EXODUS 28 AND 39

 

                                                     All Decked Out (2009 collage)

My comments here rely heavily on those of R.P. Gordon. We have two descriptions of God's commands regarding the proper attire for the priests to wear while officiating in the tabernacle. Chapter 28 outlines the requirements while chapter 39 explains that these instructions were all carried. Gordon remarks regarding Exodus 39: “The divergences from ch. 28 are few in number and usually of no great significance. The punctiliousness with which the earlier directions were observed is emphasized in the seven occurrences of 'as the LORD commanded Moses' (1,5,7,21,26,29,31).” This is an appropriate number of repetitions since 'seven' throughout the Bible denotes perfection or completion.

Exodus 28:1-5

In these verses “we find that holiness and beauty are not incompatible.” And this is especially true considering the materials utilized are to consist of “gold, blue, purple, and crimson yarns, and fine linen.” (Gordon)

According to later commentary in the Talmud, the length of the sash was calculated to be 48 feet. If accurate, this is too excessive for the NIV translation of “girdle.” We don't really know which it is since the rare Hebrew word only appears again in Exodus 28:39 and Isaiah 22:21. However, we do know from the latter verse that it is associated with a royal official of high standing.

Exodus 28:6-8

Gordon says this about the priest's ephod, “Opinion is divided as to whether the ephod was a waistcoat or a loin-cloth. On the basis of 2 Sam. 6:14,20 (David's immodest display when 'girded with a linen ephod') it might be concluded that it is the latter.”

Exodus 28:9-14

“Affixed to the shoulder straps of the ephod were two onyx stones in gold filigree setting.” The names of the 12 tribes were engraved on the stones. “Thus was symbolized the high priestly intercession on behalf of the individual tribes of Israel.” (Gordon)

Exodus 28:15-30

Quite detailed instructions are laid out concerning the breastpiece of judgment, which appears to be a large pocket containing the mysterious Urim (“lights”) and Thummin (“perfections”) used to determine God's will on a given subject by drawing lots or casting stones to answer yes-no questions. More concerning this process is discussed in my two posts titled “Judges 20:8-11 Urim and Thummin” and “Book of Judges: Questions and Answers.”

Exodus 28:31-32

Over the ephod went a violet-blue robe such as people of high rank wore. See I Samuel 18:4 and Ezekiel 26:16.

Exodus 28:33-35

These verses describe the decoration of the lower hem with alternating pomegranates and bells.

Regarding the bells, Gordon says, “They had more than a decorative significance,” and cites Cassuto as saying “Propriety demands that the entry should be proceeded by an announcement, and the priest should be careful not to go into the sanctuary irreverently.” Basically, as Sanderson puts it, “The bells will identify the high priest so that he may not die when he enters or leaves the holy place.”

Francis Schaeffer finds significance in the color of the pomegranates, as he explains in his enlightening pamphlet Art & the Bible: “Thus, when the priest went into the Holy of Holies, he was to take with him on his garments a representation of nature, carrying that representation into the presence of God. Surely this is the very antithesis of a command against works of art. But there is something further to note here. In nature, pomegranates are red, but these pomegranates were to be blue, purple and scarlet. Purple and scarlet could be natural changes in the growth of a pomegranate. But blue is not. The implication is that there is freedom to make something which gets its impetus from nature but can be different from it and it too can be brought into the presence of God.” Thus non-representational art is hereby sanctioned.

Exodus 28:36-39

The priest's turban was to have a plate decorated with a flower, blossom, or rosette. Gordon states, “ritual exactitude is enjoined so that the people's offering, as presented by the high priest, may be acceptable. The plate with its inscription in sacred characters would serve to compensate for any infringement of the ritual requirements such as the high priest might commit in the course of his duties.”

Exodus 28:40-43

The chapter concludes with the much simpler instructions regarding the attire for all of the priesthood.

Meaning

All of the above is merely of historical interest unless we see the underlying symbolic meaning of the vestments. And much of which we can learn actually comes not only from OT scholars, but also NT commentators, especially on the Book of Revelation where some of the Exodus imagery recurs in the description of the New Jerusalem.

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery explains, “In ancient culture the blue, purple and scarlet suggested wealth and royalty...Blue, purple and scarlet colored the tabernacle of ancient Israel, suggesting that Yahweh was the wealthy and powerful God-king, who brought an impoverished people out of slavery in Egypt to make them a mighty nation...Blue was the dominant color of the vestments of ancient Israel's high priest (Ex 28)...He was the boundary between the human and divine realms [such as the blue sky], moving in both as he ministered in the Holy of Holies.”

Stibbs states that “in certain actions the priest represents the whole nation before God. The garments of the high priest symbolize this. Both the shoulder-pieces and the breastplate bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel...It is as if Israel was acting in and through the actions of the priest...The distinction between substitution and representation is important for understanding the relationship between the priests and Levites and the rest of Israel. The priests do not undercut the calling of all the people to be a priestly kingdom, but to represent it. And as the priest is to the people, so Israel (ideally) to the nations.”

In this regard, keep in mind the words in I Peter 2:4-5 addressed to the early Christians: “Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God's sight, and like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (NRSV)

H.R. Jones says, “The high priest and every other priest acted as intermediates between the people and God for such purposes...The ministry of the high priest adumbrated that of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:1-10:39).”

“The jewels in the breastplate of Aaron represented the various tribes. Tribal unity is the foundation of the new city; cf. Rev 7:4-8.” (Ford)

“Although in a different order, the names of the precious stones in Rev. 21 closely resemble those on the high priest's breastplate in Exod. 28:17-20...Bousset shows that the variations between Revelation and Exodus can be explained, so we may safely assume that John intended to reproduce the OT list. But Bousset is unable to account for the order of the stones, which in fact differs widely in all the lists (Exod. 28; Ezek. 28MT; and ibid., LXX).” (Hillyer)

Jacques Ellul, after rejecting some of the many explanations over the years regarding the symbolism of the individual stones and the Urim and Thummin, concludes: “We must not forget that the breastplate belonged to the high priest. The stones are found in the city [i.e. New Jerusalem] because they represent what the high priest bore. They decorate the city, as once they adorned the high priest. They are hidden in the foundations of the wall, as they were once hidden in the mysterious pocket from which came the oracle of God's Word. They are present in the city to tell us that the high priest's office has been accomplished and brought to perfection.”

THOSE CURIOUS ANGELS (I PETER 1:12)

There is an interesting fact revealed at the end of this verse, namely that the angels in heaven long [or earnestly desire] to look into things revealed to prophets and now announced to chosen and destined people by the Holy Spirit.

Despite the intriguing nature of this point, I was a little surprised to find that six of the shorter commentaries on I Peter I consulted did not even give this reference to angels the slightest mention. In addition, Goppelt's 380-page commentary on this brief epistle only devotes ½ page to a discussion of it, mostly relegated to a footnote.

Stibbs has this to say in regard to the language utilized at the end of v. 12: “The verb parakuptein translated to look into means 'to stoop or bend down to look.' It is also used in Lk. xxiv. 12; Jn xx. 5,11; Jas i. 25. Thus do heavenly beings, such as angels, take an intense, wondering interest in what God is doing here on earth for the salvation of men (cf. Lk xv. 10; Eph iii. 10).”

In Luke 24:12 and John 20:5,11 the verb is used literally to refer, respectively, to Peter, “the other disciple,” and Mary looking into the empty tomb. A more figurative meaning is intended in I Peter 1:12 and in James 1:25, the latter referring to “those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere.”

One problem we face is the paucity of references to angels. As Davids says, “Apart from Heb. 1-2, angels are rarely mentioned in the NT epistles, but the Jews knew of the great archangels watching the earth (e.g., I Enoch 9:1, which uses the same verb in its Greek version).”

That pseudepigraphal writing reads, “And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth.” Davids comments, “The sense is not one of idle curiosity but of a longing to see the fulfillment of God's promises. Great as they are, it was not to them or for them that the fulfillment came. Instead, the day of salvation dawned on these Christians in a way not even revealed to the angels...Although suffering, these believers are a privileged people.”

Other scholars similarly attempt to pin down the original source of Peter's comment. J.R.Michaels says, “The notion that some heavenly mysteries are hidden even from the angels who dwell in heaven is found both in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g. 1 Enoch 16:3; 2 Enoch 24:3) and in the NT (e.g. Mark 13:32, and by implication Eph 3:10; 1 Cor 2:6-8 is different in that it focuses on hostile powers in particular)...The very fact that angels know so much enhances the sense of wonder at the things they do not know.”

Charles points in another direction for the origin of Peter's idea: “No explanation of or direct parallel to this phenomenon is to be found in the OT...In Targum Neofiti Genesis 28:12 [dated to somewhere between the 1^st and 4^th century A.D.] one finds a description of the angels ascending and descending in order to observe Jacob. According to the text they 'earnestly desired' to see this righteous man. It is possible that in his allusion to the angelic aspect of divine mystery Peter is making use of imagery and language associated with a midrashic tradition.”

Goppelt's comments on I Peter 1:12b are as follows: “The angels, the representatives of the heavenly world already honoring God (Heb. 12:22; Rev. 4), wait for the redemption of the entire creation (Rom. 8:19); they rejoice, therefore, over the sinners repentance (Lk. 15:10); and join in the hymn of praise at the consummation of redemption (Rev. 5:11-14; 19:1ff)...”

In regard to the meaning of Peter's thought, he has more to say, beginning with an agreement with Davids in that “I Peter does not have curious watching in mind but rather a longing for the revelation of salvation.” Then, turning to the origin of the statement, he continues by referencing the following possible sources: I En. 16:3; II En 24:3; Mk. 13:32; I Cor 2:6; Ignatius Eph. 19. In conclusion, he states that “according to Eph. 3:10, the wisdom of God is announced to angels through the Church.”

Boring's comments on this passage strike out in a completely different direction by giving tentative approval to the idea that the “angels” in this case are the evil or fallen angelic forces. Thus, we get the following explanation: “It is not clear whether angels are 'good' angels, which would parallel the prophets [in the previous verses], or 'bad' angels, as often the case in apocalyptic (e.g., 1Q 3:13-4:14; 4Q Amran; 1 Enoch 6-16). In favor of hostile angels, however, are the following considerations: (1) in the only other reference to angels in 1 Peter is 3:22, they are hostile powers overcome by the risen Christ; (2) the author is heavily influenced by the Pauline tradition, in which angels are uniformly evil powers that attempt to separate us from God, as, for example, in Rom 8:38; (3) specific items of Pauline tradition picture the hostile angelic powers as being kept in ignorance of God's plan that is revealed to Christians (1 Cor 2:8; Eph 3:9-10); (4) the verb for the angels' longing (epithymeo, sometimes translated 'lust') can have evil overtones as in Gen 6:1-6 and as used by the author (3:19-20) – but compare Matt 13:17!”

That last cited reference quotes Jesus as saying to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear, but did not hear it.” That possibly parallel thought, coupled with the way these angels are closely associated with God's prophets in the whole passage I Peter 1:10-12, strongly suggests that it is the “good” angels in heaven being referred to here, not the “bad” ones. But we cannot be dogmatic on this point in view of the obscure nature of Peter's statement.

GENESIS 28:10-22 JACOB'S LADDER

I chose this famous story twice as the subject for my art projects.

          Highway to Heaven (2009 college)

            Vision at Luz (2005 assemblage)

Dreams sent from God represent an important theme that runs throughout the Bible, both OT and NT. Their association with the visions and oracles received by the prophets is a bit uncertain. For example, Thomson notes the close association of dreams with prophets in passages such as Deuteronomy 13:15; I Samuel 9:9; and Jeremiah 23:25,32. However, he feels that the last verses mentioned indicate that the Word of God given through the prophets was superior. And Bright goes as far as to state: “So far as we know, the classical prophets never received divine revelation through dreams (as contrasted to visionary experiences).” But in terms of the OT patriarchs, there is no doubt that dream revelations play an important part in their guidance.

If one considers the strange nighttime encounter of Jacob wrestling with the angel in Genesis 32:24-30 as a possible dream revelation, then five of the instances of patriarchs receiving dream messages from God form the symmetrical pattern shown below.
    A. Warning against taking action against a patriarch (Genesis 20:3-6)
            B. Jacob is blessed by God (Genesis 28:10-17)
                    C. Specific instructions to Jacob (Genesis 31:10-11)
    A'. Warning against taking action against a patriarch (Genesis 31:24)
            B'. Jacob is blessed by God (Genesis 32:24-30)
This arrangement in which B and B' are taken as parallel, helps to explain Genesis 48:3 in which Barnhouse sees great importance to Jacob beginning his speech with “life began for me at Luz...” This is another name for Bethel where Jacob received his blessing associated with the ladder to heaven.
Genesis 28:12        One of the first things I should point out is that “ladder” is probably not the best translation for a Hebrew word that implies a ramp or stairway. Thus, it suggests the picture of a ziggurat such as the Tower of Babel.
Genesis 28:13-16    “Jacob...received blessing not because of his deception but as a result of his closer relationship with God.” (McKeown)
To the promise of land, seed, and international blessing are added at Genesis 35:9-15 “the promise of royal progeny...further verifying that the special line of Abrahamic descent will be traced exclusively through Jacob.” (Williamson)
Genesis 28:15        “The OT concept of exile...finds its canonical roots in the Pentateuch...Jacob has to leave his home and go into exile after he has received the patriarchal blessing from his father...There is a promise of return from exile included in the story (Gen 28:15), which finds its fulfillment in the return of Jacob to Canaan and his reconciliation with Esau (Gen 32).” (Klingbeil)
“The prognostic dream message was sealed, not with an image or an act but with a solemn phrase 'I will not leave you until I have done what I promised you.” (Hunt)
Genesis 28:17        Carr suggests that Jacob's description of the place as 'the gate of heaven' “suggests the ancient view that a sanctuary was a place where the god came to earth.”
Genesis 28:18        Jacob's stone pillow becomes a pillar instead to memorialize the place and the event. Carr unnecessarily suggests that such sacred monuments perhaps signified “male powers of fertility.”
Fleming notes that the patriarchs “were noticeably free in their worship, using means common to people of their time that were later banned because they were too closely associated with other gods or offensive forms of worship.” Cited as an example was Jacob's setting up the stone since “such massebot were outlawed for Israel (Lev. 26:1; Deut 7:6).” Other examples of patriarchs erecting stones are found in Genesis 12:7; 26:24-25; and 35:1-15.

Genesis 28:20-21    “This response by Jacob to God's enunciated promises (Gen 28:13-15) is positive but conditional. It is expressive of faith but requires additional evidence...” (Sheriffs)
Hawk is even more negative in his assessment of Jacob's response, labeling it “conditional and scheming.”
Barker states that “Jacob's prayer for 'peace' is based on his experience of God's presence. The Bible goes on to show that ultimately God's provision for restitution for sins makes such peace possible.”
New Testament citation
    John 1:47 // Genesis 27:35; 32:28
Nathanael is said to be an Israelite without deceit. Carr points out that Nathanael may be seen to represent “those in Israel who have no deceit, i.e., none of the qualities of Jacob before he became Israel.”
    John 1:51 // Genesis 28:12
Continuing the Jacob references, Jesus tells Nathanael that he “will see the heavens opening and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man” as a clear allusion to Jacob's dream when he was fleeing from Esau. “Jesus is the 'new Bethel,' the place where God is revealed, where heaven and earth, God and humanity, meet.” (Kostenberger)

THE WHOLE ARMOR OF GOD (EPHESIANS 6:10-17)

In reading the Bible, we sometimes gravitate to the most popular passage on a particular subject to the exclusion of others which might give us a fuller picture. This tendency applies to lists such as the names of the tribes of Israel, the identity of the Twelve Apostles, the gifts of the Spirit, and the Christian's heavenly armor. In the last case, we may be pardonably excused for zeroing in on Ephesians 6:10-17 since that list is prefaced by the phrase “The whole armor of God” and Paul repeats these words in v. 13. But the subject of a Christian's armor appears briefly in other biblical passages:

Romans 13:12,14

As a general reference, we have Paul urging the reader in v. 12 to “cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.” This appears to be parallel to the thought two verses later to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

II Corinthians 10:3-4

For those Christians who would take the military metaphor too far and feel that God wants them to resort to physical violence against those they perceive as His enemies, this passage should serve as a useful corrective: “For though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds.”

Specific Items in the Armory

Next, let's look elsewhere to see if Ephesians 6 really constitutes the definitive list so that it can be called “the whole armor.” But first a quick review of the items enumerated in that chapter:

    1. the belt of truth

    2. the breastplate of righteousness

    3. shoes to ready you for sharing the gospel of peace

    4. the shield of faithfulness

    5. the helmet of salvation

    6. the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

Isaiah 11:4-5 describes the weapons of the coming Messiah. These include the rod of his mouth =

the breath of his lips as well as the belt of righteousness and faithfulness. The first listed offensive (vs. defensive) piece of armor is roughly equivalent to Paul's sword of the Spirit. But note that there is no one-to-one correspondence between Isaiah's “belt” and Paul's list other than the fact it is a combination of elements in items #1, 2 and 4. Thus, we should not get too hung up in attempting to describe why a belt should be an especially appropriate symbol of one attribute or another.

Isaiah 52:7 talks about the beautiful feet of the one who announces peace, good news and salvation. This description is quite close to #3 in which feet are also related to spreading the Gospel.

Isaiah 59:17 tells of God putting on righteousness like a breastplate and a helmet of salvation on his head in addition to donning garments of vengeance for clothing and wrapping himself in fury as in a mantle.

Item #2 is obviously an allusion to this OT passage. There is more of a problem in trying to see garments of vengeance and fury in the Ephesian list. One obvious explanation is that this is an attribute of God alone since “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.” Therefore it does not really belong in a believer's arsenal.

Wisdom of Solomon 5:17-20 Even in the OT apocryphal writings we run into the metaphor of armor. In these verses we learn that (a) zeal is the “whole armor of God”; (b) He will wear righteousness as a breastplate (see #2 above); (c) impartial justice is his helmet (a totally different explanation than in #5);and (d) holiness is his shield, contra #4.

Finally, there is one aspect to Paul's list in Ephesians that is vaguely unsatisfying from a literary point of view, namely that there are only six pieces of armor listed. In many other passages, Paul subtly includes the number seven, symbolic of completeness, in his text. And one would think that it should especially show up in describing the “whole” armor of God also. I guess one could possibly count the shoes of item #3 as two rather than one; however, that smacks of cheating. But another approach suggested by Harpur is to continue the passage through Ephesians 6:18 where prayer is mentioned. He perceptively notes that this “auxiliary weapon” is “his vital communication with headquarters.”

II Corinthians 6:7

Even within Paul's own writings, he does not present a consistent symbolic picture of the armor. For example, in this verse he speaks about “the power of God with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left.” In this case, it is not the word of God which is the only offensive weapon in a Christian's armory as in #6 above, but righteousness instead. That is interesting since righteousness is listed in Ephesians as a defensive weapon (see #2).

Actually, the image of God's (or Christ's) word as a sword is elsewhere one of the most consistent images utilized in the Bible. See Isaiah 11:4 (the Septuagint version says “He shall strike the earth with the word of his mouth); Isaiah 49:2 (the prophet says, He made my mouth like a sharp sword”); Hebrews 4:12 (“the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword”); Revelation 1:16 (a sharp two-edged sword comes from Christ's mouth); Revelation 2:16 (in which Christ will make war on heretics in the church with the sword of his mouth); and Revelation 19:13-15,21 (the rider named The Word of God makes war against the nations with the sharp sword from his mouth).

I Thessalonians 5:8

“But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.” Paul combines the familiar triad “faith, hope, and love” together with military metaphor. And although the helmet as “the hope of salvation” is equivalent to “the helmet of salvation” of item #5, the breastplate in I Thessalonians represents faith and love rather than standing for righteousness as in #2.

Conclusion

Look at all passages on a given subject to get the broadest view; keep in mind the strictly figurative nature of a Christian's armor; and do not expect strict consistency in the imagery employed by biblical authors.

NUMBERS 2:1-31

 

                            Encamped (2009 collage)

Immediately following a census of all the Israelites in the second year after their escape from Egypt, God gives orders to Moses as to how the people are to pitch their tents in the wilderness. This is followed with additional detailed instructions concerning the order in which all the tribes are to march.

One must admit that even the most ardent student of the Bible is likely to have trouble getting excited about these minute instructions. But below are some overall points that may be of interest to you.

“The twelve tribes are divided into four divisions, each with three tribes. A combination of genealogical and geographical principles influences their positions around the wilderness sanctuary.” (D.P Wright)

These divisions are as follows:

    1. The three tribes descending from Rachel who also settled later in the central area of Israel are placed to the west of the tabernacle.

    2. The three tribes descending from maidservants of Rachel and Leah are on the north. These tribes settled in the northern part of Israel.

    3. The two tribes coming from Leah are joined by Zilpah's descendants in camping to the south of the sanctuary. And appropriately these tribes would make their home in the southernmost area of Israel.

    4. The remaining tribes of Judah, Issachar and Zebulum who all descended from Leah are located to the east of the sanctuary. This is appropriate since it places the favored tribe of Judah facing the entrance to the sanctuary.

The Levites form an exception to this general order in that they were not to inherit any land. However, they got the signal honor of guarding and caring for the tabernacle at the exact center of the camp. And they were to camp directly around it (Numbers 1:48-53).

“R.K. Harrison has noted that the arrangement of the tribes in ch. 2 was long regarded by liberal critics as indicating the late date of the priestly material in the Pentateuch, but it is now known that Rameses II, the contemporary of Moses, used the same arrangement in his Syrian campaign.” (Carson)

Another criticism of the historical accuracy of this passage is mentioned by Thompson: “Some commentators have regarded this chapter as an idealization of what Israel actually did in the wilderness and have proposed that the chapter was influenced by Ezk. 48.” But that view assumes that Numbers was written after Ezekiel's prophecies, a fact that many would question.

The most prominent feature of this camp arrangement is the centrality of the sanctuary, the tent of meeting. “The tent of meeting stood as the central feature of the whole encampment or on the march and symbolized the divine presence in Israel's midst at all times. It was no longer outside the camp (cf. Ex. 33:7f) but in the very center.” (Thompson)

But that central position gave rise to one problem, as described by Schnittjer: “Numbers 5:1-2 enumerates many of the situations which cause ritual impairment: skin conditions, those with discharges, and contact with corpses. The reason for temporarily expelling them from the camp relates directly to the new arrangement of the tribes around the tabernacle. Now that the tabernacle has been moved into the encampment, its holiness became vulnerable to ritual pollution (5:3; 19:13; cf. 12:15).”

The next most prominent feature concerns the position of the tribe of Judah, as Schnittjer also points out: “The tribe of Judah camps in first position on the east of the tabernacle (Num 2:3), worships first (Num 7:12-17), marches first (Num 10:14), and receives the first allotment in the land proper after crossing the Jordan (Josh 14-15).”

This premier position of Judah carries on into the NT in the naming of tribes in the book of Revelation. Beale and McDonough say, “The fact that Judah is listed first in the register of tribes in 7:5-8 is striking, since out of the many Old Testament lists of the twelve tribes it is rarely cited first...The priority of Judah here emphasized the precedence of the messianic king who was to come from the tribe of Judah (cf. Gen 49:10; I Chron. 5:1-2).”

This positioning of the twelve tribes sends out echoes throughout the Bible, as shown below:

Numbers 2:1-9: camping order with the tribes centered around the tabernacle, representing God's presence

North – Dan, Asher, Naphtali

East – Judah, Issachar, Zebulun

South – Reuben, Simeon, Gad

West – Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin

Ezekiel 48:30-34: blueprint for the ideal restored temple with twelve exit gates

North – Reuben, Judah, Levi

East – Joseph, Benjamin, Dan

South – Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun

West – Gad, Asher, Naphtali

The Temple Scroll of Qumran: description for the temple that Solomon should have built

North – Dan, Naphtali, Asher

East – Simeon, Levi, Judah

South – Reuben, Joseph, Benjamin

West – Issachar, Zebulun, Gad

Revelation 21:12-13: the twelve gates to the New Jerusalem which has God and Christ at its center Three gates on each of the four sides, with each gate containing the name of a different tribe

Ford feels that “The emphasis on the maternal origin [of the tribes] is consonant with the symbolism of the woman in Revelation...The tribes in 21:9-14 are intimately associated with the figure of the bride...The new city (in distinction from the temple) which Ezekiel sees has the same symmetrical design, for it is a square (48:15ff.) and has twelve gates, three on each side.”

And Mounce says, “In Ezekiel 48:30-34 the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem are named after the twelve tribes of Israel...In John's vision the gates which bear the names of the twelve tribes are entrances for all the peoples of the earth whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life (Rev 21:24-27)...Reference to twelve tribes emphasizes the continuity of the New Testament church with God's people of Old Testament times.”

One commentator even feels that the scene of the Last Supper with Christ surrounded by his twelve Apostles fits into the above pattern.

 

JOHN 4:43-45 A PROBLEM PASSAGE

 This is one of those transition passages that are usually skipped over without much thought. It directly follows Jesus' brief but successful ministry among the Samaritans and reads as follows: “When the two days were over Jesus left for Galilee. For He himself had said that a prophet is not without honor except in his own land. On his arrival the Galileans received him well, having seen all that he had done at Jerusalem during the festival which they had attended.”

The more one thinks about this passage, the more confusing it seems:

    For example, Blum asks the logical question: “Is His 'own country' Judea or Galilee? Or is His 'own country' heaven, with His being rejected in his 'own land' Israel?”

    And Morris notes that verses 43 and 44 “are joined by 'for', but it is not easy to see how the second gives the reason for the first.”

    R.E. Brown goes further in stating, “These three verses constitute a notorious crux in the Fourth Gospel. In the early 3^rd century Origen said of vs. 44, 'This saying seems completely to defy sequence.' In the early 20^th century Lagrange confessed that there was no apparent means of explaining this passage according to the rules of strict logic.”

    Borchert echoes these sentiments: “The text has been recognized as a problem for centuries and most attempted solutions leave some unanswered questions.”

The following summarizes various interpretive approaches taken toward these difficult verses.

Ignore the Greek text and interpret it so that it “makes sense.”

This is the most drastic of the solutions to the perceived problem, but it is one taken by The Jerusalem Bible. Here is how it renders the passage: “When the two days were over Jesus left for Galilee. He himself had declared that there is no respect for a prophet in his own country, but on his arrival the Galileans received him well, having seen all that he had done at Jerusalem during the festival which they too had attended.”

Thus, by simply leaving out “for” in one place and adding “but” in another, the passage can be made to read smoothly, even if that isn't what the text actually says.

Unfortunately, that sort of loose approach to translation by JB occurs in a number of other places, both OT and NT.

Dismiss verse 44 as being added by another hand.

As Kermode says, “The difficulty comes from the apparent irrelevance of the saying about the prophet in his own country...The easy answer is that somebody has clumsily inserted the verse.” Of course, the easiest answer is not necessarily the best one, and one should not resort to it unless all other approaches fail. As we shall see below, Brown ultimately opts for the “redactor solution,” but not without at least wrestling with alternatives. Brown's decision is reflected in his Anchor Bible translation of John where he places verse 44 in parentheses.

One major objection to this solution is that there is absolutely no manuscript evidence showing that John's Epistle existed without v. 44. And as mentioned above, even as early as the 3^rd century the text apparently existed as we have it today.

Also Morris says that the redactor explanation “poses the question why a straightforward text should be complicated by a perplexing gloss.”

Finally, it turns out that there are several other explanations that do not have to fall back on the unproven hypothesis of multiple authorship.

“Own land” refers to Israel

Borchert feels that “perhaps the reference is to his native land or country and could be viewed as a general reference to Israel. Such a view might be supported by referring to the Prologue, which indicated that he came to his own place (idia), and his own people (idioi) did not receive him (1:11). The favorable reception of the Galileans here (4:45) might then fall within the exception statement in the Prologue, which indicated alternatively that the 'all who received him' (1:12) were not to be included among the native rejecters of the Logos/Word.”

He further elaborates: “One must ask whether or not the statement could be a proleptic evaluation of the receptive patterns of Israel in spite of the immediate welcome of the Galileans.”

“Own land” refers to Judea

Borchert also discusses this option: “The use of the maxim [v. 24]...seems to suggest that Jesus should be regarded as being from another region – namely Judea. It could of course be argued that Jesus should technically be regarded as a Judean because he was born in Bethlehem and therefore the maxim would make sense here.” The problem is that elsewhere in John's Gospel, Jesus is referred to as coming from Galilee instead (1:46; 2:1`2; ch 7; 19:19). So, Borchert continues: “The use of this maxim may thus point to the fact that John could have known the Synoptics and was by implication correcting a misapplication of the use of the maxim.”

This appears to be a rather roundabout way for John to point out this fact. And Brown points out some additional problems with this explanation:

    1. Jesus was not just then leaving Judea to go to Galilee. He was leaving Samaria instead.

    2. Nowhere in John's Gospel does it say that Jesus was born in Judea.

    3. “Moreover, there is an implication in this explanation that Jesus was disappointed with the reception he had received in Judea and had come back to Galilee to be accorded the honor denied him in Judea. Such a search for human praise is abhorrent to the ideals of the Fourth Gospel (ii 24-25; v 41-44).”

“Own land” refers specifically to Jerusalem

Ellis states that “his own country (patris) must mean here not Nazareth in Galilee, as it usually does in the Synoptics (cf. Mk 6:4, etc.), but, in view of the messianic context, Jerusalem in Judea, regarded by all Jews as their proper home.”

Guthrie includes this as one of several explanations for the passage by saying that “for a Jew a prophet's country was generally regarded to be Jerusalem. Hence signs in Jerusalem would deeply impress the Galileans.”

Seemingly fitting into this explanation are two other events in Jesus' life. The first is when Jesus attended a feast in Jerusalem for the first time and was found by his parents conversing with the teachers in the temple. His reply to them was “I must be about my Father's business.” (Luke 2:41-51) Then there was the later time when Jesus' brothers sarcastically urged Him to go to Jerusalem and impress the people there with his great abilities (John 7:1-5).

“Own land” refers to Galilee

Despite the seeming contradiction between verses 24 and 25, several scholars attempt to explain it away. Even Brown says that “the insertion of vs. 44 does not contradict 45 once we understand that a superficial welcome based on enthusiasm for miracles [by the Galileans] is no real honor.”

“Generally Galilee was more favorable to Him but even there men tried to kill Him (Luke 4:18-30). John was perhaps preparing his readers for the upcoming rejection; he may have been saying that even with the warm reception Jesus received in Galilee, He still was not really accepted (cf. John 2:24-25; 4:48).” (Blum)

“The saying about a prophet being without acceptance in his own country is reported in all three Synoptists (Matt. 13:57 Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24), and in connection with Jesus' visit to Nazareth. Perhaps the 'for' is meant to indicate that Jesus must show that this is indeed the case. He had come unto His own, not under a delusion that He would be welcomed, but knowing full well that He must expect a rejection.” (Morris)

“He goes on into Galilee, to receive the kind of welcome which He knew so well to be hollow and worthless.” (Lloyd)

“Own land” refers to heaven

“Does not St. John perhaps wish to teach that if the Lord's patris ['land'] is sought anywhere on earth, nowhere does He receive the honor due to Him, even as a prophet? For He is not of this world and His patris is in heaven.” (Lightfoot)

In conclusion, there are a number of viable way to understand these verses instead of just giving up on the endeavor and chalking it up as an unwarranted addition.

I THESSALONIANS 5:12-22

 Whenever there is a list of any sort in the Bible, for most of us our eyes just sort of glaze over and we rapidly pass over it in order to get to something more interesting. But there is a lot of meat in such tabulations, even if they are just lists of name.

In the case of the First Letter to the Thessalonians, Paul establishes a pattern that he follows in most of his other epistles. He begins by discussing various doctrinal issues and then moves on to practical advice concerning how we are to live our lives day by day. This penultimate section in the letter, right before closing greetings, has been variously defined as beginning with 5:12 and continuing through either verses 22, 24, or 28. And there are good arguments for each of these ending points, some of which will be discussed below.

As we read through these verses, they certainly give “the appearance of a collection of unconnected gnomic sentences haphazardly strung together. The style should not, however, lead to the misperception that the sentences are not related to one another or to the situation in Thessalonica.” Taking this warning by Malherbe to heart, I would like to show that these admonitions are not a random sampling, but are carefully arranged in such a way that several insights can be obtained by looking at the literary form these verses take. I would personally outline the passage as follows:

                                               The Structure of I Thessalonians 5:12-22

I. Our attitude toward the church leaders (5:12-13)

        A. opening: WE BESEECH YOU, BROTHERS

                1. Respect those who

                        a. labor among you

                        b. are over you in the Lord

                        c. and admonish you

                2. Esteem them

                        a. very highly

                        b. in love

                        c. because of their work

        A'. conclusion: BE AT PEACE AMONG YOURSELVES

II. Our attitude toward those who need help (5:14)

        A. opening: WE EXHORT YOU, BROTHERS

                1. Admonish the unruly

                2. Encourage the fainthearted

                3. Help the weak

        A'. conclusion: BE PATIENT WITH THEM ALL

III. Our attitude toward one another and God (5:15-22)

        A. Do not repay evil for evil, but seek to do good to all

                1. Rejoice always

                2. Pray constantly

                3. Give thanks in all circumstances

                        REASON: FOR THIS IS THE WILL OF GOD FOR YOU

                1. Do not quench the spirit

        A'. Do not despise prophesying, but test every thing

                Hold fast to what is good

                Abstain from every form of evil

Scope

First, regarding the proper scope of this literary section, it is possible to carry it through verse 24 so that (a) the human triad “spirit, soul, and body” would match up with the divine Trinity in vv. 18-19 and (b) the word “peace in 13 and 23 could be seen as appropriate bookends for the whole pas age. Alternatively, Stott defines the passage as I Thessalonians 5:12-28 because of the repeated (5x) word “brother/brotherhood” in verses 12, 13, 25, 26, and 27.

However, in Figure 1 I have opted for concluding it with 5:22, in agreement with most commentators. One powerful reason for this choice can be seen in Section III above in that it begins with “evil” followed by “good” whereas the section concludes with the two words in reverse order. Although there are two different Greek words for “good” used in vv. 15 and 21, “It is questionable whether in Paul's usage to agathon and kalon can be sharply differentiated.” (Frame)

Major Divisions

Next there are the major sub-divisions of this literary unit to consider, an issue which is the subject of some contention among scholars. Opting for a two-fold division is Malherbe, who sees as sub-divisions verses 12-15 on “reciprocal edification” and 16-22 on the subject of prophecy. But the similar openings in verses 12 and 14 argue for two separate sections for 12-14 rather than just one. Another problem with his analysis is to say that all of 15-22 concerns prophecy when that is patently untrue.

But there is an alternative two-part division championed by Elias: verses 12-13 and 14-22. This is based partly on the obvious similarities in the opening verses of each. And another factor is that the first two verses concern the relationship of the congregation to the church leadership while: “In 5:14-22 the exhortations focus on the ministering activities in which the whole church needs to be engaged. This includes the way they conduct themselves both toward each other (5:14) and toward outsiders.” 

His analysis is a possibility, but a three-fold structure seems to better fit the context, especially in light of the other triads present in I Thessalonians 5:12-22. For example, Stott sees three units: leadership (12-13), fellowship (14-15), and public worship (16-28). Another way to characterize these is to recognize that they deal respectively with our relations toward our leaders, each other, and God – with the last expressed by our corporate and personal worship.

Section I

The first triad in the passage appears in this section. As Wanamaker says, “Paul is talking about one group of individuals in terms of three aspects of their activity.” But who are these people who are to be both respected and esteemed?

Malherbe declares that “there is no indication in this context or anywhere else in the letter that he has in view any officials in Thessalonica.” But the text does not match up with that statement since the people mentioned are “over you in the Lord.” Morris agrees and feels it is “very difficult to accept” the view that at this point in church history there were no accepted leaders of any sort.

Other scholars aver that those to be esteemed are the rich patrons of the congregation who support it in a monetary way. But money alone would hardly place them “over you in the Lord” although unfortunately I have attended congregations in which wealth and social standing appeared to be the prime considerations for choosing who would be an elder.

Hendricksen takes a rather non-committal stand in saying that “it may be safely affirmed that at least in verses 12 and 13 it is the church viewed as an organization that receives special attention.”

I would have to agree with Stott, who feels v. 12 applies to the designated group known variously in the New Testament as elders, pastors or bishops.

I am indebted to Elias for recognizing the triad under Unit IA2. Note how the last of the triad harks back to the first of the triad in IA1, both dealing with “work.”

This initial section concludes with the admonition to “be at peace among you.” Morris states that this phrase does not begin a new subject, as some suggest, but “it seems rather that Paul is continuing to deal with the situation that is in mind in the earlier part of the verse.” But also, it serves as a fitting summary of the teachings in the section rather than being a fourth command. I have witnessed several church splits in my life which were caused primarily by members in the congregation who took issue with decisions taken by the duly appointed church leadership.

Apparently, at least some in the early church also understood this section as referring to church leaders. We can see this by a minority textual variation of verse 13 reading “Be at peace with them.”

Section II

Some commentators such as Wanamaker see a sort of reciprocal relationship between sections I and II in which the second section is addresses to the leaders of the community themselves and describes those “under them in the Lord.” But the only real justification for that opinion lies in the fact that the verb “admonish” appears in both sections. Instead, most scholars feel this whole section describes the duties expected of any congregational member who sees someone in the flock hurting and is in a position to help them cope with their problems.

Section III

This is the longest of the three sections and the most complicated in terms of literary structure. However, a few things can clearly be seen in Figure I. First, as already noted is the inclusio formed by the pair “evil-good...good-evil” at the start and finish. Serving in the same capacity are the two paired injunctions at the start and conclusion which occur with the construction: “do not A but do B.”

In the center of the section with five admonitions on either side, we are given a reason for following these commands, namely “For this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.” And, as Wanamaker says, “There is no good reason for limiting this statement to only the last of the three injunctions.” Elias agrees with this contention: “Likely this refers back to all three acts of personal and corporate worship.”

Actually it applies to the whole of Section III. We thus have a NT counterpart to the two tablets of the Ten Commandments, which also consist of both positive and negative injunctions.

“In 5:19-22 are several further directives dealing with how congregational worship should be conducted. They clearly suggest that the instructions of 5:16-22 apply in the first place to their worship as a faith community, although the admonitions in 5:16-18 can also be taken to apply to individual expressions of piety.” (Elias)

Conclusion

Thus we see that this is no mere random collection of admonitions thrown together by Paul. It is really a carefully organized compendium of major directives on how the fledgling congregation is to act. Besides the utilization of a triadic structure throughout and the way each of the three sections has its own internal structure, six times in the passage, derivatives of pan (“every”) appear. This last feature of the passage is used to stress the universal applicability of the admonitions to all in the congregation at all times.

WAS THERE DEATH BEFORE THE FALL?

One point of view concerning life before the Fall in the Garden of Eden insists that nothing alive suffered death during that time. Two of the strong proponents in this “No-Death” camp are Jason Lisle and Ken Ham. We should first of all state that this is, contrary to the attitude they sometimes express, a tertiary doctrinal issue at best and should not be used, one way or another, as a test of fellowship or a hallmark of Christian orthodoxy.

There are several possible approaches to refuting this viewpoint, but I would just like to zero in on just one of them. It involves the incontrovertible fact that plants needed to cease living in order to support animal life, according to Genesis 1:29-30.

“No-Death” proponents try to get around this difficulty by claiming that the death of a plant or invertebrate is quite different from the death of a “living” or “soulish” (nephesh) creature such as a vertebrate or human being. Their reasoning is two-fold: (1) Only the latter are said to be “living” beings and (2) It is never stated in the Bible that plants and invertebrates “die” (mwt), at least in not at all the same sense that “living” creatures die. For example, plants are said to wither (yabesh) instead.

Both of these contentions are wide open to the charge of being mere speculation if either (a) any scriptural references can be shown to include plants and invertebrates in the category of “living” beings or (b) there are any passages stating that plants or invertebrates die, using mwt, the same Hebrew word employed for vertebrate deaths. Here are some passages that may be pertinent in that respect, listed in the order in which they appear in the Bible.

Genesis 1:24-25

On the sixth day of Creation, God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind.” and then he enumerates the sub-categories of these “living creatures” as (1) cattle, (2) creeping things and (3) wild animals. The question at this point is: What constitutes creeping things?

Wenham says that it “refers to mice, reptiles, insects, and any other little creature that keep close to the ground.” Thus, clearly invertebrate land creatures are considered to be “living (nephesh) creatures.”

Genesis 6:17

A similar point arises in this passage regarding who or what will die in the Flood. The text says that the deaths will include “all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.” So even if it is said that plants do not breathe oxygen like animals do, the second explanatory phrase in v. 17 seems to indicate that this same “death” apparently includes invertebrates as well as vertebrates.

Genesis 7:22-23

We get a little further clarification in verse 22 as to the identity of “all flesh.” It is said to include birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings, “everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life.” And then in verse 23 the category of “creeping things” is added.

In this passage, we are introduced to another class of animals subsumed under the category of “all flesh” and “everything on earth which breathes.” That is the group of swarming (srs) creatures. According to Hill, “seres identifies primarily swarming aquatic creatures and insects.” Similarly, Wenham says that it includes more than just insects, but “they are small creatures that often occur in swarms and move to and fro in haphazard fashion. 'Swarmers' are to be found on land, in the sea, and in the air.”

Genesis 8:21-22

Finally, in this passage we see that those destroyed were “every living creature.” And we are even given a hint that the death of plants occurred during the Flood when God promises never again to disrupt the cycle of plant life.

Exodus 10:17

Following the plague of locust which left nothing green in the land of Egypt “no tree, no plant in the field,” Pharaoh says to Moses, “Do forgive my sin just this once, and pray to the LORD your God that at the least he remove this deadly thing [literally 'this death'] from me.” That could possibly refer to the death of plants, but other explanations are much more likely, as seen below:

Propp says, “Pharaoh speaks as if he alone were suffering in contrast with his previous mention of himself and his people (8:4; 9:27)...Pharaoh's overstatement proves prophetic. He does not suspect the true death about to strike Egypt.”

Knight: “Egypt is now left to starve...No wonder then that Pharaoh refers to the event as 'this death.'”

“Durham: “Pharaoh indeed has not been in such straits before. Not even had the terrible destruction of the hailstorm...stirred in him such panic, for once ended, the hailstorm left hope amidst destruction in the living men, animals, and crops. These locusts, however, were systematically and thoroughly cutting off Egypt's future. The only word for it is Pharaoh's chilling description: 'this death' a still further echo of the frightening prospect brought by the worst of the mighty acts to this point.”

Thus, we see that it is not just the fact that the plants had “died,” but that it meant “death” for all of Egypt.

Leviticus 11:10-11

After describing the clean animals of the sea which have fins and scales, this law says that “anything in the seas or the streams that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and among all the other living creatures that are in the waters – they are detestable to you.” Thus, the invertebrate shellfish, squids, octopi, etc. are also considered as “living creatures.”

Job 8:11-13

After giving examples of plants withering, Bildad concludes, “Such are the paths of all who forget God.” So even if mwt is not applied to plants here, “wither” (yabesh) is applied to both human beings and plants here in reference to their common deaths.

Job 12:7-10

Job mentions the animals, plants, birds and fish and then lumps them all together as “every living [chai] thing.” In this case, a different Hebrew word is employed for “living,” but one that is used throughout the OT to describe God, human beings, and vertebrates.

Job 14:8

Job says that a tree will be cut down and its stump die (mwt) in the ground.

Ecclesiastes 10:1

“Dead flies make the perfumer's ointment give off a foul odor.” Thus, we are taught that apparently insects can die. But Longman points out, “Numerous issues surround the translation of dead flies (zebube mawet)...the Hebrew most naturally means 'flies of death,' indicating either 'poisonous flies'...or perhaps 'doomed flies'...Perhaps it is best simply to take the construct as attributing death to the flies.”

Isaiah 51:6

“Those who live on it [i.e. the earth] will die [mwt] like gnats.” In other words, insects and human beings die in the same manner.

Isaiah 66:24

If the worms who devour the damned never die [mwt], that may mean that the damned will suffer everlasting punishment and/or the worms will have such an ever-renewing source of the damned that they will live forever. In this context, it certainly does not merely state that no worm is capable of dying [mwt] but infers just the opposite.

Jonah 4:6-7

In this passage, God first appoints a plant to grow up and provide shelter for Jonah, and then he appoints a worm to eat up a plant. It is difficult to explain how supposedly soul-less creatures could have the ability to obey a command of God.

As we move on to NT passages, we might expect some further revelations as to what sort of life and death living things possess. But we must remember that the language here is Greek, not Hebrew, and so it may not be possible to make a direct statement regarding life and death before the Fall.

Luke 3:8

Jesus makes the outstanding proclamation in this verse that God is able to raise up children of Abraham even from non-living stones. This should certainly warn us against making any hard and fast statements regarding what is living, what is non-life, and what is dead. Apparently God's definitions are a bit broader than our narrow understanding.

Luke 4:3

Similarly, if Satan is correct in his understanding here, God is able to transcend the categories of the non-living and plant life by turning rocks into bread. And Jesus appears to agree with this understanding, although he doesn't fall for Satan's trap.

Luke 19:40

“Living” stones even show up a third time as Jesus is entering Jerusalem. As the multitudes praise Jesus in joyous welcome, he makes the comment to the critical Pharisees, “I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out.” Of course, we can dismiss this as mere hyperbole, but it may possibly indicate that even inorganic matter is “alive” enough to respond to God in some manner or another.

John 12:24

In this interesting discussion, Jesus attempts to explain the necessity for His upcoming death. He uses the analogy of plant life and death when he says, “unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” That does not constitute any sort of absolute proof that plants die in the exact manner of human deaths, but we may take it as again indicative of the biblical propensity to equate the two throughout both Testaments.

James 1:10-11

James avers that the rich man will “wither” and “fade away” like the flower. This is contrary to the idea that only plants can wither; the same verb is used to describe the death of a plant and a man.

Jude 12

The author compares those who reject divine authority as “autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted.” The analogy again equates the death of human beings with the “death” of plants, trees in this case.

Revelation 8:9

In this plague, “a third of the living creatures in the sea died.” So here we see the recurrence of the OT phrase “living creatures” as well as the verb “die” applied to everything living in the sea, presumably including the many invertebrate animals there and possibly the plant life as well.

Conclusion

In summary, we can now say why the following comments can be safely made with plenty of scriptural support:

“As a result of God's creative activity, both animals and people are 'living creatures.' In this sense, all of animate nature is on similar standing.” (Brensinger)

“mwt ['die'] occurs hundreds of times with the notion of natural death whether of humans, animals, or plants.” (Merrill)

“The literal properties of plants as being alive, growing and fruitful make them a chief source of metaphors and similes for human life...The same qualities that make plants images of life also make them images of mutability. If plants can grow...they can also decline. If they live, they also die. No source of imagery for transience is more frequently used by biblical writers than plants.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, p. 650)

Thus, there is no scriptural basis whatsoever for declaring that only vertebrates can truly be considered to live and die.

MOSES THE SINNER

When it comes to prominent characters in the Old Testament, rabbinical scholarship over the years has had the tendency to engage in hagiography, i.e. idealizing its subjects by stressing their good points and explaining away their deficiencies. This is especially true where the Patriarchs are concerned. The best corrective to such wasted efforts is to keep in mind that in the OT there is only one hero, God Himself.

Let us take a look at Moses' life for example. For one thing, it is hard to deny that he had a major problem with keeping his temper in check, even if it his outbursts were usually of the type that would be called righteous indignation. But even a little righteous indignation goes a long way since not one of us is inherently righteous.

Moses' problems start out with a sin that most of us would consider the greatest one of all – the murder of a fellow human being (see Exodus 2:11-15). Several facts come out from this account of Moses' killing of the Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew. It was not done on the spur of the moment in hot blood since we are specifically told that Moses first carefully looked around to make sure he was unobserved before killing the man. Thus, we could not really call it unpremeditated, an accident, self defense, or manslaughter. Secondly, he carefully concealed the body, hoping that no one would find it. Thirdly, when a fellow Hebrew revealed that the incident was known by others, Moses reacted out of sheer fear by running away before Pharaoh could arrest and execute him. This is despite the fact that it is doubtful Pharaoh would have done that to his own adopted grandson.

Certainly Satan felt this murder was a great enough sin that he argued with the archangel Michael about the fate of Moses' body after death. We only know about this incident from its mention in Jude 9. Jude is apparently quoting from a pseudepigraphal Jewish writing known as either the Assumption of Moses or the Testament of Moses. While these two may be the same document, some scholars feel they are two separate accounts. Unfortunately, the existing copies of this work (or works) are missing the final pages which would have contained this incident. But the early church fathers were in agreement that this served as the source of Jude's comments since he also quotes from this writing in verse 17.

In any case, the event should not be confused with the eternal fate of Moses' soul. As Neyrey says, Jude seems uninteresting in the state of Moses' soul at death, but rather focuses both on Michael's 'not daring' [to rebuke Satan] and especially on the Lord's eventual judgment.”

We pick up Moses' life in Exodus 3, where we learn that he has settled in to a comfortable life tending sheep and has married the daughter of Jethro, a priest of Midian. At least later in the life of Israel, such intermarriages were highly criticized as leading to heterodox religious practices and out-and-out apostasy. Just witness the spiritual downfall of Solomon and the drastic actions taken by Ezra after the return from Exile to purify the remnant who had returned to Jerusalem.

Then, Moses has his direct interview with God in the burning bush. But at this point, Moses' tendency to fear comes back and he begins making excuses as to why he is unsuitable for the role God has planned out for him. It is only when God reveals that “those who were seeking your life are dead” that Moses actually musters up enough nerve to travel back to Egypt to confront Pharaoh (Exodus 4:18-20).

At this point we run into the mysterious incident in which God actually tries to kill Moses, presumably because he had failed to circumcise his son as he should have. Some have deduced that perhaps Moses had given in to his pagan wife's objection to carry out that needed act (Exodus 4:24-26). If so, then it is an indication that, like Solomon afterward, he was willing to compromise his religious beliefs to keep peace in the family.

Several commentators have found verification of that scenario from Zipporah's harsh comments regarding Moses being “a bridegroom of blood to me.” It is as if she is saying, “If your strange god demands blood, then here it is!”

We could look on this event as being the third time Moses revealed that he was much more afraid of man (and woman) than he was of God.

For most of the rest of the time in the wilderness, Moses could not be accused of any grievous sort of sin, unless one wishes to count the time when he managed to break all ten commandments at the same time upon seeing the Israelites break only one, that of idolatry (Exodus 32:19). Of course, Moses only “broke” the commandments in a literal way, not a figurative one.

Then we come to the puzzling episode recorded in Numbers 20:1-13 in which God tells Moses to command a rock bring forth water for the people to drink from. Instead, in his anger at the people, Moses strikes the rock instead. For that seemingly minor infraction, God tells him that he will never be allowed into the Promised Land. The question is Why?

David Wright voices the opinion of many scholars: “Moses and Aaron apparently sin by not clearly attributing the miracle to God.” He points to verse 12 where God tells Moses that he did not “show my holiness before the eyes of the Israelites.” In confirmation of that viewpoint is the key pronoun “we” in verse 10 when Moses asks the people: “Shall we bring water for you out of this rock?”

As an alternative explanation for Moses' inability to enter the Promised Land, there is the comment given in Deuteronomy 1:34-37, and repeated in 3:23-29, that God was angry with Moses on account of the first generation's unwillingness to enter and possess the land when they were told to. But why was Moses held accountable for that failure?

Craigie says, “The reason for Moses' exclusion from the promised land, in this context, seems to be directly related to his responsibility for the Israelites...his identification with the people as their leader meant that he also accepted with them the result of their failure.”

Levinson even goes a step further in talking about Moses “vicariously bearing the punishment due Israel for her sins.” Thus, in that way, Moses is seen as a type of Christ to come.

Despite Moses' personal failures in his life and God rebuking him on several occasions, that does not equate to him being excluded from the heavenly kingdom. We see a hint of that in Deuteronomy 34:6 where the Hebrew text literally states that after Moses' death “He buried him,” clearly referring to God's personal action. And this attitude of God toward Moses is confirmed by his subsequent appearance with Elijah in a glorified form at the Mount of Transfiguration.

Paradoxically, rabbinical attempts to make light of Moses' failings in order to present him as the model Israelite without fault have the unintended effect of similarly making light of the extent of God's grace. But that same thing happens every single time that works-oriented Christians feel they can earn their way into heaven by living a sinless life.

THE UNITY OF EXODUS 1-2

There are two completely different ways to approach any portion of the Pentateuch: those critical scholars of the liberal camp who assume a very late date and a number of different sources for the composition of Exodus and the more evangelical understanding of the text as a unified whole originating with a single first-hand source. In addition, there are other commentators who do see a unity, but one having a very ancient prehistory.

Source Criticism

Without going into undue detail on the subject, here are first some positions taken by the critical scholars:

    Knight: “The book of Exodus is a theological essay in the form of narrative...These events are not necessarily factual.”

    W.H.C. Propp analyzes the book as a heroic fairy tale and finds similarities with Canaanite myths. He assumes that the book reached its final edited form sometime after the Babylonian Exile.

    Schipper: “Although there is currently no consensus on the classification of these different literary components in Ex 1, at least one insight is clear: Ex 1 can be divided into three layers—a priestly source, non-priestly passages, and post-priestly additions.”

As an example of this lack of consensus, here are the sources assigned to the various passages within Exodus 1-2 by three recent commentators. The sources are commonly known as P (Priestly), E (Elohim), J (Yahweh), and R (for the final redactor or editor):

    Propp: 1:1-5a (P or R); 1:5b-6 (R); 1:7 (P or R); 1:8-12 (J or perhaps E); 1:14 (P); 1:15-21 (E or perhaps J); 1:22-2:10 (J or E); 2:11-22 (J); 2:23a (unknown); 2:23b-25 (P)

    Durham: 1:1-7 (P); 1:8-12 (J); 1:13-14 (P); 1:15-22 (EJ); 2:1-22 (E or J); 23a (J); 23b-25 (P)

    Childs: 1:1-5 (P), 1:6 (J); 1:7 (P); 1:13-14 (P); 2:23b-25 (P)

Concerning the remainder of the verses, Childs says, “However, the division of the rest of the chapter between J and E has produced much diversity of opinion...The relation of [2:]11-22 to [2:]1-10 remains a problem since solid criteria on which to make a source judgment are lacking.”

Commenting on these and similar attempted source analyses in the literature, Rendsburg and Hoffmeier state: “It truly is remarkable that source critics are unable to agree on the division of the text and the assignment of the verses to whatever source(s). As another indication thereof, note that Richard Friedman assigns vv. 8–12 to the E source while Joel Baden attributes them to the J source. While these points by themselves do not constitute sufficient cause to dismiss the entire J-E-P enterprise (or other source-critical approaches), they nevertheless raise an eyebrow and suggest that an altogether different approach is worthy of consideration.”

And Cole summarizes the situation by saying, “By the end of the nineteenth century, the dominant critical hypothesis had...reduced Exodus to a mosaic of documents of different dates (but all long after Moses)...[This] old and tidy 'documentary hypothesis' has largely failed by its own success, with ever smaller and smaller units, or unconnected fragments postulated by scholars, instead of major and continuous written sources.”

Even if there were better agreement between these scholars in assigning individual verses to the proper sources, that alone would not prove that the information relayed was of a late date and therefore historically unreliable. To do that, one would have to (a) confidently date each of the sources themselves and (b) totally discount the presence of earlier reliable oral sources behind each source.

Word Studies

Therefore going hand in glove with the findings of Source Critics are the contention of philologists such as Schipper who claim to detect the presence of word forms and vocabulary in the Hebrew of Exodus (and elsewhere in the Old Testament) borrowed from Egyptian and other Near Eastern languages confidently dating to no earlier than the first millennium BC. Gary A. Rendsburg (Rutgers University) and James K. Hoffmeier (Trinity International University) have recently responded to Schipper's contention in a rather technical article two-part article published in the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections with particular attention to the linguistic evidence. They summarize their findings in the following words: “It is determined that: a) the transcription of ra-mz-zw as 'Rameses' coheres with the Semitic evidence of the 13th‒12th centuries BCE; b) the word 'corvée' is not a borrowing from Neo-Assyrian (or any other Akkadian dialect) but rather constitutes a pure West Semitic word; c) the word 'storages, storehouses' also is [indicative] of a good West Semitic derivation; d) the narrative of Exodus 1–2 should not be divided into separate sources, but rather should be read in a holistic manner; and e) the two chapters are dated on linguistic grounds to the earliest stratum of Biblical Hebrew narrative prose literature.”

Structural Criticism

If in contrast to the above atomization of the text, one treats it as a unified whole, then the first two chapters of Exodus look suspiciously like a section unto itself with the general organization:

a. frame (1:1-6)

b. Israel enters slavery, Moses' youth (1:7-2:22)

a'. frame (2:23-25)

The two framing sections do indeed have verbal parallels to one another in that both mention Jacob and the death of a key personage. But since there appears to be more than one discrete story in Unit b, these verses should be examined in more detail. The result of this examination is the parallel structure shown below:

                                                Figure 1: The Literary Structure of Exodus 1-2

Introduction: Joseph dies (1:1-7)

A. Egyptians afflict Jews (1:8-14)

B. Attempt to Kill Jewish Children Fails (1:15-22)

C. Moses Drawn out of Water by Pharaoh's Daughter (2:1-9)

D. Moses becomes her Son (2:10)

A'. Egyptians afflict Jews (2:11-14)

B'. Attempt to Kill Moses Fails (2:15a)

C'. Moses draws Water for Jethro's Daughter (2:15b-21)

D'. Moses has a Son (2:22)

Conclusion: the King of Egypt dies (2:23-25)

This structure emphasizes Yahweh's personal overseeing of all the events in Moses' life. The parallelism shows this to be true in the relatively mundane events of A'-D' as well as in the more spectacular way in which his life was preserved at birth. Moses' close identification with his people is, of course, directly portrayed in Exodus 2:11-14. However, the same point is made in a more subtle manner by the parallelism between units B and B'. An interesting contrast between the two cycles in this section occurs in the varied usages of the key word “fear” in these passages. In the first cycle, the midwives are twice said to fear God (1:17, 21). By contrast, Moses feared for his life in 2:14. The play on these two definitions occurs again in the central passage of the book, Exodus 19-24.

Additional evidence for the two-cycle arrangement of this section is found in Greenberg's observation that the verses in the first cycle contain seven appearances of the word “child” plus one use of the plural “children” while the second cycle contains seven occurrences of “man” plus one of the plural “men.”

Thus, a holistic way of reading the text has been demonstrated to be the best way to understand it.

HIDDEN SELF-PORTRAITS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

 The authors of the NT sometimes have a way of alluding to themselves in their writings in a rather indirect manner. Witness the following examples:

Matthew

All that we really know about Matthew's life is that he was a tax-collector when called by Jesus. But we can readily discern his preoccupation with monetary matters by comparing the following statistics regarding his use of vocabulary germane to that profession compared to the other four Evangelists:

Word                                                 Matthew         Mark         Luke          John

silver (argurion)                                  6x

gold (chrusos)                                     5x

tribute money (nomisma)                    1x

stater                                                   1x

penny (denari)                                    6x                  3x              3x              2x

talent (talanton)                                 15x

tax (kenson)                                        3x                                    1x

pay back (apodidemi)                        7x                                     2x

pay (teleo)                                          1x

farthing (assarion)                             1x                                     1x

quadrens (kodra)                               1x                    1x

Mark

There are two mysterious men who appear in this Gospel account: one before the Last Supper who shows the Apostles where that meal is to be held (14:12-16) and another young man who has followed Jesus and the Eleven from that meal into the Garden of Gethsemane and flees when Jesus is arrested (14:51). The first of these incidents is also narrated in Matthew 26:17-19 and Luke 22:7-13, but the most logical deduction for Mark being the sole evangelist to mention the second rather embarrassing situation is that he himself was the scantily clad young man who lost his linen cloth, and possible also the man who showed the Apostles where the upper room was located.

Adding to the likelihood of this possibility is the fact that the when the Apostles were later in hiding after the crucifixion, they were in the home of John Mark's mother. And Mark may have also been recalling this failure of his in light of his similar desertion of Paul while on the mission field (see Acts 15:38).

Luke

Some authors have attempted to detect the author in the use of specific medical terminology that would be appropriate to the Beloved Physician, but more recent studies throw doubt on that sort of reasoning. However, in Acts Luke does show up as a first-hand participant in some of the events, as pointed out in the “we” sections of the book, which do match up fairly nicely with what we are told in Paul's letter concerning his travels and missionary companions.

But the most interesting possibility is that Luke was the anonymous author of the Letter to the Hebrews. Assuming that letter was written by someone appearing elsewhere in the New Testament, Luke should be considered as a prime candidate for several reasons.

First is the historically strong association of the letter with Paul or one of his close companions. Next is very polished Greek style of writing also characterizing Luke's known writings. Also, David L. Allen, in his 400-page book Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, has pointed to numerous examples in which Hebrews shares unique Greek vocabulary and stylistic characteristics with Luke-Acts.

The fixation on the number “ten” seen in the structure of the Letter to the Hebrews has echoes in the ten appearances of “tabernacle” (all in the last half of the letter), lego in the present tense active voice and “Abraham.” Of the three key words in the book identified by Bengel, one (pistos, “faithful”) appears five times as does its root verb peitho. There are ten references to a new or better covenant in the book. Counting 7:8 as a possibility, Psalm 110 is alluded to ten times in Hebrews. Also, the Greek words for “tithe” and “receive tithes” appear in the NT only in this letter. Turning to Luke’s known writings, the use of number “ten” in his Gospel accounts for almost half the occurrences of this particular number in the whole NT. Including the multiple “ten thousand” in Lk. 14:31, “ten” appears exactly ten times in Luke’s Gospel. The combined work Luke-Acts contains 10 of the 17 appearances in the New Testament of “free/freedom,” indicating, in Allen's words, a “considerable theological weight” assigned by Luke to this concept. The key verb “evangelize”appears exactly ten times in Acts.

Turning to the overall structure of the Epistle (described in my post “Hebrews: Introduction to the Literary Structure”), there are only two books in the NT besides Hebrews that are structured using major divisions which each contain that same number of subdivisions. These are Galatians and the Gospel of Luke.

A more problematic argument for associating Luke with this epistle stems from the observation that both the prologue and conclusion of Hebrews can, with little difficulty, be seen as five-part chiasms, thus making the total number of sub-sections in Hebrews equal ninety, the exact number of sub-sections present in Luke's Gospel. The number ninety is also significant to Luke in that the key word akouo (to hear) appears ninety times in Acts.

John

In his gospel account we see the classic case of an author revealing his identity mainly by his absence in the story. The Apostle John is mentioned 20 times in the Synoptic Gospels and not once by name in the Gospel of John. Similarly, John's brother James is referred to 17 times in the Synoptics but not at all in John's Gospel.

From the above statistics, it seems obvious that the “Beloved Disciples” who is mentioned in passages such as John 13:23; 19:26; 21:7 and 21:20 is his way of referring to himself anonymously. And this penchant for the word “love” appears throughout John's Gospel and Epistles. Witness the following statistics:

The verb agapeo: 22x in the Synoptics; 36x in John's Gospel; and 24x in John's Epistles.

The noun agape: 3x in the Synoptics; 6x in John's Gospel; and 18x in John's Epistles.

The verb phileo: 5x in the Synoptics; 11x in John's Gospel.

As for the Book of Revelation, there is some controversy among scholars as to which John was the author. But ancient church tradition attributes it to the Apostle John, written in his old age while in exile. Since John was likely the youngest of the Twelve Apostles and John 21:20-23 appears to allude to false rumors that Christ would come again before he died, that would all fit in with the great possibility that John was the last of the Twelve to die.

But as to John hiding any autobiographical information about himself in Revelation, I can only think of one possibility. One of the strangest episodes in Revelation is found in 22:8-9 in which the author bows down to worship an angel and is told not to do so. This is odd since in 19:10 the exact same thing had happened earlier. Once possibility is that this represents one of several repetitions in the book of the same event.

But my own unfounded speculation is as follows: Earlier on, John was one of the three privileged people to witness Jesus' Transfiguration, and yet none of the three apostles appears to have taken that event for the divine appearing that it was. And then at Christ's Resurrection in front of the Eleven Apostles, we learn that some bowed and worshiped Jesus, but others did not (see Matthew 28:17). Perhaps John was one of those who refused to bow in worship on that occasion and had regretted it to the point where now in his old age he was trying to “undo” that lapse by worshiping even those heavenly beings who did not merit such adoration.

Paul

In quite a contrast to the other authors of the NT, Paul takes no great pains to hide himself in his writings. Instead, he constantly alludes to his varied experiences in his epistles. However, there is one obscure passage in which Paul appears to draw a veil over something tremendous that had happened to him by ascribing it to someone that he knew instead. I am talking about II Corinthians 12:1-5 in which he describes “a person in Christ” being caught up to the third heaven and having seen things that could not be revealed. He concludes this account with the strange comment: “On behalf of such a one I will not boast.”

Most commentators feel he is describing his own experiences but does not want to boast about being the one so honored by God with these revelations.

James

Any discerning reader of James' Epistle will be struck at how differently it reads from the other letters in the New Testament. In ways, it almost seems like an OT document with its lack of theological content. On the other hand, many of the teachings in this epistle may seem to be strangely familiar as if we have read them before elsewhere. And that is no accident, as several commentators have noted:

    Blue: “James did not actually quote the Lord's words, but he obviously had internalized His teachings and reproduced them with spiritual depth.”

    Hort says that “this style is especially remarkable for constant hidden allusions to our Lord's sayings, such as we find in the first three Gospels.”

    Adamson responds to the above by saying, “We ourselves believe that this is at least mainly due not merely to James's early sharing some of the oral and written evidence to which those Gospels sooner or later were indebted, but to his own personal witness of the life and teachings of Jesus – a conclusion in harmony with the fact that the groundwork of the Epistle is the same as that of the Sermon on the Mount.”

    Schmid: “James not only agrees in numerous passages with Matthew's Gospel, which appear to be but the echo of the discourses of Jesus...the Sermon on the Mount... its whole spirit may be looked upon as the model of the Epistle of James.”

    Kistemaker: “James seems to give the impression that he is familiar with the oral gospel of Jesus...In his epistle, James echoes the tone and tenor of Jesus' preaching recorded in the Gospels. The parallel between the Sermon on the Mount and verses, clauses, phrases, and words in the letter of James is remarkable.”

Actually, one interesting way to look at the Sermon on the Mount is as a commentary of sorts on Jesus' words recorded there. As an aid to such a study, I have compiled an extensive list of parallels from several sources, and the results may be seen in the post titled “James and the Sermon on the Mount.”

All of this goes to demonstrate that James has completely revealed his identity as Jesus' “brother” by his unique familiarity with the mindset of the Lord.

Peter

There are only two short letters in the NT attributed to Peter, and there are grave doubts regarding his involvement with the first of these (addressed in the next section below). But when I began to systematically compare I and II Peter with what we know concerning his life and speeches in Acts, it became obvious to me that Peter's fingerprints are all over these two books. But rather than rehearse all those examples, I will just refer you to an earlier post on that subject titled “1 and 2 Peter: Study Outline.” There you can find all of the parallels I was able to identify between the teachings in these two epistles and both Peter's life and speeches.

Silvanus

You may be wondering what this name is doing on the list. It all stems from the many negative comments made by scholars, such as those quoted below, regarding the authorship of I Peter.

    “It is unthinkable that Peter as a fisherman from Galilee had command of the Greek language to the degree reflected in the letter, according to our stylistic analysis.” (L. Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter).

    “The person responsible for the poor Greek of 2 Peter could not have written 1 Peter and vice versa.” (P. H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter)

    “Such a letter could not have been written by him, the illiterate fisherman, if he had lived to be over a hundred.” (F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter)

But when I began to compare the literary structures of all the NT books when I found that three of the books stood apart from the rest in having a unique type of organization. They were I Peter and I and II Thessalonians, and they all took this form: Introduction – ABA'ABA' – Conclusion

This begins to make sense when one considers the opening words of I and II Thessalonians: “Paul, Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians.” Then turning to I Peter 5:12, we read, “Through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother, I have written this short letter...” Some scholars have taken this last verse to mean that Silvanus (also called Silas) was just the carrier of Peter's letter, but the similarities in organization of the three letters makes it clear that he served as a trained amanuensis, or secretary, to polish Peter's grammar and style. That effectively explains away the objection to the traditional authorship of I Peter and also makes it quite likely that Silvanus can be considered as the co-author of the letters to the Thessalonians.

Jude

Although most liberal scholars are reluctant to claim that the author of this short book is the brother of Jesus, other commentators are quite comfortable with that identification. Unfortunately, we do not have a lot of information to go on in making a judgment and Jude is a common name of the time, but Jude may have revealed himself as Jesus' brother in two ways.

First, we have the prologue to consider in which the author says that he is the servant of Christ and the brother of James. As Michael Green says, “The unadorned name James can only mean one person, and one only in the apostolic church – James the Lord's brother, the leader of the church in Jerusalem...it is a mark of his modesty that he was prepared to accept the position of playing second fiddle to James, his more celebrated brother.”

The biggest barrier to acceptance of the author as Jesus' brother is the style of writing, which some scholars have attributed to Alexandrian influences. But, as Towner explains, “Of course Greek culture and language had thoroughly penetrated Palestine of the first century, but this does not completely explain how a rural dweller, such as Jude must have been could have acquired the command of Hellenistic Greek suggested by the letter. If the Jude to whom this letter is attributed was the author...the answer might come in the missionary travels of Jude as a young man. His vocabulary is considerable, which travel and experience outside of Aramaic-speaking Palestine could account for, though his style is not as highly polished.”