WHO WROTE COLOSSIANS?

Most Christians will have no problem accepting the Epistle to the Colossians as a composition of Paul. However, that does not imply that this authorship has been universally accepted. Dunn asks, “Who wrote Colossians? This is probably the most contentious of the introductory issues facing the student of Colossians.” I actually doubt that there is a single book in the Bible whose authorship has not been questioned at one time on another by some scholar. Here is a quick overview of the reasonings pro and con regarding that issue. These are generally broken down into discussions of the separate factors highlighted below. But first, a brief summary by Brevard Childs of how the book has been viewed over time is in order:

“The authorship was first seriously questioned by Mayerhoff in 1838 whose theory was then developed by F. S. Baur and his school in the mid-nineteenth century. In the late nineteenth century various attempts were made to support some form of indirect Pauline authorship, either by a hypothesis of subsequent interpolations (Holzmann), or by an appeal to Paul's use of an amanuensis [i.e. secretary]. Although in the period before World War II, Bultmann and his school continued to characterize Colossians with Ephesians as part of the non-genuine 'deutero-Pauline' corpus, there was an impressive group of critical scholars who defended the book's authenticity...However, within the most recent period it would seem that those who support the non-Pauline authorship form a new majority...Naturally there remains a impressive minority voice (Kummel, Moule, etc.).”

 And getting back to Dunn's question above, he answers it himself in the following manner: “I have to confirm the strong likelihood that the letter comes from a hand other than Paul's.” He bases this on “the subjective appreciation of manner and mode of expression” but admits that it may be due to any of a number of factors, including a change in Paul's style over the years or his reliance on a secretary such as Timothy to do the actual writing (either during Paul's life and with his approval of the final product or very soon after Paul's death) based on Paul's rough guidelines. In any case, Colossians should still be considered a Pauline Epistle.

You might ask whether this whole subject warrants such undue scrutiny and whether it really matters one way or another, but Barth and Blanke point out: The question of Pauline authorship is not a matter of antiquarian curiosity, scholarly pedantry, or idle luxury. Ever since, on literary and historical grounds, the secondary and spurious origin of Colossians was 'discovered' or 'demonstrated,' cumulative experience has shown that the verdict 'inauthentic' leads to a depreciation and devaluation of some elements, at times even of the essential substance and character of this letter.” So it remains an important issue for all believers.

Historical Considerations

Pro- O'Brien states, “The character of Paul, as we known it from the other letters, shines throughout the letter. There was no dispute over the authority of Colossians in the early period of the church, and the letter was included in Marcion's canonical list [AD 130-140] as well as in the Muratorian canon [AD 180-200].”

Similarly, R. Martin says, “The later Church Fathers [such as Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian] accepted it and there was no dispute over its authorship in the early decades...”

Con- The only real criticism against Colossians on historical grounds is explained by several commentators as due to its antagonism against Gnosticism, a movement which only came to prominence years after Paul's death. But this is by no means a foolproof argument, as explained below.

Pro- Martin responds: “The heresy combated in the letter is not the fully developed gnosticism of the second century systems but a proto-gnostic synchretism which may well have arisen in the apostolic age (seen most obviously at Corinth as von Dobschutz as early as 1904 was quick to recognize and recently demonstrated with thoroughness by W. Schmithals) and for which there are parallels in heterodox Judaism in the Phygian diaspora.”

Linguistic Issues

“There are 28 words not found elsewhere in Paul, and 34 other words not represented elsewhere. These rare words, moreover, are largely technical or quasi-technical terms, which Paul may well have borrowed from his opponents, especially if he is quoting their actual language or using phrases suitable in debate. In addition he does incorporate the hymnic period (1:15-20) where a proportion of the special vocabulary is found.” (Martin)

Even Raymond Brown, with his somewhat liberal stance on the subject, states that “Phil[ippians], genuinely written by Paul and of comparable length, uses 79 words that do not appear in the other undisputed Pauline letters (including 36 that appear nowhere else in the NT). Thus the percentages of unusual words prove nothing; and even if they were much higher in Col, that would not be decisive because the writer might be drawing on the false teaching present at Col for some of his distinctive terminology. Another verbal objection to Pauline writing is the absence in Col of favorite Pauline phrases...Again this statistic becomes less impressive when we realize that 'to justify' is not found in I Thess, Phil, and II Cor; nor is 'law' found in I Thess and II Cor; nor 'save/salvation' in Gal. Moreover, once more the vocabulary of Col may have been shaped by the problem at hand.”

Similarly, although Brevard Childs' main emphasis of analysis is not on the exact authorship itself, he states the following: “Consistent with Paul's practice and fully obvious for this letter is the recognition that the apostle did not write a timeless theological tractate. Rather, the letter to the Colossians was evoked by a false teaching which had made inroads into the church and posed a serious threat...It seems increasingly clear that much of the basic theological language by which the false teaching as contested by the writer has its roots within the heresy itself.”

For those who accept Ephesians as an authentic letter of Paul, it is difficult for them to assert that the language in the two letters differs considerably. I will not bother comparing such language exhaustively. However, as a small demonstration, consider just the center sections of each epistle, which I have earlier determined by literary characteristics to consist of Ephesians 3:1-21 and Colossians 2:8-23:

    Eph. 3:5 – humankind                                                     Col. 2:8 – human condition

    Eph. 3:7,16,18,20 – power                                             Col. 12 – power

    Eph. 3:10 – rulers and authorities in heavenly places     Col. 2:10 – every ruler and authority

    Eph. 3:10 – wisdom of God                                            Col. 2:23 – appearance of wisdom

    Eph. 19 – fullness of God Col. 2:9 – fullness of deity

And for those who do not accept Ephesians as an authentic writing of Paul, there is still the short book of Philemon to consider since it is universally accepted as being by Paul:

    Col. 1:1 – Timothy our brother                                      Phe. 1 – Timothy our brother

    Col. 1:2 – for his body's sake                                         Phe. 9 – for love's sake

    Col. 1:3 – I give thanks to God                                      Phe. 4 – we give thanks to God

    Col. 1:4 – We heard of...the love you have to all the saints

                                            Phe. 5 – hearing of the the love and faith which you have toward...the saints

Col. 1:5,23 – gospel                                                          Phe. 13 – gospel

Col. 2:4 – I say                                                                 Phe. 21 – I say (different Greek words)

Col. 2:6; 4:10,17 – receive                                               Phe. 12,17 – receive (different Greek words)

Col. 2:13 – forgiven (charisamenos)                               Phe. 22 – granted (charisthasomai)

Col. 3:13 – forgiven (charizomenoi                                 Phe. 22 – granted (charisthasomai)

Col. 3:20,22 – obey                                                         Phe. 21 – obedience

Col. 3:22; 4:1,12 – servant                                               Phe. 16 – servant

Col. 3:24; 4:1 – knowing that...you                                 Phe. 21 – knowing that you

Col. 3:25 – to wrong (2x)                                                Phe. 18 – to wrong

Col. 4:2,12 – prayer(s)                                                     Phe. 4,22 – prayer(s)

Col. 4:3 – withal (nema)                                                  Phe. 22 withal (nema)

Col. 4:7,9,14 – beloved                                                    Phe. 2,16 – beloved

Col. 4:8 – whom I have sent (pempo) to you                  Phe. 12 – whom I have sent (anapempo) to you

Col. 4:9 – Onesimus                                                        Phe. 10 – Onesimus

Col. 4:10,12,15 – greet                                                    Phe. 23 – greet

Col. 4:12 – laboring fervently for you in prayers

                                                                            Phe. 4 – making mention of you always in my prayers

Col. 4:15 – church in his house                                       Phe. 2 – church in your house

Col. 4:17 – Archippus                                                     Phe. 2 – Archippus

Col. 4:18 – bonds                                                            Phe. 10,13 – bonds

Col. 4:18 – hand                                                              Phe. 19 – hand

Colossians – “flesh” in a positive sense (5x)                  Phe. 16 – “flesh” in a positive sense

This sort of verbal agreement is truly amazing and goes a long way toward confirming Paul's authorship of Colossians.

Stylistic Considerations

Con – “Characteristic features of style, as distinct from vocabulary, include liturgical material with long clauses introduced by relative pronouns, inserted causal and participial phrases, combined and synonymous expressions ('strengthened with all power,' Col 1:11; 'praying and asking,' Col 1:9), a series of dependent genitives ('the word of truth, of the gospel,' Col 1:5) and loosely joined infinitival construction ('who walk worthily of the Lord,' Col 1:10).” (O'Brien)

Pro – O'Brien accounts for these deviations from Paul's usual manner of writing which have given rise to the theory of another author in the following way: “But such a judgment appears to be unduly negative and presupposes an almost infallible understanding of what Paul could or could not have written. Further, it does not explain the close similarities between Colossians and the generally accepted Pauline letters. Rather, the stylistic peculiarities would seem to have their basis in the letter's content which is clearly connected with the particular situation which necessitated the letter.”

Next, a few comments concerning the overall form of the letter to the Colossians are in order. O'Brien says, “Many of the formal features of Colossians show similarities with the other Pauline letters, including its structure (the introduction, Col 1:1-2; conclusion, Col 4:18; and thanksgiving prayer, Col 1:3-8), connecting words and phrases (Col 2:1,6,16; 3:1,5) as well as the list of messages and greetings (cf. Col 4:8,10,12,15).” Additionally, in regard to the overall shape of the letter, my own researches have demonstrated that Colossians takes the form of a chiasm (detained symmetrical structure) in common with all of Paul's later letters.

O'Brien next enumerates a number of common phrases found elsewhere in Paul's authentic writings including his “superfluous use of 'and' and 'therefore' (Col 1:9; cf. 1 Thess 2:13; 3:5).”

Martin explains, “We cannot say whether Paul gave liberty to a secretary (Timothy? 1:1) to write up the final letter from his rough draft, taken down by dictation. ..On that assumption...the unusual literary style of the epistle could be explained, along with the presence of some terms not found elsewhere in Paul. This is P. Benoit's hypothesis.”

“Finally, the absence of some of the characteristic Pauline stylistic features, especially in the use of particles may be set down to the nature of the letter as a document embodying distinctive material in a litrugio-hymnic style and containing traditional material of a didactic nature relating to a specific occasion...This special occasion required the conscious use of a specialized vocabulary...and gave Paul's scribe a simpler task to compose in a more leisurely, systematic and reflective style.” (Martin)

Con- “There are extraordinarily long sentences in Col hooked together by participles and relative pronouns..., e.g., 1:3-8, 2:8-15. True, there are long sentences in the undisputed Pauline letters (e.g., Rom 1:1-7), but the Col style is marked by pleonastic synonyms piling up words that convey the same idea.” (Brown)

Pro- In rebuttal to this issue, Brown asks himself, “Are such differences reconcilable with Paul's having written Col? Granted that Paul did not personally evangelize Colossae, did he take care to send a message in a style influenced by hymns and liturgical confessions known there, so that his correction of the teaching would not seem alien? Did he employ a scribe who knew Colossae (Epaphras or one influenced by him?) and depend on his cooperation in apposite phrasing? That could explain in part why so many of the minor particles, adverbs, and connective words common to genuine Pauline style are missing.”

Theological Issues

Con- Childs notes “the peculiar theological profile of the letter...appears to reflect strong elements of both continuity and discontinuity with the undisputed letters of Paul.”

Concerning the “discontinuities,” Raymond Brown reviews in more detail the problem areas in Colossians' teachings in the areas of Christology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology.

Pro- But after the above review, Brown concludes, “Many scholars work almost with a dialectic of thesis and antithesis. They are confident of the clarity of Paul's thought, which stemmed from the revelation he received, and they can judge with certainty what would be contradictory to it (We saw an extreme form of that view in the opinion that would reject Rom 9-11 as unauthentic because Paul could not have thought thus about Israel.)..The contention that Paul could not possibly have held the...views advanced in Col is overstated.” Although these theological considerations alone do not convince Brown that Paul did write Colossians, he does feel that they lean in that direction.

Pro- Wright sees definite affinities between Colossians and the universally accepted early writings of Paul in the following areas: Christology (Philippians 2:6-11; I Corinthians 8:6; II Corinthians 4:4; 8:9), critiques against Judaism and viewing Christians as the true people of God (Romans 2:17-29; Philippians 3:2-11; II Corinthians 3; and all of Galatians), and the church as Christ's body (I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12). “Finally, the pregnant and difficult verse about suffering (1:24) can be understood only if we line it up with 2 Corinthians 1:3-11; 4:7-18 and Romans 8:17-25.”...Colossians does not, it is true, mention the doctrine of justification (It is, however, frequently implicit, for instance in 3:10-13)...The real center of Paul's thought, as of his life, is not justification, but that which underlies it and gives it its polemical cutting edge, namely, the crucified and risen Jesus, seen as the revelation in action of the one creator God...”

Con- Barth and Blanke summarize the damning case against Pauline authorship set forth by Bultmann, who accuses the author of espousing “a Christian Gnosis, a tradition-bound authoritarianism and clericalism, a speculative conception of the relation between Christ and the cosmos, a poor form of moralism, and a return to the equivalent of Jewish good works. In other words, the epistle exhibits a “somewhat faded Paulism.” And, according to Bultmann, all of the above indicates that the author had failed miserably to counter the attacks of the Gnostics of his time.

Pro-

The response of Barth and Blanke to such charges is as follows: “Not only is such reasoning questionable, but two of its presuppositions are less than sufficiently confirmed: (1) the assumption that Paul never might have failed and even more (2) the conviction that Colossians is the product of a man victimized by the Colossian Religion.

Additional specific areas of theology under question in Colossians are best treated one at a time, giving both sides of the issue in each case, as discussed by Ralph Martin.

Teachings on Baptism

There are at least three different charges leveled against Colossians by scholars such as Kasemann in regard to its teachings on baptism being different that Paul's comments in the “authentic” Pauline letters. The issue involves a detailed analysis of Colossians 1:15-20 in contrast to Philippians 2:5-11 and other epistles of Paul and is much too complicated to rehearse here, but suffice it to say that Martin sees no overwhelming difficulty with any of the supposed problems, as he explains in his conclusion to the subject.

It is likely “that the epistle's editor has utilized an early hymn and suitably redacted it for his purpose to emphasize (a) the eschatological/salvific teaching of an original cosmological tribute, and (b) the application of the cosmic victory of Christ to his readers' lives. If these two considerations are borne in mind it must be granted that that this type of citation and application, set in a baptismal frame, is exactly Paul's manner of joining soteriology and ethics, as in Philippians 2:5-11.”

Martin adds that Kasemann's “understanding of the hymn presupposes two ideas. First, he takes it as axiomatic that the primary purpose of the passage which had an existence independent of and prior to its inclusion in the letter is not to combat the Colossian heresy.”

“Secondly, the surrounding context of 1:12-14 gives substantial support to the view that the hymn was part of a baptismal liturgy.” Martin has no problem with this part of Kasemann's argument, but “it is less persuasive when he proceeds to conclude that the author of the epistle has taken over the introit (1:12-14) and the hymn without modification...and that these modifications do not represent the author's response to the Colossian heresy. Martin then proceeds in the rest of his commentary to thoroughly discredit this second assumption.

The Body of Christ

He says that “It is argued that the term 'body of Christ' is used differently in I Corinthians-Romans, where its usage is figurative of the Church, from Colossians in which the author speaks of the body as a cosmic reality as well as a description of the Church (1:18,24; 2:19; 3:15) of which Christ is the head. But the ecclesiological sense predominates and there are clear adumbrations of Paul's Colossian teachings in his second Adam typology; and the emphatic cosmic dimension of Christ's headship may well have been evoked by Paul's partial agreement with and partial correction of the false teaching on this theme.”

Hope

Bornkamm zeroes in on Colossians 1:5 with its mention of hope 'as prepared for you in the heavenly sphere' and attempts to draw a contrast between that teaching and the subjective sense of hope in the common triad 'faith, hope and love' found in Paul's authentic writings.

Martin responds: “It is true that 'hope' does carry this special meaning in Colossians, occasioned (we may believe) by the need to show that the Church's trust in the gospel is secure 'in the heavenly world' where Christ's lordship was in dispute. It is not to be lost by compromise with the heretics. However, Bornkamm's denial of a temporal aspect to hope in this epistle overlooks the eschatological dimension and the hope of the Lord's parousia which appears in one important section (3:1-4). The present hour (4:5) is one of opportunity as Christians live 'between the times' of the two advents; and the prospect of future reward and judgment is held out (3:24-4:1).”

Final Considerations

Finally, there are those like N.T. Wright who note: “Some of those who doubt Colossians' authenticity build their case on theology, saying that the style of the letter does not provide clear enough indication. Others, happy to say that the theology of the letter is substantially Pauline, think that the style alone forces us to say that someone other than Paul wrote it. This suggests, actually, that neither the style nor the theology is as decisive in mounting an argument against authenticity as some have suggested. More recent work has shown that an excellent case for Pauline authorship can still be made out.”

It is recognized that there are close correspondences between Colossians and Ephesians. Thus, one could be forgiven for simply asking why scholars haven't just used one as a standard of a genuine composition of Paul and compared the other writing to it to determine its authenticity. Barth and Blanke address this possibility but only add to the confusion regarding the whole issue by pointing out that there are scholars who feel that (a) both books are authentic, (b) neither book is authentic, (c) Colossians is authentic but Ephesians isn't, or (d) Ephesians is authentic but Colossians isn't.

And in case you are wondering at this point why Bible scholars sometimes go to such great lengths trying to overturn traditional conclusions regarding issues such as authorship, Melick has some good things to say on the subject:

“While the questions of authorship are quite complex, some general observations about method may be helpful. Many of the recent theories of critical scholarship arise from a procedure of methodological doubt. That is, skepticism becomes the tool of learning. [This has been called a 'hermeneutic of suspicion.'] The result is that, rather than approaching the text with sympathy for its statements and the history of its study some approach the text to see why it cannot be what others decide it is. Doubt has a place in the reasoning process, but it should not overrule good arguments to the contrary. Often good explanations are rejected simply because they are traditional. Along with this is a second methodological principle, that of determining proper standards for comparison. Since the objective data are limited, scholars can easily drift into subjective standards of comparison that are psychological and sociological, as well as theological.”

But the above begs the question as to why mainly liberal scholars should start out with such a negative approach to begin with. It could possibly be done in an attempt to discredit the teachings of the Bible because of the way they might impact their individual lifestyles. However, I believe an even more pervasive motive is found in the common motto in the halls of academia – “Publish or Perish.”It is simply harder to get attention, tenure, promotion, and book sales in a university setting if all one does is agree with the accepted wisdom of the past.

"EVERY TRIBE, TONGUE, PEOPLE AND NATION" (REVELATION 5:9, ETC)

“Every tribe, tongue, people and nation” (Revelation 5:9, etc)

My own feeling is that even a cursory reading of Revelation gives the gist of what John is attempting to convey, but that does not mean that such a superficial overview has exhausted all that is in the book. Actually, it appears that there are almost endless insights one can get from the book of Revelation even from the most mundane phrases. As an example, variations on the above series of words appear throughout the book, but at least two commentaries I consulted skipped right over all of them without a mention. Below is a summary of these appearances including the context in which they each occur:

                                                 Figure 1: Key Repeated Phrase

    Rev. 5:9 tribe tongue people nation those ransomed

    Rev. 7:9 nation tribe people tongue those in heaven

    Rev. 10:11 people nation tongue king prophesied about

    Rev.11:9 people tribe tongue nation gaze on the righteous dead

    Rev. 13:7 tribe people tongue nation beast has power over

    Rev. 14:6 nation tribe tongue people warning to

    Rev. 17:15 people multitude nations tongue whore rules over

Literary Considerations

Morris says, “An interesting point of style is that his word order is not the same in any two examples.” I could not find any commentator who had an explanation for this phenomenon. My own read on the situation is that John purposely scrambled up the order so that no one would begin to think that, for example, one's political, cultural or linguistic affiliation had any more importance that any other factor. The total phrase is meant to be universal in scope.

To be more precise, Hendricksen states regarding Rev. 5:9, “Both the particular and universal aspects of the atonement are beautifully combined. The Lamb did not purchase the salvation of every single individual. No, he paid the price for this elect, that is, for men 'out of' every tribe and tongue, etc. Yet , on the other hand, there is nothing narrow or national about this redemption. It is world-wide in its scope and embraces every group...Together all redeemed constitute a kingdom and priests.”

And Mounce chimes in: “It is fruitless to attempt a distinction between these terms as ethnic, linguistic, political, etc. The Seer is stressing the universal nature of the church and for this purpose piles up phrases for their rhetorical value. In contrast with the exclusivism of Judaism which prided itself in having been chosen and from among the nations, the church was genuinely ecumenical, recognizing no national, political, cultural, or racial boundaries.”

Walvoord: “This indicates that there will be one ecumenical world religious system, embracing all nations and languages.”

Another commentator says, “John certainly does not confine his vision to Jewish Christians...we are reminded that the Israel of God knows no national frontiers.”

And it is just as obvious that those later occurrences in Revelation which apply to the damned are similarly ecumenical.

Symbolic Numbers

It is well accepted that the frequent mention of specific numbers mentioned in Revelation as well as the specific number of times certain words or phrases appear in the book all possess symbolic meaning in biblical thought. (see my post titled “How Numbers Are Used in the Bible” for more on this subject). With that in mind, note in Figure 1 that there are seven similar enumerations of people groups. It is universally accepted by Bible scholars that the number “seven” is symbolic of completion or perfection. This number and its multiples appears numerous times in Revelation, which is highly appropriate since that book is the final revealing of God's plan for creation.

The next thing to note is that there are exactly four designations in each of the seven listings. Gunner cites passages such as Genesis 2:10 (four rivers watering the garden of Eden), Revelation 7:1 (four corners of the earth), four winds (Jeremiah 49:36), and Ezekiel 1 (four living creatures). All of them apply to the totality of God's creation on earth.

Progression

There are many different competing views concerning whether Revelation presents its ideas in a repetitive or chronological order or not. My own opinion is that those scholars espousing a Progressive Recapitulation viewpoint are closest to the mark (see my post titled “Different Lenses for the Book of Revelation”), although other readings are certainly possible. This particular way of viewing time in Revelation is to recognize that there is a slow movement forward chronologically as the book proceeds with frequent backtracking to cover earlier material using different imagery.

Thus, if you look at the context of each occurrence of the phrases in Figure 1, it becomes obvious that the people groups in 5:9 and 7:9 concern those destined to be saved while those in Revelation 13:7, 14:6 and 17:15 apply to those who will be condemned at the Last Judgment. That only leaves the people in 10:1 and 11:9 in the middle to be dealt with. And here we see some differences of opinion between scholars, with many not willing to make any judgment calls at all.

For example, the groups of people on the earth who “gaze on” the two dead witnesses in 11:9 could be considered as those who prefer to be mere bystanders rather than active participants either for or against any evil action that has been committed. And those referred to in 10:1 appear to be just as neutral concerning their commitment to God since, as RSV translates it, John is merely told to “prophesy about” them.

But Beale states, “Most translations render epi as 'about' or 'concerning'...This suggests that John's prophetic focus is general and concerns equally those who will suffer judgment because of sin and others who will suffer for their faith and be redeemed. But the accent is on judgment of the unrepentant ['prophesy against'].” He gives some reasons for making this assertion:

    1. Ezekiel uses the phrase most and only three of his eighteen usages applies to a positive prophecy of blessing.

    2. “In Dan. 3:4 LXX the formula precedes and follows 'the sound of a trumpet,' and here in Rev. 10:11 is preceded by the sound of the seventh angel when he is about to sound the trumpet' (10:7). John has used the phrase of all who are redeemed (5:9, 7:9), but now and hereafter he uses it of unbelievers”

Symmetrical Arrangement

Another way in which Revelation is ordered has been defended in my post titled “Book of Revelation: Introduction to the Literary Structure” and shown below:

Figure 2: Literary Structure of Revelation

    I. Introduction (1:1-4:11)

            II. Destruction on the Earth and its Inhabitants (5:1-11:19)

                    III. Judgment on God’s Enemies (12:1-20:15)

                            A. Demonic Forces on the Earth (12:1-16:1)

                                    B. The Seven Plagues (16:2-21)

                            A'. The Fall of the Demonic Forces (17:1-20:15)

            II'. The New Heaven and Earth and their Inhabitants (21:1-22:5)

    I'. Conclusion (22:6-21)

With Figure 2 in mind, consider how the seven listings of four people groups are disposed within these sections. The first four occurrences are found in Section II while the others are located in IIIA and in IIIA'. But to be totally symmetrical, as we might expect, there is seemingly nothing to balance the four appearances in Section II'. However, it is intriguing to note that within the boundaries of II' (Rev. 21:1-22:5) we encounter the following four words again appearing, but separately this time, not together as before: peoples (21:3), tribes (21:12), nations (21:24a), and kings (21:24b). In that way the author has managed to preserve the symbolic nature of the number seven in his seven similar listings and at the same time create a wholly symmetrical word pattern running throughout the book – with four separate mentions in II' to balance the four lists in II.

Relation to Daniel 7

As with much of Revelation, it constantly alludes back to Old Testament Scripture. Beale and McDonough demonstrate the almost point-by-point correspondence between Daniel 7 and Revelation 4-5. Just looking at the parallels within chapter 5, we get the following:

    Heavenly servants around the throne (Dan. 7:10b; Rev. 5:8,11,14)

    Book(s) before the throne (Dan. 7:10c; Rev. 5:1-7)

    Opening the book(s) (Dan. 7:10d; Rev. 5:2-5,9)

    Divine figure receives authority to reign (Dan. 7:13-14a; Rev. 5:5b-7,9a,12-13)

    Kingdom includes 'all peoples, etc.' (Dan 7:14a; Rev. 5:9b)

    The seer's distress (Dan. 7:15; Rev. 5:4)

    A heavenly throne servant counsels him (Dan. 7:16; Rev. 5:5a)

    Saints also given authority to rule (Dan. 7:18,22,27a; Rev. 5:10)

    God's eternal reign (Daniel 7:27b; Rev. 5:13-14)

On the other hand, Morris chooses to emphasize the differences between the two passages: “The expression reminds us of passages in Daniel (iii. 4,7,29, etc.). Some think John is quoting Daniel. But though our four terms are all found in either the LXX or Theodotion [Greek] translations, neither version has them all. Again, for the most part the Daniel references have three members, John's four.”

Relation to the Gospels

“Revelation's portrayal of the proclamation of 'the eternal gospel'...(Rev 14:6) does parallel the Matthean wording [in Mt. 24:9]. Further, the reference to 'all the nations'...as the target audience in Matthew 24:14, as well as in the Matthean and Lukan versions of the Great Commission (Mt 28:19; Lk 24:47), and the closing mention of 'the end of the age'...in Matthew 28:20 seem to establish that the conversion of the nations (see esp. Rev 7:9 'all nations'...), in the midst of great suffering and martyrdom, echoes the Synoptics as much as prior Jewish thought and expectation.” (Luter)

Revelation 10:11

This is one of two places in the book where another word, “kings”in this case, is substituted for “tribes” in the four-fold lists. Morris offers one possible explanation for its presence: “Here 'tribes' is replaced by 'kings' perhaps to suggest that God's word through the prophets takes precedence over the highest rank of human authority. It may be that the seven kings of 17:10 and the ten kings of 17:12 are in the Seer's purview.”

Notice that “the kings of the earth” appear a last time in Revelation 21:24, where they will bring their glory into the Lord's temple. Concerning them, Beale says, “Though 'kings of the earth' refers to wicked rulers in 17:2,18, the phrase may include 'good kings' in 1:5. Here converted kings are the subject since the phrase 'kings of the earth' is an expansion of 'kings' from Isa. 60:3,11. In the Isaiah text kings come to end-time Jerusalem to worship Yahweh, together with the nations...”

Revelation 17:15

In this case, “multitudes” is the group substituted for “tribes” in the four-fold listing of people. As Morris says, “The angel explains the waters on which the harlot sits (verse 1). They stand for a multitude of people over which the harlot is set...she has a great empire.”

“Isaiah 17:12-13 also uses the metaphor of 'many waters' for 'many nations'...The 'many waters' have already been seen to be an allusion to Jer. 51:13, where they refer to the waters of the Euphrates and the channels and canals that surround the city. These waters helped Babylon to flourish economically, and provided security against outside attack. The multitudes of humanity that the waters now represent are the basis for Babylon's economic trade and security.” (Beale and McDonough)

“Every tribe, tongue, people and nation” (Revelation 5:9, etc)

My own feeling is that even a cursory reading of Revelation gives the gist of what John is attempting to convey, but that does not mean that such a superficial overview has exhausted all that is in the book. Actually, it appears that there are almost endless insights one can get from the book of Revelation even from the most mundane phrases. As an example, variations on the above series of words appear throughout the book, but at least two commentaries I consulted skipped right over all of them without a mention. Below is a summary of these appearances including the context in which they each occur:

Figure 1: Key Repeated Phrase

Rev. 5:9 tribe tongue people nation those ransomed

Rev. 7:9 nation tribe people tongue those in heaven

Rev. 10:11 people nation tongue king prophesied about

Rev.11:9 people tribe tongue nation gaze on the righteous dead

Rev. 13:7 tribe people tongue nation beast has power over

Rev. 14:6 nation tribe tongue people warning to

Rev. 17:15 people multitude nations tongue whore rules over

Literary Considerations

Morris says, “An interesting point of style is that his word order is not the same in any two examples.” I could not find any commentator who had an explanation for this phenomenon. My own read on the situation is that John purposely scrambled up the order so that no one would begin to think that, for example, one's political, cultural or linguistic affiliation had any more importance that any other factor. The total phrase is meant to be universal in scope.

To be more precise, Hendricksen states regarding Rev. 5:9, “Both the particular and universal aspects of the atonement are beautifully combined. The Lamb did not purchase the salvation of every single individual. No, he paid the price for this elect, that is, for men 'out of' every tribe and tongue, etc. Yet , on the other hand, there is nothing narrow or national about this redemption. It is world-wide in its scope and embraces every group...Together all redeemed constitute a kingdom and priests.”

And Mounce chimes in: “It is fruitless to attempt a distinction between these terms as ethnic, linguistic, political, etc. The Seer is stressing the universal nature of the church and for this purpose piles up phrases for their rhetorical value. In contrast with the exclusivism of Judaism which prided itself in having been chosen and from among the nations, the church was genuinely ecumenical, recognizing no national, political, cultural, or racial boundaries.”

Walvoord: “This indicates that there will be one ecumenical world religious system, embracing all nations and languages.”

Another c ommentator says, “John certainly does not confine his vision to Jewish Christians...we are reminded that the Israel of God knows no national frontiers.”

And it is just as obvious that those later occurrences in Revelation which apply to the damned are similarly ecumenical.

Symbolic Numbers

It is well accepted that the frequent mention of specific numbers mentioned in Revelation as well as the specific number of times certain words or phrases appear in the book all possess symbolic meaning in biblical thought. (see my post titled “How Numbers Are Used in the Bible” for more on this subject). With that in mind, note in Figure 1 that there are seven similar ennumerations of people groups. It is universally accepted by Bible scholars that the number “seven” is symbolic of completion or perfection. This number and its multiples appears numerous times in Revelation, which is highly appropriate since that book is the final revealing of God's plan for creation.

The next thing to note is that there are exactly four designations in each of the seven listings. Gunner cites passages such as Genesis 2:10 (four rivers watering the garden of Eden), Revelation 7:1 (four corners of the earth), four winds (Jeremiah 49:36), and Ezekiel 1 (four living creatures). All of them apply to the totality of God's creation on earth.

Progression

There are many different competing views concerning whether Revelation presents its ideas in a repetitive or chronological order or not. My own opinion is that those scholars espousing a Progressive Recapitulation viewpoint are closest to the mark (see my post titled “Different Lenses for the Book of Revelation”), although other readings are certainly possible. This particular way of viewing time in Revelation is to recognize that there is a slow movement forward chronologically as the book proceeds with frequent backtracking to cover earlier material using different imagery.

Thus, if you look at the context of each occurrence of the phrases in Figure 1, it becomes obvious that the people groups in 5:9 and 7:9 concern those destined to be saved while those in Revelation 13:7, 14:6 and 17:15 apply to those who will be condemned at the Last Judgment. That only leaves the people in 10:1 and 11:9 in the middle to be dealt with. And here we see some differences of opinion between scholars, with many not willing to make any judgment calls at all.

For example, the groups of people on the earth who “gaze on” the two dead witnesses in 11:9 could be considered as those who prefer to be mere bystanders rather than active participants either for or against any evil action that has been committed. And those referred to in 10:1 appear to be just as neutral concerning their commitment to God since, as RSV translates it, John is merely told to “prophesy about” them.

But Beale states, “Most translations render epi as 'about' or 'concerning'...This suggests that John's prophetic focus is general and concerns equally those who will suffer judgment because of sin and others who will suffer for their faith and be redeemed. But the accent is on judgment of the unrepentant ['prophesy against'].” He gives some reasons for making this assertion:

1. Ezekiel uses the phrase most and only three of his eighteen usages applies to a positive prophecy of blessing.

2. “In Dan. 3:4 LXX the formula precedes and follows 'the sound of a trumpet,' and here in Rev. 10:11 is preceded by the sound of the seventh angel when he is about to sound the trumpet' (10:7). John has used the phrase of all who are redeemed (5:9, 7:9), but now and hereafter he uses it of unbelievers”

Symmetrical Arrangement

Another way in which Revelation is ordered has been defended in my post titled “Book of Revelation: Introduction to the Literary Structure” and shown below:

Figure 2: Literary Structure of Revelation

I. Introduction (1:1-4:11)

II. Destruction on the Earth and its Inhabitants (5:1-11:19)

III. Judgment on God’s Enemies (12:1-20:15)

A. Demonic Forces on the Earth (12:1-16:1)

B. The Seven Plagues (16:2-21)

A'. The Fall of the Demonic Forces (17:1-20:15)

II'. The New Heaven and Earth and their Inhabitants (21:1-22:5)

I'. Conclusion (22:6-21)

With Figure 2 in mind, consider how the seven listings of four people groups are disposed within these sections. The first four occurrences are found in Section II while the others are located in IIIA and in IIIA'. But to be totally symmetrical, as we might expect, there is seemingly nothing to balance the four appearances in Section II'. However, it is intriguing to note that within the boundaries of II' (Rev. 21:1-22:5) we encounter the following four words again appearing, but separately this time, not together as before: peoples (21:3), tribes (21:12), nations (21:24a), and kings (21:24b). In that way the author has managed to preserve the symbolic nature of the number seven in his seven similar listings and at the same time create a wholly symmetrical word pattern running throughout the book – with four separate mentions in II' to balance the four lists in II.

Relation to Daniel 7

As with much of Revelation, it constantly alludes back to Old Testament Scripture. Beale and McDonough demonstrate the almost point-by-point correspondence between Daniel 7 and Revelation 4-5. Just looking at the parallels within chapter 5, we get the following:

Heavenly servants around the throne (Dan. 7:10b; Rev. 5:8,11,14)

Book(s) before the throne (Dan. 7:10c; Rev. 5:1-7)

Opening the book(s) (Dan. 7:10d; Rev. 5:2-5,9)

Divine figure receives authority to reign (Dan. 7:13-14a; Rev. 5:5b-7,9a,12-13)

Kingdom includes 'all peoples, etc.' (Dan 7:14a; Rev. 5:9b)

The seer's distress (Dan. 7:15; Rev. 5:4)

A heavenly throne servant counsels him (Dan. 7:16; Rev. 5:5a)

Saints also given authority to rule (Dan. 7:18,22,27a; Rev. 5:10)

God's eternal reign (Daniel 7:27b; Rev. 5:13-14)

On the other hand, Morris chooses to emphasize the differences between the two passages: “The expression reminds us of passages in Daniel (iii. 4,7,29, etc.). Some think John is quoting Daniel. But though our four terms are all found in either the LXX or Theodotion [Greek] translations, neither version has them all. Again, for the most part the Daniel references have three members, John's four.”

Relation to the Gospels

“Revelation's portrayal of the proclamation of 'the eternal gospel'...(Rev 14:6) does parallel the Matthean wording [in Mt. 24:9]. Further, the reference to 'all the nations'...as the target audience in Matthew 24:14, as well as in the Matthean and Lukan versions of the Great Commission (Mt 28:19; Lk 24:47), and the closing mention of 'the end of the age'...in Matthew 28:20 seem to establish that the conversion of the nations (see esp. Rev 7:9 'all nations'...), in the midst of great suffering and martyrdom, echoes the Synoptics as much as prior Jewish thought and expectation.” (Luter)

Revelation 10:11

This is one of two places in the book where another word, “kings”in this case, is substituted for “tribes” in the four-fold lists. Morris offers one possible explanation for its presence: “Here 'tribes' is replaced by 'kings' perhaps to suggest that God's word through the prophets takes precedence over the highest rank of human authority. It may be that the seven kings of 17:10 and the ten kings of 17:12 are in the Seer's purview.”

Notice that “the kings of the earth” appear a last time in Revelation 21:24, where they will bring their glory into the Lord's temple. Concerning them, Beale says, “Though 'kings of the earth' refers to wicked rulers in 17:2,18, the phrase may include 'good kings' in 1:5. Here converted kings are the subject since the phrase 'kings of the earth' is an expansion of 'kings' from Isa. 60:3,11. In the Isaiah text kings come to end-time Jerusalem to worship Yahweh, together with the nations...”

Revelation 17:15

In this case, “multitudes” is the group substituted for “tribes” in the four-fold listing of people. As Morris says, “The angel explains the waters on which the harlot sits (verse 1). They stand for a multitude of people over which the harlot is set...she has a great empire.”

“Isaiah 17:12-13 also uses the metaphor of 'many waters' for 'many nations'...The 'many waters' have already been seen to be an allusion to Jer. 51:13, where they refer to the waters of the Euphrates and the channels and canals that surround the city. These waters helped Babylon to flourish economically, and provided security against outside attack. The multitudes of humanity that the waters now represent are the basis for Babylon's economic trade and security.” (Beale and McDonough)

For my own part, I tend to see a sharp and purposeful contrast between the mere “multitudes” which serve Babylon in this last listing of the four people groups and the “myriads and myriads and thousands of thousands” of those in heaven who serve God in Revelation 5:11 in the context of the first four-fold listing (Rev. 5:9).

And I am sure that the above is only scratching the surface concerning whatever more might be discerned from these listings of four people groups.

 

LITERARY DEVICES IN ISAIAH 1

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

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

Isaiah 1:1

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

Isaiah 1:2

Blenkinsopp detects two examples of puns in this verse:

        sim'u samayim = hear, heaven!

        giddalti veromamti = I have raised and reared

Isaiah 1:4

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

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

Isaiah 1:7

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

        Your country lies desolate,

        your cities are burned with fire.”

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

        “Aliens devour your land;

        It is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners.”

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

Isaiah 1:7-10

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

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

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

Isaiah 1:11

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

Isaiah 1:12-13

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

        1. Bringing offerings is futile

                2. incense is an abomination to me

                        3. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation

                                4. I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.

                        3'. Your new moons and your appointed festivals

                2'. my soul hates;

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

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

Isaiah 1:15-17

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

Isaiah 1:16-17

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

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

Isaiah 1:18

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

Isaiah 1:21

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

Isaiah 1:24

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

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

Isaiah 1:25

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

Isaiah 1:26

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

Isaiah 1:27

Yet another variety of poetic parallelism is seen here:

        “Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and

        those in her who repent, by righteousness.”

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

Isaiah 1:30-31

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

 

SOUL AND SPIRIT -- HEBREWS 4:12

 

Hebrews 4:12 Soul and Spirit

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

    Soul = person

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

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

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

    Soul = non-material aspects of mankind

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

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

    Soul = Personality

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distinctions Between Soul and Spirit

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

Authorship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Divine Power and Judgment

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Word

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOSHUA 11

Joshua 11

Literary Considerations

Figure 1: Structure of the Book of Joshua

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

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

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

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

D. Summary of Conquered Kings (ch. 12)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 2: Structure of Joshua 9-11

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

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

2. Defending the Gibeonites (ch. 10)

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

3. Defeating the Kingly Coalition (ch. 11)

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

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

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

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

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

                                           Figure 3: Structure of Joshua 11

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

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

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

                            4. Land Taken (vv. 16-19)

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

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

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

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

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

        Israel (6a)

                I will hand over (6b)

                        struck them down (8a)

                the LORD handed them over (8b)

        Israel (8c)

-----

by the sword (10a)

                      struck their kings down (10b)

                                    utterly destroyed (11b)

                                                    took (12a)

                                    utterly destroyed (12b)

by the edge of the sword (12c)

                    struck them down (12d)

-----

        took (16)

                Israelites (19)

                        Israel (20a)

                                utterly destroyed (20b)

                                utterly destroyed (21a)

                        Israel (21b)

                Israelites (22)

        took (23)

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

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

    “no/none/nothing/not any – 7x

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

    Joshua – 14x=2x7

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

Problem Areas

Historicity of the Account

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

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

Holy Wars

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

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

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

Why Were the Horses Mutilated?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joshua and the Pentateuch

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

Who Conquered Hebron?

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

Why Was Hazor Singled out for Destruction?

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

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

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

Was There Really “Rest in the Land”?

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

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