage.”

Actually, one could just as well take I Corinthians 7:2b (which the author of this contradiction conveniently ignores) a little out of context to prove the exact opposite: “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”

2. Adultery forbidden: Exodus 20:14; Hebrews 13:4

Adultery allowed: Numbers 31:18; Hosea 1:2; 2:1-3

Considering that adultery consists of a married person having sex with someone other than their husband or wife, quoting Numbers 31:18 to say that the Bible allowed adultery is utter nonsense. That passage says that the Israelite soldiers may take captured Midianite women as (slave-)wives if they are virgins.

The example of Hosea is a little more problematic. The New Oxford Annotated Bible introduces the book with the warning: “Not all aspects of Hosea's life are clear, and it remains debatable whether one can deduce actual biographical facts from the descriptions of chs. 1-3.” However, in the text God tells the prophet Hosea to marry a promiscuous woman and later to take her back after she had left as an enacted parable showing how God will forgive Israel for her idolatrous ways. Note that (a) this is a unique situation and not a general injunction; (b) Hosea's wife is never commended for her actions; (c) the “parable” only works if her adulterous ways are labeled as evil and against God's will, and (d) Hosea himself did not commit adultery by marrying her.

3. Marriage or cohabitation with sister denounced: Deuteronomy 27:22; Leviticus 20:17

Marriage with sister blessed by God: Genesis 17:16; 20:11-12

The Genesis passages refer to Abraham's marriage to Sarah. When King Abimelech took a liking to Sarah, Abraham, out of fear of the king, encourages him in his courtship by saying that Sarah is his sister. Abimelech subsequently is told the truth by God and confronts Abraham. Abraham says that he was not lying since Sarah was his half-sister by his father Terah.

The problem is that in the biblical accounts, we only have Abraham's word as proof that Sarah was indeed his half-sister. It is just as likely, according to many Bible scholars, that Abraham is lying again to justify his first lie. One strong piece of evidence to support that possibility is that when Terah's children are listed in Genesis 11:27-30, there is no mention of Sarah (called Sarai at that time) except as Terah's daughter-in-law.

4. A man may marry his brother's widow: Deuteronomy 25:5

A man may not marry his brother's widow: Leviticus 20:21

Leviticus 20 gives the blanket prohibition against a man having sexual relations with his sister-in-law, presumably whether she is still married, divorced or widowed. But, as often in the OT legal regulations, exceptions to the rule are given later on in the text. For example, see (a) Leviticus 14:1-20 on the cleansing ritual for lepers, followed by the less expensive ritual for those who are too poor to afford all the necessary animal sacrifices and (b) the prohibition against eating winged insects in Lev. 11:20 followed by exceptions in 11:21-23 for those that hop.

In this case involving marriage, Moses later in Deuteronomy describes the one exception to the rule, and that is in the very specific case where a married man has died without leaving an heir to his property. If he has a brother living with him at the time, the brother is to marry his widowed sister-in-law with the sole purpose of begetting a child who will be treated as his brother's child, not his own. This situation is known as a levitate marriage.

As Kaiser summarizes, “...this is the single exception since it aids in fostering the goal of godly families. God can and did permit and bless such exceptions. Only he can modify his own directives for his good purposes.”