LITERAL PITS IN THE BIBLE

I have previously posted two short essays titled “A Pit of One's own Making” illustrating the principle that traps one sets for others often backfire on the plotter. But I would now like to turn our attention to some more literal pits that are mentioned in the Bible as well as (in a subsequent post) ultimate pits.

There are a variety of Hebrew and Greek words translated as “pit” or some equivalent terms in English. These include beer, bor, pachath, sheol, shuchah, phrear and abussou. Of these, at least the last one may sound familiar since it is the basis for the English word “abyss.” Between all of them, one can count roughly 50 references in the Bible to pits of one sort or another. Let's concentrate on the literal pits only in this present post.

Genesis 14:10 In this obscure passage we are told of the attempted rebellion of a coalition of Canaanite kings against their overlords led by Chedorlaomer. The Canaanite kings flee for their lives but the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah accidentally fall into tar pits. Their property, as well as Lot himself, are taken by Chedorlaomer. I am well aware of the danger of falling into such death traps, having visited the LaBrea Tar Pits in Southern California on several occasions and viewed the large variety of ancient animal bones recovered from such death traps. This event also presages the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and narrow escape of Lot and his daughters narrated a few chapters later in Genesis.

Genesis 37:20-27 This is perhaps the most famous story in the OT involving a pit. As you no doubt recall, Joseph the dreamer has raised the ire of his brothers and they put him down in a pit in the ground before deciding what to do with him. Eventually, of course, they sell him to a band of traveling merchants and Joseph ends up as a captive in Egypt. This story illustrates another use of pits in biblical times, as a jail. We must keep in mind that other than much later when the Romans were in charge of Israel, there were no handy jails around for prisoners to dwell in until their ultimate fates were decided. Thus, we are told in the NT of the several such secure holding tanks in which Christians such as Peter, Paul and Silas were kept captive.

II Samuel 18:17

This illustrates a different sort of pit in that it is a burial pit. After Absalom had been killed during his attempt to usurp David's throne, Joab's men throw his body in a pit and cover it with a mound of rocks. As McKenzie says, “this kind of burial was reserved for a cursed person (Josh 7.26).”

Jeremiah

There are four references to literal pits in this prophetic book. The first is found in 2:6 where God reminds the people how He had led them out of Egypt and brought them safely through all sorts of dangers in the wilderness, including deserts and pits.

Then in Jeremiah 38:6-13 is narrated the story of Jeremiah himself being lowered into a pit and left there. It is uncertain if the intent was merely to confine him until his fate was decided (as with Joseph much earlier) or whether they were just hoping he would eventually die there, but fortunately he was rescued from that fate.

Next comes Jer. 41:7,9 with its description of Ishmael (of the royal seed of Judah) and his traitorous act in murdering Gedaliah and the inhabitants of Mizpah and filling up an empty cistern (i.e. pit) with their bodies. And finally there is the prophecy in Jeremiah 48:43-44 concerning the coming judgment against Moab who will face “terror, pit, and trap.”

Zechariah 

Zechariah is the last prophet in the OT to mention a pit, in 9:11. Boda has much to say regarding this verse but I will just share a few of his words. “The place of imprisonment in 9:11 is a cistern in which there is no water. Such a cistern (bor) as a prison is described at several points in the OT (see Gen. 37:20, 22, 24, 28-29; 40:15; 41:14; Isa. 24:22; Jer. 38:6-13; Lam. 3:53), which explains why the phrase bet habbor ('house of the cistern') refers to a prison (Exod. 12:29; Jer. 37:16). Some see the lack of water as positive, since water could have drowned them, while others treat this as a negative feature, since such a pit would lack drinking water. More likely, the water is not the issue, since it is probably a stereotypical phrase for a pit designed or available for imprisoning someone.”

STONING IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Stoning in the New Testament

There are many questions readers have in coming across those occasions in the Bible in which the punishment of death by stoning is either prescribed in the Old Testament or attempted (or actually carried out) in the New Testament. Examples in the NT include the attempted stoning of Jesus, the proposed stoning of the woman caught in adultery, stoning to death of Stephen, and Paul's being stoned and left for dead. Below are comments from the scholarly literature divided roughly according to which aspect of the action is discussed.

How was this type of capital punishment actually carried out?

To begin an answer in a rather strange way, I would like to point to the introduction to Cole Porter's still popular song “Anything Goes,” which goes:

“Times have changed
And we've often rewound the clock
Since the Puritans got a shock
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today
Any shock they should try to stem
'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.”

Interestingly, the above lyrics actually combine the two concepts of falling on a rock and having a rock fall on someone. And that combination fairly accurately describes the most common biblical occurrence of the corporal punishment known as stoning. Most people do not realize that stoning in biblical times was apparently often carried out by first throwing the offending party off of a high spot, assuming that one was available nearby. If he was still alive after that, then the crowd would throw stones on him from that same height until he was dead. That first optional step in the procedure is generally passed over in most NT passages except for Luke 4:28-29, in which the hostile crowd's intent in regard to Jesus is made quite obvious.

As Cradock says, “The synagogue, now a mob, attempts to stone Jesus. Hurling a person against stones was as acceptable a form of stoning as was hurling the stones against the person.

Bruce provides more justification [although somewhat later in time] for this view: “In the second century A.D. this [i.e. Deut. 17:7)] was interpreted as follows in the Mishnah...The drop from the stoning place was twice the height of a man. One of the witnesses pushes the criminal from behind, so that he falls face downward. He is then turned over on his back. If he die from this fall, that is sufficient If not, the second witness takes the stone and drops it on his heart. If this cause death that is sufficient; if not, he is stoned by all the congregation of Israel.' (Sanhedrin vi. 1-4).”

And as another early witness to this procedure, we have the account of the stoning of James the brother of Jesus as recorded by Hegesippus: “Then they seized him and threw him down and began to stone him, since he did not die from his fall.”

What were the offenses deserving of stoning?

Borchert: “The claim of Jesus...was clearly recognized from Jesus' perspective to be a blasphemous statement they could not tolerate. Accordingly, they again made their judgment call, and their verdict implied death by stoning (John 8:59; cf. Lev 24:11-16; 1 Kings 21:10-13).”

Neil says that ”stoning to death outside the city walls (i.e. outside the camp) was the punishment for blasphemy (Lev. 24:10ff).”

Were the New Testament examples legal or illegal actions?

“Since the Romans had taken away the Jews' right of capital punishment, it seems that Stephen's stoning was more a mob lynching than an official execution. Yet it had a small semblance of justice, since according to the law [Deut. 17:70], the first to begin stoning the condemned person must be 'the witnesses', which means his accusers, whether in Stephen's case these were the false witnesses of [Acts] 6:13 or Sanhedrin members.”

Craddock feels that in Stephen's case, “this is far from official procedure; it is angry mob reaction. “Even so, it foreshadows not only the trial and death of Jesus but also the fate of many of his followers.”

“It is not clear whether Stephen's death was the result of judicial action by the Sanhedrin or of mob violence. The Sanhedrin would presumably have to be ratified by Pilate as head of state; Pilate, however, would be at Caesaera and not in Jerusalem, and if he eventually heard that one more Jewish trouble-maker had been dispatched by an angry crowd he would not be too concerned.” (Neil)

Bruce says, “There is some doubt about what happened next. Did the crowd of bystanders take the law into their own hands and lynch Stephen?...The reference to the witnesses suggests that Stephen's stoning was carried out as a legal execution...But if it was a legal execution, how are we to account for its being carried out on the spot, without the authorization from the Roman governor which was required in the case of Jesus?” He concludes, as did Neil above, that “Pilate could be relied upon to turn a blind eye on occasion.”

Turning to Jesus' experience, Marshall says, “The act envisaged is not a formal execution but lynch law – and on the Sabbath at that. It may have been intended to stone Jesus (cf. John 8:59; Acts 7:54ff....) Since the attempt did not succeed, it is hard to guess what was intended.”

What about the story about the woman caught in adultery? (John 7:53-8:11)

Then there is this story in which the Jewish leaders ask for Jesus' opinion regarding the fate of a convicted adulteress. The main problem with this narrative is that practically all commentators are in agreement that this does not belong in John's Gospel at all. Concerning the textual evidence, Metzger says, “The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.” And Comfort states, “The passage, which is clearly a later addition, came from an oral tradition. It does not belong in John's Gospel as part of the original text.”

However, that by no means imply that these words are to be discarded as unhistorical. In fact, a healthy proportion of Bible scholars running the gamut from fundamentalists to liberals treat this narrative as a free-floating authentic story which was attached to John's Gospel at a later date rather than to have it lost to posterity.

With this background, the incident appears as yet another attempt by Jesus' enemies to trick Jesus by forcing him to chose sides, either option of which was likely to put him in a bad light with the Roman authorities or the Jewish people. Jesus' way out of the quandary was to put the onus on the Jewish leaders themselves instead and make them confront their own sinful ways. But he did not let the woman in question off scot-free either. As Morris says, “She is to make a clean break with sin. Jesus does not refer specifically to adultery, though there cannot be any doubt that that is primarily in mind. His words are perfectly general. He is calling the woman to amendment of life, the whole of life.”

 

JOHN 7:1-52 (PART B)

You may have noticed in Part A of this series that several scholars alluded to the Old Testament background of some of John's comments in this chapter. In this post I would like to share some additional thoughts on that phenomenon.

Verse 24

“An ideal human judge imitates God's righteousness (Lk 12:57; Jn 7:24) but does not attempt to usurp God's role as the final judge (Deut 1:7)...Scripture lends grandeur and finality to images of judgment because God is held as the ultimate authority, the ultimate justice. As the psalmist declares, 'The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple' (Ps 19:7).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Verses 26-31

“Many studies of the Jewish messianic hope omit one of the most important sources: the Gospels themselves. When one reads them to find the hope entertained by the Jewish people, one finds a hope similar to that reflected in the Psalms of Solomon [a book in the OT Apocrypha]. It is quite clear that the people expected a messiah to appear (Jn. 1:20, 41; 4:29; 7:31; l K. 3:15)...There was a tradition that he would suddenly appear among the people from an obscure origin (Jn. 7:26-27)...The Messiah was expected to remain hidden until he would suddenly appear on the scene (7:27), but Jesus was a well-known figure.” (Ladd)

Similarly, Bird states, “Christos is an adjective signifying 'anointed [with oil]'; it is used in the LXX [Greek Septuagint] to translate the Hebrew word masiah, designating a person appointed by God for a specific role...The Lord intends to raise up a 'righteous scion' to usher in the salvation of Judah and Israel (Jer 23:5-6) with a reinstitution of the Davidic throne and a rebuilt temple (Jer 33:5-6). The new Davidide will be a shepherd to the house of Israel (Ezek 34:22-24)...Finally, in Daniel there is a vision for God's kingdom to crush all human kingdoms (Dan 2:44-45)...In sum, there is an incipient messiahship in the OT through the idealization of the Davidic kingship configured in light of eschatological hopes for the restoration of Israel...We find in John 7:25-44 that Jewish speculations are set in juxtaposition to the messianic identity of Jesus...there is some doubt among the crowd about Jesus because no one is supposed to know where the Messiah is from (Jn 7:26-27). Then again, the signs that Jesus does are regarded by the crowd as clear evidence of his messianic credentials (Jn 7:31)...”

Verse 35

R.E. Brown explains that the term 'Diaspora' in v. 35 “refers to the Jews living outside the Holy Land; the expression 'Diaspora of Israel' occurs in LXX [the Greek Septuagint] in Isa xlix 6; Ps cxlvii 2.”

Verse 36

Leon Morris: “From Deut. 16:13 it would appear that the feast at one time went for seven days, but Lev. 23:36 makes it plain that there was also an eighth day (even though it is mentioned separately from the seven). It is not quite clear whether it was the seventh day or this eighth day which was the climax of the whole celebration, and of which John speaks as 'the great day of the feast'.

Verses 37-38

These two verses “draw our attention to one of the most memorable parts of the Festival of Tabernacles, the seven-day water ceremony and the prayers for rain. On each of the seven days prior to the final day.., priests drew water from the Pool of Siloam and carried a golden pitcher full of the water to the temple and then around the altar with the high priest leading the way. As the priests neared the water gate, the shofar was blown, and then the psalms of praise and thanksgiving were sung to God for the harvest (Pss 113-118). As the ceremony developed, the Pharisees, who were primarily urban dwellers, insisted that a significant emphasis should be placed on the petition for rain because by this time of year (the fall) their cisterns would be nearly empty after the dryness of summer. Such symbolism carried the meaning beyond the emphasis of the desert experience, and the harvest symbolized in the citrus symbols that were raised in thanksgiving to God for the recently gathered fruits (cf. Zech 14:16-19...).” (Borchert)

Kostenberger states, “The narrative depicting Jesus' first teaching cycle in chapter 7 builds toward the climax of 7:37b-38, where Jesus issues the invitation to all who are thirsty to come to him and drink, so that believers would, once the Spirit had been given, become sources of 'streams of living water.' Thus, in keeping with the theme of Tabernacles, 'With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation (Isa 12:3), the prophetic vision of Isa. 58:11 would be fulfilled.'”

Ladd: “A contemporary Baptist scholar understands the word about birth of water and of the Spirit [in John 3:5 and 6:54] in sacramental terms...If this is Jesus' meaning, it is easy to see how the later church interpreted these words in terms of Christian baptism. However, it is equally possible that birth of water is no reference to baptism at all. Water and Spirit are linked with a single preposition and both seem to refer to the life from above. Water is coordinate, not contrasted with the Spirit. Elsewhere John uses water as a symbol of the life-giving operation of the Spirit (4:14; 7:38).” He then quotes Dunn as saying, “In the Old Testament water is a symbol of God's activity in quickening men to life (Isa. 55:1-3; Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Zech. 14:8; Ezek. 47:9) and is often linked with the eschatological re-recreation and renewal to be effected by the gift of the Spirit (Isa. 32:15-17; 44:3-5; Ezek. 36:25-27; 39:29; Joel 2:28). The reference to water, then, far from being a literal reference to the sacrament of baptism, is a symbol of the spiritual cleansing effected by the Spirit. Rather than expressing a sacramental view of baptism, John seems to be challenging any sacramentalism which he assumes on the part ot his readers.”

Verse 38

Brown spends a great deal of time suggesting various OT Scriptures as the closest background to the comments in v. 38. Possibilities he mentions include Deuteronomy 8:15; I Samuel 1:15; Psalm 42:1-2; 105:40-1; 114; Proverbs 18:4; 20:27; Isaiah 29:8; 43:11, 20; 44:3; 48:21; Zechariah 14:8; and Ezekiel 47:1-11.

“Since Jerusalem had no river flowing through it.., the river the psalmist pictures as flowing through Jerusalem (Ps 46:4) must be a symbol of God's presence, and a similar reading is likely for Ezekiel's vision of a river flowing from the temple (Ezek 47). Similarly, Jesus speaks of a spritual reality when he says, 'Out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water,' by which he meant the Holy Spirit (John 7:38-39).” (DBI)

Verses 38, 42

Grant Osborne notes: “John's pattern of quotation follows that of his Gospel as a whole. In the Book of Signs (chaps. 2-12) they are introduced with some form of 'it is written' (1:23; 2:17; 6:31, 45; 7:38, 42; 8:17; 10:34; 12:14) while in his passion narrative (chaps. 13-20) they are introduced by 'in order that it might be fulfilled'...In John 7:38 he is the source of the living water of the Spirit (possibly Is 12:3), and in John 7:42 he fulfills Micah 5:2 as well as 2 Samuel 7:12-16, Psalm 89:3-4 and Isaiah 9:7 in his origin as the Davidic Messiah.” Alternatively, Kostenberger feels that v. 38 may refer to Psalm 78:15-16 and Zechariah 14:8.

“And, while it is true that it is hard to find an Old Testament passage which unambiguously prophesies that rivers of living water will flow from the believer, it is also true that it is harder still to find one which says this of Christ. Exod. 17:6; Ps. 105:41; Ezek. 47:1 and Joel 3:18 are adduced, but a good imagination is required to see in any of these a prophecy that Christ would become the source...” (Morris)

Verse 39

Concerning this verse, Kostenbrger says, “The crowd continued to debate Jesus' identity. Some saw Him as the Prophet mentioned by Moses (Deut. 18:15, 18). He would speak God's words to people but not in the awesome display of Mount Sinai from which Moses spoke. Jesus is indeed that predicted Prophet (Acts 3:22), but many rejected Him as such.”

Verse 42

“The objectors back up their case with an appeal to the Bible. 'The scripture' usually refers to a specific passage, but there is no place where the Old Testament says precisely this. It seems that here it is the general tenor of several Old Testament passages that is in mind (e.g. I Sam. 20:6; II Sam. 7:12ff.; Ps. 89:3f.; Mic. 5:2, etc.). The expectation shows that the Exile was not held to have put an end to the possibilities of the Davidic line. In due course, when God sent His Messiah, He would be of that line, and, indeed, come from the very town of Bethlehem...The verse is another example of the Johannine irony. How strange that these people were citing as an objection to Jesus' messiahship just that fact that they required to attest it, had they but known the facts of the case.” (Morris)

Verse 49

This verse refers to “this mob which knows nothing of the Law.” Brown says, “The poor who were ignorant of the Law were already a problem in Jeremiah's time – see Jer v 4 where Jeremiah seeks to excuse them.” Brown adds that the curse in this verse “may be associated with passages like Deut xxvii 26, xxviii 15; Ps cxix 21 which curse those who do not conform to the law.”

JOHN 7:1-52 (PART A)

This passage describes Jesus' appearance at the annual Feast of Tabernacles. In itself, it has no symmetrical literary organization; one need to consider all of chapters 7-8 to see that. Note that symmetry exists whether on not one includes the controversial 8:1-11.

The Structure of John 7-8

    1. Opposition between Jesus and evil in the world (7:1-13)

            2. Jesus is sent from God (7:14-36)

                    3. Jesus as the Living Water (7:37-52)

                            (4. The woman caught in adultery: 8:1-11)

                    3'. Jesus as the Light of the World (8:12-19)

            2'. Jesus sent from the Father (8:20-30)

    1'. Opposition between Jesus and sons of the Devil (8:31-59)

Below are some comments on John 7 collected from a number of scholarly sources; it is hoped that some of these may be helpful in understanding this chapter.

John 7:1-9 There is a similarity between Jesus' brothers challenging him to perform miracles at the populated feast in Jerusalem and the earlier occasion when Mary asked him to do something about the lack of wine at the wedding feast. In both cases, Jesus appears to refuse, but then goes ahead and does what is requested anyway. The major difference was that Mary believed in Jesus whereas his brothers did not. “Proximity to Jesus, either in a family or as a disciple, does not guarantee faith.” (Blum) Culpepper points out one key point that indicates the brothers' mocking tone in their question. It is very similar to Satan's questioning during the tempting in the wilderness when he says, “'If you are' (or 'do'), then publicly reveal your power.” (see Matthew 4:6; Luke 4:9)

Jesus' cryptic statement in v. 6 that their “time is always here” has at least two possible interpretations according to Culpepper: (a) “their time is the world's time and will always be such” or (b) “the time for them to believe is already given and ready.”

There is textual variation in v. 8, which either reads “I am not going up to the feast” or “I am not yet going up to the feast.” Hernandez feels the latter must be a scribal addition to explain the fact that Jesus did go to the feast. He also sees a word-play here in which Jesus is stating that he will not “go up” in the ultimate sense of dying. Blum similarly notes that 'going up' may have a geographical meaning since Jerusalem is located in the hills or a theological meaning: going back to the Father.

John 7:10-24  Verse 10 reveals another similarity with the miracle at Cana in that it first appears that Jesus will not do what is requested by his family, but then goes ahead and does it in his own way and own timing.

Raymond Brown points to the disparaging way Jesus' enemies refuse to refer to him by name but persist in calling him “that man” (7:11; 9:28; 19:21). He notes that this practice continued into later Judaism.

The amazement in v. 15 of Jesus' learning should remind the reader of Mark 1:22, Jesus as a child impressing the religious leaders in the temple. But in this case, as O.M. Hendricks says, it is “a statement of elitism by the religious authorities.” My brother-in-law once engaged a visiting pastor to his church in a religious discussion. Apparently the pastor was impressed and asked him what his profession was. My brother-in-law explained that he was engaged in doing woodcraft. At that point, the pastor dismissed him with the words, “Oh, a man of the trades.”

Regarding v. 17, Ellis states: “There can be no greater authority than this which can be put to the test. Elsewhere, our Lord was similarly questioned (cf. Mt. 21:23; Jn 6:30) and He gave always the same answer in principle.”

In vv. 19-20 that the crowd is not aware of the authorities' plan to kill Jesus, and so they reply “You have a demon!”, which is another way of saying, “Are you crazy or something?” Note that the people had earlier called John the Baptist “demon-possessed.” (see Matthew 11:18).

The “one work” referred to in v. 21 is the earlier healing by Jesus of the lame man by the Pool of Bethesda.

Jesus appears to be misspeaking in v. 22. However, as Ellis explains, “Although this [circumcision] was practiced by the patriarchs, Moses regularized it within the Law (cf. Lev. 12:30).”

Brauch says in reference to vv. 22-23, “Here Jesus confirmed the truth already articulated in the prophetic word of Isaiah 1:12-17, that God is much more concerned about our doing good to others and having compassion and seeking justice than ritual acts and external observance of holy days and festivals, including the sabbath.”

It turns out that Jesus here is not quoting from anything in the OT, but instead to a regulation unknown to us which was, however, apparently known to his hearers. But there is a close parallel to Jesus' conclusion regarding healing found in Rabbi Eleazar den Azariah who reasoned from the lesser to the greater: “If circumcision, in which only one member of the body annuls the sabbath, how much more so for the rest of the body.” (Maccoby)

John 7:25-31  The concept that no one will know where the Messiah comes from (v. 27) appears in popular writings circulating at that time (see I Enoch 48:6; 2 Esdras 13:51-52), but is not found in the canonical books of the Bible.

Ellis expresses his opinion of v. 30: “It seems that John almost suggests that the Jews were physically incapable of laying hands of Him before 'the hour' struck.”

John 7:32-36  “Jesus says he will go to the one who sent him and they will not be able to find him. Does this mean that Jesus will elude his opponents by returning to the Father or will Jesus flee to the diaspora?...For the reader who does not know the outcome, the veiled language is a source of drama; for the informed reader it is a source of ironic enrichment.” (Culpepper) He explains that the first scenario expressed the belief that Jesus would perhaps commit suicide. Conversely, when the Jews wonder if he will flee to the Greeks, that “is probably intended as a veiled statement of truth.”

John 7:37-44  As most commentators will point out, the background for Jesus' words here is that they reflect the ceremony carried out during the festival where water was transported from the Pool of Siloam to the Temple – a symbol of, among other things, the coming deliverance by the Messiah.

“On the last and greatest day of the Feast of Tabernacles, God incarnate stood in his temple calling out to his thirsty people to come to him and drink. How ironic that his unrecognized voice was a disturbing presence in the festivities that had for so long been celebrated to welcome his presence!” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

The words in v. 38 are not an exact quote from the Old Testament, but the general idea is found in Proverbs 18:4; Isaiah 44:3; 58:11. (Hendricks)

There is some dispute as to where the punctuation belongs in vv. 37-38. Depending on how the text is broken up, the water is said to flow either from the belly of the believers or from that of Jesus. Carson is of the opinion that it “is more likely correct to see a sentence division at the end of 7:37, making the believer the one from whose being the water (= Spirit) flows. The believer is thus viewed as a channel for the outflowing of the Spirit to others (cf. 15:26f).”

Keener points out that “in either case the Spirit comes ultimately from Jesus to believers.” And Wenk similarly adds that “it is quite obvious that the Spirit is associated with both the word and the water that accomplishes the eschatological cleansing and re-creation as anticipated in Ezekiel 36:25-26.”

In regard to vv. 37-39, Bruner states that “according to John 7 faith in Christ brings not just enough water to wet the tongue of the believer, it receives from Christ in the Spirit not only spiritual existence and revivication, but spiritual power as well.”

There appears to be a contradiction in v. 39 if one interprets it as saying that the Spirit had not been active up to this point. Smeaton explains: “He does not mean that the Spirit did not yet exist...but that these [prior] operations of the Spirit had been but an anticipation of the atoning death of Christ rather than a giving.”

Regarding vv. 41-44, Strauss explains, “Two traditional messianic expectations are expressed by the Jews...For some, Jesus cannot be the Messiah since they know where he is from, for others, he cannot be the Messiah because he is apparently from Nazareth, not Bethlehem. But both are wrong. The first group does not know where he is from, since he is from heaven. The second does not know his earthly origins, since he was indeed born in Bethlehem and from the line of David.”

In 7:42, “Jesus denies the Jews' ultimate right to claim descent from Abraham spiritually. Yet more, if any nation could claim the right to address God as Father, it was Israel...But Jesus refuses to acknowledge even this right, since these Jews have rejected the unique Son of God.” (Ellis)

John 7:45-52  The Jewish leaders refer dismissively to “this crowd” in v. 49, but who are they referring to exactly? Schutz feels that it “reflects a well-attested scorn of rabbinic scholars for the common people.” In a similar vein, Fitzmyer translates the phrase as “that rabble which knows not the law,” expressing Pharisaic disdain for others.

Bietenhard attempts to get more specific: “In Jn. 7:49 ochlos [crowd] doubtless refers to the term 'am haares, people of the land...in the post-exilic age it denoted the foreign or mixed population, as distinct from the returned exiles. It became a term of abuse, connoting ignorance of and lax attitude towards the law.”

Nicodemus, who had come to Jesus by night (John 3:1-3) attempts to defend Jesus but is immediately labeled by his fellow religious leaders as “one of them.” We unfortunately see the same sort of reaction in Congress today when anyone tries to break party ranks with the lock-step beliefs of their fellow legislators in even a small way. And even more unfortunately, there are people in the church who are always trying to sniff out even the slightest deviation from their version of orthodoxy in the congregation so that they can be the first to denounce it.

 

LUKE 24:32 (PART 2) COMMENTARIES

 

Luke 24:32 (Part 2) Commentaries

In the first part in this series, I went over the sort of information one can glean from a passage in the Bible without much outside help. But there is much more insight one can gain regarding the whole Emmaus episode from commentaries written by those who have studied the Bible in more depth. Although you can get free access on the Internet to some older commentaries, recent sources tend to have much more reliable information at their disposal. One proviso, however, is that you must still take everything you read under careful advisement, taking into account, whenever possible, the theological background and commitment of the commentator. The following quotations are given in somewhat random order.

Porter says, “The Emmaus discourse is one of the most important in the NT, for in it our Lord taught how His life and mission, His death and resurrection had to be viewed in the context of God's self-revelation in the OT scriptures. It thus forms the vital link between the OT promises and apostolic exposition of the fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth.”

Regarding the named follower from Emmaus, Tasker's opinoin is that “in the early Latin and Syriac versions the Cleopas of Lk. xxiv. 18, was confused with the Clopas of Jn. xix. 25, but it is probable that they were two different people with two distinct names...”

“The resurrection story is marked by powerful emotions. These emotions run a notable range – disbelief, joy, perplexity, amazement, fear – but they all share the intensity that is one of the leading qualities of the story (Mt 28:8; Mk 16:5, 8, 11-12; Lk 24:3, 5, 11, 32).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

R.E. Brown: “It is typically Lucan that the first account of an appearance should occur on a journey; and just as on the long journey to Jerusalem so also in 24:47 Jesus gives important revelation to disciples: He appeals to the whole of Scripture in order to explain what he has done as Messiah. In the Book of Acts the apostolic preachers will do this, and Luke wants to root their use of Scriptures in revelation given by Jesus. Yet even though the disciples' hearts glowed when Jesus opened to them, they recognized him only when he broke bread. This prepares for the (eucharistic) breaking of the bread in the Christian community described in Acts...”

K.L. Anderson feels that the ending of the parable in Luke 16:19-31 “almost certainly is an oblique reference to Jesus' resurrection from the dead, which one cannot comprehend apart from the divine plan of salvation foretold in the Scriptures (Lk 24:25-27, 32, 44-46).”

“The concept of the heart (kardia) in the Gospels carries over from the OT term (leb, lebab), which refers to 'all aspects of a person: vital, emotive, noetic [relating to the mind or intellect], and voluntative' (Freiberg). Positively, the heart is the place of...spiritual awakening, upon encountering the risen Christ (Lk 24:32).” (Meadors)

Childs: “The Gospel accounts of the resurrection testify to a variety of different experiences of the risen Christ by means of a variety of literary forms...Thus, Luke's witness to the risen Christ speaks of Jesus who was (and is) known in the eucharist, in the 'breaking of bread' (24.35).”

Drury says, “In the Emmaus story the happiness of the present moment of recognition floods back into the unhappy past by means of interpretation, changing it utterly. Good exegesis plucks from the mind a rooted sorrow and sets the heart aglow (v. 32). Present happiness carries into the next scene with Jesus himself among the apostles at last. He asks for food and eats before them. The meal at Emmaus, fot all its wonder, was incomplete. He gave them bread but vanished before eating. Now he eats: fish, recalling the great catch at 5:1-11; and honey, the food of the promised land toward which the original exodus travelled.  All is complete.”

LUKE 24:32 (PART 1) -- BASIC CONSIDERATIONS

 

Luke 24:32 (Part 1) – Basic Considerations

As an example of how much information can be derived by looking in detail into just one simple verse of Scripture, consider this statement in Luke's Gospel in which two followers of Jesus from Emmaus talk to one another as they are returning to to Jerusalem to inform the Apostles that they have seen the risen Christ. Below is the first of a three-part discussion of this verse.

Translations

Since most of us are not fluent in Greek, we are dependent on versions in our mother tongue. So the first thing we should do before delving deeper into this particular verse is to look at several renderings in our native language. Since mine is English (at least the American version of it), here are how some translations and paraphrases render the key phrase in v. 32:

        NEB: feel our hearts on fire

        Living Bible: our hearts felt strangely warm

        TEV: like a fire burning in us

        The Message: didn't we feel on fire

        NIV, NRSV: hearts burning within us

        JBPhillips: hearts glowing

        KJV, RSV did not our hearts burn within us

        JB: did not we feel our hearts on fire

        NASB: were not our hearts burning within us

        AB: were not our hearts on fire

As you can see from the above, there is virtually no disagreement between any of these versions concerning what the two followers said.

Text

However, a NT translation is only as good as the original Greek text from which it is derived. Now unfortunately there is no master document in Luke's own hand to use as a guide. Therefore the next best thing is to compare all the numerous copies of Luke's Gospel made over the years. In doing so, where the manuscripts differ in their wording, preference should generally be given to the earliest sources rather than just looking for a majority opinion, as the translators of the King James Version preferred to do.

So to determine whether there are any significant disagreements between copies of the original text, there are fortunately at least two available resources available to today's reader. The first is to purchase a good modern study Bible. It should contain textual notes in the margin or as footnotes at the bottom of each page to show where there are alternative readings found in some manuscripts (generally called “authorities” or abbreviated as mss.).

Turning to our specific verse in question, the New Oxford Annotated NRSV Bible contains the footnote “some mss omit 'within us'” In this case, you can see that whether that particular phrase was originally present or not in the original really makes no difference to the meaning of the verse.

A second type of resource can be purchased if you want to go into more detail, namely, a textual commentary. I will quote from two of the most popular of these for the New Testament:

Metzger explains that the RSV Translation “Committee was reluctant to omit the words ['within us'] entirely, in view of the possibility that copyists may have deleted them as superfluous in the context. It was thought best, therefore, to retain them in the text, but enclosed within square brackets indicating doubt that they have a right to stand there.”

Comfort: “The two earliest mss and the Syriac version omit 'within us'. A variant reading is...by way of scribal expansion.”

Vocabulary

Authors over the years have demonstrated that they tend to prefer the same words and phrases in their writings. Thus, if one sees a notable departure from the norm in a text, one might suspect that a later editor has tampered with it in order to make a point of his own. In the case of Luke 24:32, the key vocabulary includes “hearts,” “burn,” and “within us.” An analytical concordance of the Bible will show which original Greek words appear in this verse and where those words are utilized elsewhere. Thus, we find that Luke's Gospel uses “burn” (kaiomai) in 12:32 and 24:32. This word does not appear in either Matthew or Mark, and only once in John's Gospel. But it is also found once in Hebrews, a letter widely believed to have been written by Luke.

The plural “hearts” (kardia) can be found only once in Matthew, three times in Mark, and no less that thirteen times in Luke's Gospel. Again, we can find it once in Hebrews also. As for “within” (en), the statistics are Matthew (3), Mark (1), Luke (8).

Moving on to other vocabulary found in Luke 24:32, we come to “in the way” (odo), “opened up” (dianiogo), and “scriptures” (graphas), the last one in the specific context of explaining. “In the way” can also be found in Luke 9:57; 12:58; and 19:36. “Opened up” appears in Luke 2:23; 24:31, 32, 45 and Acts 16:14; 17:3 versus only one appearance in Mark's Gospel and none in Matthew or John.

As for “scriptures,” that word does appear in a number of places in the NT, especially in the context of being fulfilled. However, only Luke uses it in the more general sense of preaching from, expounding, opening up, and explaining. These sort of occasions are presented seven times in his writings – Luke 24:27,32,45; and Acts 8:32,35; 17:11; and 18:28.

There is one additional phrase of note in Luke 24:32 which reads, “(in) the same hour.” There are two different ways to express that idea in Greek, neither of which is utilized by Mark or John, and only once by Matthew:

        en ekeine te hora: Luke 7:21; Acts 16:33

        (en)aute te hora: Luke 10:21; 12:12; 20:19; 24:32; 24:33; Acts 16:18; 22:13

Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that in no way is the vocabulary of Luke 24:32 foreign to Luke. There are other deductions which can be made from these observations, but they will be mentioned elsewhere.

Word Meanings

This brings us to another aspect of the vocabulary in the passage, namely, whether these words in their present context are to be understood in a literal or figurative sense. Despite the claims of many fundamentalists that they always go with the literal meaning in biblical passages (unlike religious liberals who wish to rob Scripture of its true implications), when pressed they back down and re-define “literal” as “the most normal meaning” (which on occasion just happens to be figurative). So ignoring that quibbling minority opinion, common sense dictates that the two anonymous believers in the passage are not at all speaking about a bad case of heartburn after the dinner with Jesus. And even “heartburn” has nothing at all to do with the heart or heat.

Then what are the two really saying? Since they may be utilizing a figure of speech common in their own culture which is not the same as the meaning in our present one, we might be well advised to consider what Bible scholars might have to say regarding the subject.

Context

The immediate context of this verse is crystal-clear. The two men from Emmaus are quickly retracing their steps back to Jerusalem so that they can tell the Apostles the good news of their encounter with the resurrected Jesus.

Then there is the context within the four Gospel accounts which is generally most helpful in shedding light on difficult passages found there. To see if there are any such parallel mentions of the events in Luke 24:32 found in the other three Gospels, one could just leaf through those narratives to see whether or not they exist. But in this case, you would fail to find any. The conclusion is that Luke had some unique sources either not available to the other three or that he had a particular reason in mind for including this event. By the way, looking for such parallels is a much easier task if you happen to have close at hand a Harmony of the Gospels, a resource readily available in several different editions. All parallel passages are located in side-by-side columns so that you can readily compare them with one another.

Fortunately, in the case of Luke 24:32, there is an additional resource to fall back on, namely, the recounting of the same events in the second part of Luke's two-part history. But I will save that discussion for the second post in this series.

HOW DO THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN DIFFER?

Before even beginning to discuss this question, there are several basic points that must be mentioned first:

        I will be the first to admit that I am in no way a systematic theologian.

        To simplify the discussion below, I will limit the comments below to the New Testament only.

        We must consider the possibility that perhaps there is little or no difference between the two expressions.

        “Kingdom of heaven” and “heavenly kingdom” are equivalent terms.

Complicating the issue somewhat, there are even further ways to refer to this (or these) kingdom (s). These include (citing Vine) the kingdom of the Father (Matthew 26:29 // Mark 14:25), of the Son (Luke 22:30), of the son of Man (Matthew 13:41), of Jesus (Revelation 1:9); of Christ Jesus (II Timothy 4:1), of Christ and God (Ephesians 5:50), of our Lord and of His Christ (Revelation 11:15), of our God and the authority of His Christ (Revelation 12:10), and of the Son of His love (Colossians 1:13).

With those points in mind, here is what some trained theologians have to say on the subject. I have consciously condensed their rather copious comments considerably for your consideration:

Ladd: “Paul says almost as little about the Kingdom of God as he does about the messiahship of Jesus, but both are fundamental doctrines to his thought. Probably the reason is to be sought in the fact that Paul's letters are addressed to Gentile audiences rather than to Jews. If we had Pauline correspondence addressed to Jews, we would probably find much more about Jesus' messiahship and his Kingdom. We must remember that these subjects were capable of gross misinterpretation. To proclaim any king other than Caesar made one liable to the charge of sedition (Acts 13:3, 7).”

“While the Kingdom of God is the eschatological salvation, it is also a present blessing. Already, because of what Christ had done, the saints have been delivered from the power of darkness...and have been transferred in to the Kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13). This 'Kingdom of Christ' cannot be equated with the church; it is rather the sphere of Christ's rule, which is larger than the church. Ideally, all who are in the church are also in the Kingdom of Christ; but even as the eschatological Kingdom of God is larger than the redeemed church and will include the subduing of everything hostile to the will of God, so the Kingdom of Christ here is the invisible sphere of Christ's reign into which men enter by faith in Jesus Christ.”

Vine and Hogg: “The Kingdom of God is (a) the sphere of God's rule...Since, however, this earth is the scene of universal rebellion against God, the Kingdom of God is (b) the sphere in which, at any given time, His rule is acknowledged...references to the Kingdom fall into two classes, the first, in which it is viewed as present and involving suffering for those who enter it, 2 Thess. 1:5; the second, in which it is viewed as future and is associated with reward, Matt. 25:31-34; Phil 2:9-11; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18.”

“With regard to the expressions 'the Kingdom of God' and 'the Kingdom of the Heavens,' while they are often used interchangeably, it does not follow that in every case they mean exactly the same and are quite identical. The Apostle Paul often speaks of the Kingdom of God, not dispensationally but morally, e.g., in Rom. 14:17; I Cor. 4:20, but never so of the Kingdom of Heaven. 'God' is not the equivalent of 'the heavens.' He is everywhere and above all dispensations, whereas 'the heavens' are distinguished from the earth, until the Kingdom comes in judgment.”

“While, then, the sphere of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are at times identical, yet the one term cannot be used indiscriminately for the other. In the 'Kingdom of Heaven'...heaven is in antithesis to earth, and the phrase is limited to the Kingdom in its earthly aspect for the time being...In the 'Kingdom of God', in its broader aspect, God is in antithesis to 'man' or 'the world,' and the term signifies the entire sphere of God's rule and action in relation to the world. It has a moral and a spiritual force and is a general term for the Kingdom at any time. The Kingdom of Heaven is always the Kingdom of God, but the Kingdom of God is not limited to the Kingdom of Heaven until in their final form, they become identical; e.g., Rev. 11:15; John 3:5; Rev. 12:10.”

Goldsworthy: “The kingdom of God is a term which occurs mainly in the Gospels of Mark and Luke; it is synonymous with Matthew's 'the kingdom of heaven'. There are about one hundred references to the kingdom of God/heaven in the Synoptics. There are two references in John (3:3, 5), where Jesus also speaks of 'my kingdom' (John 18:36). The kingdom of God is mentioned six times in Acts and eight times in Paul's letters. Three passages indicate that the kingdom of Christ is the same as the kingdom of God (Eph. 5:5; Rev. 11:15; 12:10).” Since that is Goldsworthy's conclusion, as expected he sees no reason to differentiate between the two concepts.

The same as above is basically true of Chilton's conception of the Kingdom, since he makes absolutely no distinction between the two expressions. “There is clear agreement among the synoptic Gospels that the kingdom of God was the principal theme within Jesus' message (Matt. 4.17-23; Mark 1.15; Luke 4.42-43)...Later rabbinic texts conventionally use the phrase 'kingdom of the heavens,' as in Matthew. No difference in meaning is implied by replacing the word 'God' or 'Lord'; 'heavens' appears to be reverential periphrasis. In most rabbinic texts, however, the kingdom appears less as an eschatological than as a moral concept...The preaching of Jesus is far closer to eschatological expectation than to the moral emphasis of later rabbis...By speaking of the kingdom, Jesus adopted the language of scripture (as used in synagogues) and of prayer and made that language his own. The kingdom in his preaching was not merely promised but announced as a divine activity that demanded repentance and that could be entered into by participating in its divine force.”

“Matthew's favored term, 'kingdom of heaven' (literally 'heavens'), is synonymous with 'kingdom of God.' It is a characteristic Jewish substitution of 'heaven' for the sake of avoiding the divine name [Yahweh].” It is the kingdom of the One who is in heaven; it is not a 'heavenly' and 'spiritual' kingdom in contrast with an 'earthly' and 'physical' kingdom.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Green only agrees partially with the above statement in DBI and says, “Among the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew is unique in his use of the phrase 'kingdom of heaven.' The usual explanation given for this novelty is that this most Jewish of Gospels uses 'heaven' as a respectful circumlocution for 'God.' On the positive side of the ledger, this claim has led students of Matthew to insist that the phrases 'kingdom of heaven' and 'kingdom of God' do not refer to two different entities, and especially do not specify a heavenly versus an earthly kingdom or a present reality versus a future destination. That Matthew can collocate 'kingdom of heaven' with 'kingdom of God' (Mt 19:23-24), and that he uses 'kingdom of heaven' where the other evangelists use 'kingdom of God,' are enough to invalidate distinctions of that nature...However, appeals to Matthew's aversion to the divine name in the phrase 'kingdom of God' fail to make sense of Matthew's use of the term 'God' (theos) some fifty times and do not easily account for the fourfold appearance of the phrase 'kingdom of God' in Matthew.”

To resolve these issues, Green cites Pennington approvingly. That scholar explained that Matthew's wording was heavily influenced by Daniel 2-7, “which accentuates the disparity between earthly kingdoms and the heavenly kingdom. Daniel's emphasis on the God of heaven – who is 'the king of heaven' (Dan 4:34) – in contrast with earthly kings and kingdoms has in Matthew's hands morphed into a programmatic presentation of God as the heavenly Father and God's kingdom as the heavenly kingdom, over against earthly kings and kingdoms.”

Ryrie states that “in the universal kingdom God is the Ruler; He rules over all; and He does it in all time and eternity. Both Judaism and premillennial Christian theology give a major place to this concept of kingdom. It is Davidic in that the promises concerning the kingdom were made in the great covenant with David (2 Sam; 7:12-16). It is messianic since Messiah will be the Ruler. It will be realized at the second advent of Christ when He will establish His kingdom and fulfill the promises made to David. In summary, in the Davidic messianic kingdom Christ is the Ruler; He will rule over the earth and its inhabitants during the 1,000 years that follow His second coming.”

Ryrie goes on to explain the difference between the universal kingdom described above and the Davidic / messianic kingdom. Regarding the former, he states: “In the sense that the church is in the world it is part of God's universal kingdom. He designed it, brought it into being, and rules over it, as He does all aspects of His universe.” But regarding the latter, he says, “The church is not a part of this kingdom at all. When this kingdom is established the church will have been resurrected and will reign with Christ over the millennial kingdom.” Notice that Ryrie sees two kingdoms also, but does not even mention how these might or might not relate to the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.

Payne cites other dispensationalist writers in regard to this question: “The Scofield Bible sought to distinguish between 'the kingdom of heaven' as outward and millennial...and 'the kingdom of God' as more inward and universal...But more recent dispensationalist scholars conclude that 'such a categorical distinction does not seem to be supported by Scriptural usage,' (Pentacost).” And elsewhere, Payne calls the two terms “interchangeable.”

 

THE PARABLE OF THE TALENTS (MATTHEW 25:14-30)

Rather than review this parable verse by verse, I would just like to briefly point out some literary characteristics present in it although much more of use can be derived from it. In this parable of Jesus, he tells the three servants who are entrusted with large sums of money by their master before he leaves on an extended trip. As you may recall, on the master's return he asks for an accounting from each of them and rewards each of them accordingly. Jesus employs several storytelling techniques in this story worth rehearsing.

One phenomenon present throughout the Bible is to highlight symbolic numbers such as 3, 7, 10, 12, and multiples thereof to make some subtle points. Thus, it is no accident that the Greek word for “master/lord” is utilized exactly ten times in the story. That number is also closely associated with God in such details as the furnishing of the tabernacle and, most notably, in the Ten Commandments. Thus, we are on safe ground in assuming, with almost all other commentators, that the master is a representation of God Himself. And as J.A. Thompson says, “The number ten...also signifies completeness.”

But the other word in the parable appearing repeatedly is doulos (meaning slave or servant). Its exactly six appearances are also no accident. Quoting Thompson again: “In the creation narrative God created man and woman on the sixth day (Gn. 1. 27). Six days were allowed to man for labor (Ex. xx. 9, xxiii. 12, xxxi. 15; cf. Lk. xxx. 14). A Hebrew servant had to serve for six years before he was freed. The number six is therefore closely associated with man.” In addition, and even more importantly in the case of this parable, the number six falls short of the symbolic perfection represented by the number seven.

From the above understandings of the use of numbers in the Bible we can thus subtly but securely derive the fact that the master in the story is a representation of God Himself as well as the understanding that the human servants in the parable will somehow fall short of perfection.

Another ubiquitous number occurring in folk tales and fairy stories is three. Thus, in this parable there are three discrete stages to the narrative: the master entrusts three servants with money, they deal in various ways with the money they are given, and the master gets an accounting from each of them with concomitant rewards for each.

But there is an even more common use of “three” found in these types of narratives. Quoting from an Internet source: “If a protagonist is part of a family, there are usually three siblings of the same sex, as in Cinderella and her two stepsisters, or King Lear’s three daughters...If so, the youngest and humblest will be the protagonist. Often the two older siblings set out on some kind of quest but fail. The youngest is the one who succeeds in the task, even though he or she may be scorned, mocked, or denigrated by the older siblings.” I am sure each of you could add even more examples of this pattern, such as the King Arthur and the sword in the stone or Hans Christian Andersen's Ugly Duckling.

However, note how that stereotyped formula is totally turned on its head here by Jesus so that we are caught by surprise when we see how the story resolves in the end. From the relative amounts of money entrusted to each of the three servants, we get the clear idea that the master does not have nearly the same hopes for the third one as he does for the other two. So we might say that the third servant is equivalent to the youngest son or daughter in other similar tales. And true to the stereotyped pattern we are quite used to, that last servant departs notably in his actions from the other two. Thus, when we get to the conclusion, our unspoken and unconscious expectation is that the prudence of that last servant will be praised and he will receive a reward by the master even greater than the other two received. Of course that is not at all the case, and again Jesus has fooled his audience with a surprise ending that upsets all their prior thought processes and sticks with them until they have figured out the meaning on their own.

As far as the overall literary pattern exhibited by this parable, it appears to consist of three major parts, with some verbal parallels between the prelude and conclusion.

                                     Figure 1: Organization of the Parable of the Talents

1. Introduction: The master makes plans to go away (v. 14a)

Key words: apodymon (“going from”); ekalesen (“called out”)

        2. Master gives servants money to invest (vv. 14b-15)

        (Third servant given the least)

                3. Actions of the three servants (vv. 16-18)

                (Third servant buries his rather than investing it)

        2'.Master asks for an accounting when he returns and treats them accordingly (vv. 19-28)

        (First two servants rewarded and third one chastized)

1'. Conclusion: The useless servant is taken away (vv. 29-30)

Key words: apate (“take from “); apthasetai (“taken from”); ekbalete (“cast out”)

THE SETTING OF THE CRUCIFIXION

 

The Setting of the Crucifixion 

This title comes above come from Raymond Brown's massive, two-volume treatise The Death of the Messiah. and refers to the events narrated in Mark 15:22-27; Matthew 27:33-38; Luke 23:33-34; and John 19:17b-24. In approximate agreement with this analysis is the section in Robertson's classic A Harmony of the Gospels labeled “The First Three Hours on the Cross.” And as with any parallel accounts in the Bible, it is always of interest to look at the places in which they agree with one another and those in which, for one reason or another, they diverge. Thus the following can be said regarding those details of this period in the life of Christ in which these four writers agree and differ:

All four accounts agree that the guards cast lots to see who would get Jesus' garments. But John goes into much more detail, treating this event as the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18. In fact, John's Gospel contains exactly seven quotations from Psalms, referring to Psalm 22 in both John 2:17 and John 19:24.

The four Gospels all recount that there was a written superscription put over Jesus' head, containing the words “The King of the Jews,” even though the exact wording for the rest of the inscription is not exactly the same in any two of the four cases. One common explanation for the divergences (see Morris, for example) depends on John's elaboration in 19:19-22 that this inscription was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek at Pilate's command, despite objections from the Jewish chief priests.

Alternatively, Bruce considers that (1) Mark may have shortened the inscription because he was about at the end of his papyrus scroll; (2) “John includes the full name for he is going to make a comment on the accusation and the reaction it caused among the Jews (Jn 19:20-22)”; and (3) “The other Gospels have not chosen to discuss the charge, so they can use a shortened form.”

Whatever the case, I prefer Borchert's comments on this discrepancy: “Such a fact may create a problem for some contemporary readers who are word-oriented rather than meaning-oriented. But that would hardly be a concern for the Johannine writer who was not oriented to tape recorders and video cameras...The inscription in all four Gospels asserts that the so-called treasonous offense was that Jesus was 'the King of the Jews.'”

All of the four mention that two people were crucified with Jesus, one on each side. But this fact does not appear in exactly the same place in the different Gospels. Also, the identification of these two differs in that Luke calls them malefactors, Matthew and Mark label them as robbers, and John just calls them “two others (allous).”

Concerning that last Greek word above, it appears in the last part of John's Gospel in a regular fashion, as can be seen below:

                                        Figure 1: “Others” in the John's Passion Narratives

    1. Reference to John himself (18:16)

            2. “Did others tell you about me (Jesus)?” (18:34)

                    3. Two others crucified (19:18, 32)

    1' .Reference to John himself (20:2-8)

                    3' .Two other disciples (21:2, 8)

            2'. Other things not written down about Jesus (21:25)

In addition, only Luke's account contains Jesus' prayer to God: “Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing.” Since this line is not present in the earliest manuscripts of this Gospel, it was felt to have been added later by another hand, however, “relatively early in the transmission of the Third Gospel.” (Metzger) Comfort also notes the omission of these words in most early manuscripts but seriously considers that they may have been excised by later scribes who were not yet willing to extend forgiveness to the Jews in that manner. In either case, one must consider that the second volume in Luke's Gospel-Acts also mentions that another prominent martyr, namely Stephen, forgave his executioners in Acts 7:60. And that same sort of Jesus // Stephen pattern is also present in the parallels between Acts 7:56 and Luke 22:69 and between Acts 7:59 and Luke 23:46.

John 19:23-24 is the only place where it is mentioned that Jesus' coat was woven without seam, and not divided like His other garments. Culpepper explains: “His robe is seamless (19:23), and the net remains untorn (21:6,8,11); these images remind the reader of the emphasis on the unity of Jesus with his Father and his followers (17:11, 21-23).”

Mark 15:25 is the only one of the four accounts to note that the crucifixion took place on the third hour. Lane rejects this verse as not being authentic, saying that “evidence suggests that verse 25, in spite of its firm textual support, is a gloss inserted by an early reviser who noticed that Mark had failed to state the hour when Jesus was nailed to the cross.”

Despite that strong opinion shared with most other scholars, Metzger notes the somewhat divided manuscript evidence here as well as in John 19:14 indicating that in one or both of these verses there may have been confusion in copying due to the very close appearances of the letters representing the numerals 3 and 6. In any case, as Anderson says, “This is God's time and throughout it his plan and purpose are steadily worked out.”

Only Matthew (see 27:36) mentions that the soldiers sat down and kept watch on Jesus. This brings up an unusual verbal pattern shown in Figure 2 and present only in this account involving the repetition of the words “soldiers” (stratiotes) and “guard/watch/observe” (tereo).

                                   Figure 2: Word Symmetry in Matthew's Passion Account

    1. “Observe what the scribes and Pharisees say” (23:3)

            2. Governor's soldiers torture Jesus (27:27)

                    3. Soldiers keep watch under the cross (27:36)

                    3'. Soldiers keeping watch were filled with awe (27:54)

            2'. Governor's soldiers bribed to keep quiet (28:12-15)

    1'. “Observe what I have commanded you (28:20)

Of the other Gospel accounts, John's is the one which utilizes the word “soldier” the most, and tellingly, he uses it exactly six times in the Passion narrative. That number is of symbolic importance to John in that it falls one short of the “perfect” number seven, thus perhaps indicating the inability of the soldiers to prevent Jesus from carrying out his plan. In addition, there is a definite symmetry in the way those six passages are arranged (see Figure 3 below).

                                          Figure 3: “Soldiers” in John's Gospel

    1. Soldiers torture Jesus (19:2)

            2. Tunic not parted (19:24a)

                    3. Scripture fulfilled (19:24b)

            2'. Bones not broken (19:33)

    1'. Soldiers pierce Jesus' side (19:24)

                    3'. Scriptures fulfilled (19:36-37)

John, in 19:20, is the only Gospel writer to point out that many people passing by read the inscription over Jesus' head. Regarding this event, Borchert says, “John makes it clear just how public the event was intended to be...Moreover only John indicates that the entitlement was written in Hebrew or Aramaic (the language of the general populace), Latin (the language of the army and the presiding government), and Greek (the universal language of commerce in that time). There is little doubt that John saw in this entitlement an ironic declaration that Jesus was in death being declared universally the expected Messiah, the King of the Jews.”

I could go on in much more detail by referring to the thoughts of other scholars, but the above few examples should suffice to demonstrate that there are many different ways of conveying the same basic historical events depending on each author's theological perspective, use or non-use of standard literary techniques, sources utilized, favorite vocabulary words, and where the Passion Narrative fits into the overall scheme of each one's overall plan for presenting the whole Gospel. Keep in mind that if all four writers were to put down the same information in word-for-word agreement, any one of the accounts would suffice for inclusion into the Bible. But as it is, we have a much richer understanding of the events when seen in “stereo” instead of in “mono,” to use some rather dated sound recording nomenclature.

HABAKKUK 1

                                         Figure 1: Proposed Structure of Habakkuk 1

O LORD (2a)

        A. Will you not save us? (2b)

                B. Why do you make me see wrongdoing? (3)

                        C. The wicked surround the righteous (4a)

                                D. Judgment is perverted (4b)

------------

                                        E. They march (6a)

                                                F. the breadth of the earth (6b)

                                                        G. They seize dwellings (6c)

                                                                H. They make up their own justice (7)

                                        E'. They come swiftly (8)

                                                       G'. They gather captives (9)

                                                                H'. They scoff at rulers (10a)

                                                F'. They heap up earth (10b)

                                        E''. They sweep by (11a)

Their own might is their god (11b)

----------

 O LORD (12a)

                                D'. You have marked them for judgment (12b)

                B'. You cannot look upon wrongdoing. (13a)

                        C'. Why are you silent when the wicked swallow the righteous? (13b)

He sacrifices to his own net (16)

        A. Can he keep on destroying nations without mercy? (17)

The above organization is based on the three-part arrangement of Bullock and others in which the prophet's words in verses 2-4 and 12-17 cap both sides of the center section, in bold, in which God Himself speaks. Other scholars such as D.W. Baker, Herbert Marks and J.P. Payne would extend this section to include Habakkuk 2:1. For example, an anonymous author writing in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery on this subject justifies such a division by the inclusio formed by the idea of reproof of God found in both 1:2 and 2:1.

Payne, based on verse 6, places the setting of this prophecy around 605 B.C. after the Babylonian victory at Carchemish.”

Robertson notes some unusual features involving this book of prophecy: “The form of direct dialogue with God is distinctive in itself as a mode of prophetic revelation...The prophet speaks as an individual addressing God. But the Lord returns answer to a plurality of people rather than to the prophet himself. This divergence of addressees is appropriate to the perspective of both God and the prophet. Habakkuk suffers with a sense of aloneness as a consequence of the estrangement created by the violence God's people have experienced at the hands of one another. He addresses God as an isolated voice, although he speaks on behalf of others in his position as prophetic mediator. So the Lord returns answer, not in a way that bypasses his agonizing prophet, but only by including him among those others scattered throughout Israel that remain steadfast in faith despite their perplexity,”

Habakkuk 1:2-4 E. Achtemeier says, “In the first oracle., Habakkuk raises his initial lament. He sees in Judean society around him nothing but violence and evil – the oppression of the weak, endless strife and litigations, moral wrongs of every kind. And despite Habakkuk's continual pleading with God to end the wrong, God seems to ignore him and to leave the righteous helpless to correct it.”

Marks: “The violence here is evidently internal, a continuation of the abuses attacked by the classical prophets. YHWH's response, however, announces an imminent military invasion, a violence of a different order...”

Kaiser: “Whereas Zephaniah stressed Judah's idolatry and religious syncretism, Habakkuk was alarmed by the increase of lawlessness, injustice, wickedness, and rebellion. So sensitive was his own heart to these things that he cried to God for relief; he must either be changed or the people's sin had to be dealt with in judgment (1:2-4).”

Regarding verse 2, Stephens-Hodge replies, “The prophet speaks as the conscience of the nation. He is troubled at the presence of iniquity among God's people to the detriment of all religious institutions.”

“There may...be a resonance between Habakkuk and Romans. Habakkuk's complaint intimates the failure of the law to effect righteousness (Hab. 1:4).”

R.L. Smith notes that the three New Testament references to Habakkuk all agree with the Greek Septuagint form of the prophecy rather than the Hebrew text we possess (Hab. 1:4 // I Corinthians 15:54; Hab. 1:5 // Acts 13:41; and Hab. 2:4 // Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38).

Habakkuk 1:5-11

Note from Figure 1 how this central section ends with mention of the pagan's “gods” in contrast to the two sections which flank it beginning with YAHWEH, the true God..

Nute says, “Habakkuk's gaze needs a change of direction. It also requires to be focused as the imperative, look, implies. The answer he receives corresponds to the two-fold complaint he has made. God informs him that despite all appearances to the contrary He is not inactive...”

Stephens-Hodge explains regarding v. 5 that the Hebrew for 'among the nations' (baggoyyim) is rendered in the Greek Septuagint version as 'traitors,' probably derived from the Hebrew bogedim instead. That would also agree with the Dead Sea scroll reading. He concludes that “'you betrayers', the faithless Judahites of Habakkuk's day, may be the preferable reading.” Moffatt reached the same conclusion whereas Robertson states that making a choice between the two options is difficult.

Tsumura writes, “Note that in Hab. 1:8 the term parasaw means both 'his horses' and 'his horsemen [as in II Samuel 1:6].”

Beale and McConough see two echoes of Hab. 1 in Revelation 8-9. The first is found in 8:13 with the image of an eagle standing as a symbol of destruction and judgment (see Hab. 1:8). The second is the parallel between Hab. 1:8-9 with Rev. 9:14, both containing the fearful picture of attacking enemies who are on horseback.”

Robertson comments on verses 10-11 that “a fortified city not only represented a greater obstacle to be overcome by an invader. It also represented a positive threat. For the armed inhabitants of a well-stocked and well-fortified city would work havoc on an invader, while exposing themselves to little danger. An army must count carefully the cost of entering the territory of a fortified city. But this invading nation shall mock at the resistance implied in all such fortifications....[verse 11] contrasts the mild-mannered mockery of fortifications (v. 10b) with the deadly serious attention he turns to his task of murderous mutilation...in his brutal tormenting of his victims.”

Habakkuk 1:12-17

Payne speaks of “God's ordaining of Babylon for the corrective judgment (see 1:12, 'we shall not die') not only of the earth in general, as in v. 6, but now specifically of Judah: 'we.'''

“Especially significant for ethical modeling is the fact that God's holiness means he is free from the frailties and moral imperfections common to mankind (Hos. 11:9) and therefore can be counted on to be consistent in his dealings with people (Hab. 1:12)...Deities of other nations indulge in many, if not all, of the vices of their worshipers, but Yahweh's character is revealed in Habakkuk's prayer...(Hab. 1:13).” (Kaiser)

Silva: “The Lord responded that the Babylonians would destroy Judah, but that response raised an even more serious problem regarding divine justice, and thus we have a second complaint: How can God, who cannot look upon evil, be silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than they (1:13)? The answer is delayed by a verse that creates considerable suspense (2:1)...so the prophet must wait for its fulfillment (2:3).”

“Habakkuk could not see how a holy God could use such a vile tool (1:13a), a people [i.e. Babylon] who mercilessly piled atrocity upon atrocity, apparently for their own perverse enjoyment (1:15, 1:17). Did not Yahweh realize that these were pagan people (1:16)? Habakkuk was convinced that the answer to his original question [in 1:2-4] raised more problems than it solved.” (Baker)

Blue: “The prophet asked the fat fisherman Babylon if he was to keep on emptying his net, destroying nations (cf. 2:8, 17) without mercy? The action depicted signifies a seemingly perpetual operation. They emptied their net so they could fill it again, again, and again. When would God put a stop to the Babylonians' greed for conquest?..Habakkuk was [rightly] confused.”

“The seine (vv. 15, 16) is the dragnet. We are not to understand that the Chaldeans actually treated this as a religious object. The language is metaphorical: they 'idolized' their pitiless power of conquest.” (Stephens-Hodge)

Pao and Schnabel trace the well-known NT image of “fishers of men” back to OT passages such as Habakkuk 1:17. However, they also note that other commentators “have suggested that the use of the word zogron ('taking alive') emphasizes the instilling of new lives.”