SPECIAL TOPIC: ABOMINATIONS

 

“Abominations” (BDB 1072) can refer to several things:

1. things related to Egyptians:

a. they loathe eating with Hebrews, Gen. 43:32

b. they loathe shepherds, Gen. 46:34

c. they loathe Hebrew sacrifices, Exod. 8:26

2. things related to YHWH’s feelings toward Israel’s actions:

a. unclean food, Deut. 14:2

b. idols, Deut. 7:25; 18:9,12; 27:15

c. pagan spiritists, Deut. 18:9,12

d. burning children to Molech, Lev. 18:21-22; 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31; 18:9,12; II Kgs. 16:3; 17:17-18; 21:6; Jer. 32:35

e. Canaanite idolatry, Deut. 13:14; 17:4; 20:17-18; 32:16; Isa. 44:19; Jer. 16:18; Ezek. 5:11; 6:9; 11:18,21; 14:6; 16:50; 18:12

f. sacrificing blemished animals, Deut. 17:1 (cf. 15:19-23; Mal. 1:12-13)

g. sacrificing to idols, Jer. 44:4-5

h. remarrying a woman who you have previously divorced, Deut. 24:2

i. women wearing man’s clothes (possibly Canaan worship), Deut. 22:5

j. money from cultic prostitution (Canaanite worship), Deut. 23:18

k. Israel’s idolatry, Jer. 2:7

l. homosexuality (possibly Canaanite worship), Lev. 18:22; 20:13

m. use of false weights, Det. 25:16; Pro. 11:1; 20:23

n. food laws violated (possibly Canaanite worship), Deut. 14:3

3. Examples in Wisdom Literature:

a. Proverbs 3:32; 6:16-19; 11:1,20; 12:22; 15:8,9,26; 16:5; 17:15; 20:10,23; 21:27; 28:9

b. Psalms 88:8

c. Job 30:10

4. There is a recurrent eschatological phrase “abomination of desolation,” which is used in Daniel (cf. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). It seems to refer to three different occasions (multiple fulfillment prophecy):

a. Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the interbiblical Maccabean period (cf. I Macc. 1:54,59; II Macc. 6:1-2)

b. the roman general (later Emperor), Titus, who sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in a.d. 70 (cf. Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20)

c. an end-time world leader called “the man of lawlessness” (cf. II Thess. 2:3-4) or “the Antichrist” (cf. I John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 13)

 

(Return to Index)

---

SPECIAL TOPIC: LATER ADDITIONS TO DEUTERONOMY

 

This paragraph (10:6-9) is seen by many modern scholars to be one of several later editorial additions to the writings of Moses. Although it cannot be proven that this summary is not from the Mosaic period, it is clear that there are several editorial inserts. Israel was in Egypt for centuries and Egyptian scribes, unlike Mesopotamian scribes, were trained to update texts at will. For those of us who believe in the inspiration and protection of divine revelation assert the Spirit’s guidance in the OT related to these supposed additions. They do not affect major doctrines or call into question the historicity of the surrounding texts. It must be admitted by moderns that we simply do not know:

1. the time

2. the author

3. the method of compilation

of the OT in its earliest stages. We presuppositionally accept the MT as preserving the words of God!

A new theory for some of the supposed editorial additions has been suggested by R. H. Polzin, “Deuteronomy” in The Literary Guide to the Bible. It posits the added commends are from a narrator, not an editor. He suggests that this narrator’s comments can be seen in 1:1-5; 2:10-12, 20-23; 3:9, 11, 13b-14; 4:4-5:1a; 10:6-7, 9; 27:1a, 9a, 11; 28:69; 29:1; 31:1, 7a, 9-10a, 14a, 14c-16a, 22-23a, 24-25, 30; 32:44-45, 48; 33:1; 34:1-4a, 5-12. Polzin asserts that this supposed narrator is claiming an authority as reliable as Moses, which sets the stage for the “Deuteronomic history” of Joshua - Kings. This theory would explain the similarities between the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets.

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE AGE AND FORMATION OF THE EARTH

I. This area of study is biased because of the assumptions that must be made to even pursue thinking rationally about the subject. The assumptions must be the focus of an evaluation of the differing opinions expressed by cosmologists, geologists and the related sciences compared to theological understanding and interpretations.

II. For science the apparent assumptions are:

A. that the rates of change (i.e. physical, chemical and biological) recorded and measured on the earth today are constant in the past (i.e. uniformitarianism, “the present is the key to the past”)

B. radiometric dating (called absolute dating), which is the chronological key to dating the earth and cosmic events, is bedeviled by several assumptions:

1. the original composition of the rocks (i.e. relation of parent and daughter elements of unstable atomic elements)

2. the exact half-life of these elements

3. temperature also affects parent and daughter percentages in a sample (i.e. time of formation and/or volcanic magma chambers)

4. The original source and timing of the creation of radioactive elements are not certain. Current theories state that the heavier elements are created by thermonuclear reactions in stars and supernovas.

C. that the six assumed sequence principles of geology (called relative dating) affect paleontology:

1. the law of superposition – in an undeformed sequence of sedimentary rocks, the bed layer above is younger and the bell layer below is older

2. the principle of original horizontality – layers of rudimentary rock were deposited in a nearly horizontal plain

3. the principle of cross-cutting relationships – when rocks are cut or offset by a fault, they must be older than the fault

4. the principle of inclusions – rock masses adjacent to one another, one will usually have pieces of the lower one embedded in the above layer which confirms the assumption of #1

5. the principle of correlations – rocks of similar makeup but from different areas must be matched up, when this cannot be done then similar fossils are used to show similar dates of formation

6. the principle of fossil succession – fossil organisms succeed one another in a definite and determinable sequence:

a. widespread fossils

b. limited to a short span of geologic time

III. Some comments by scientists

A. Most scientists realize that true science is a research method which seeks to correlate all known facts and anomalies into a testable theory. Some things by their very nature are not testable.

B. Some comments from scientists about scientific assumptions in this area

1. “The doctrine (i.e. uniformitarianism) should not be taken too literally. To say that geological processes in the past were the same as those occurring today is not to suggest that they always had the same relative importance and operated at precisely the same rate” (Tarbuck and Lutgens, Earth Science, 6^th ed. p. 262).

2. “It is important to realize that an accurate radiometric date can be obtained only if the mineral remains in a closed system during the period of its formation; that is, a correct date is not

possible unless there was neither addition nor loss of parent or daughter isotopes” (Earth Science, 6^th ed. p. 276).

3. “We hasten to stress that this uniformity is an assumption that we make about nature, so is a doctrine rather than a logically proved law” (Dott and Balten, Evolution of the Earth, 4^th ed. p. 44).

4. “The decay constants that characterize radioactive decay rates, and govern the relationship between isotopic data and their corresponding radio isotopic ages are inexactly known. In consequence, the accuracy of some of the most precise dating methods, such as ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar technique, may be an order of magnitude or more worse than their precision (“Progress and challenges in geochronology” by Renne, Ludwig and Karner in Science Progress (2000), 83 (1), 107).

5. “People without training in science may not understand that any radiometric dating method can only be trusted for samples with ages close to the half-life of the element in question (Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe newsletter).

IV. Assumptions are not unique to the scientific community but obviously also exist in the religious community.

A. Humans are drawn to a unifying principle or model to correlate their sense experience and provide emotional stability. In science this unifying principle has become “evolution.”

1. Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Changing man,” Science, 155, 409-415, “Evolution is a process which has produced life from non-life, which has brought forth man from animals, and which may conceivably continue doing remarkable things in the future.”

2. Brian J. Alters and Sandra M. Alters, Defining Evolution, p. 104, “evolution is the basic context of all biological sciences...evolution is the explanatory framework, the unifying theory. It is indispensable to the study of biology, just as the atomic theory is indispensable to the study of chemistry.”

B. For many conservative Christians the unifying theory (i.e. interpretation) has become a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. This is true for young earth literalists (Creation Research Society dates the earth at about 10,000 years) and old earth literalists (Reasons to Believe dates the earth in light of modern geology at 4.6 billion years). One’s interpretation of Scripture becomes a lens through which all else is viewed and evaluated. One cannot fault subjective assumption, for all

human knowledge is at some level pre-suppositional. However, the evaluation of one’s presuppositions is crucial for a proper evaluation of their “truth” statements.

C. Fundamental Christianity is trying to clothe itself in “scientific” argument when the central issue is a hermeneutical methodology. This is not to imply that “modern evolutionary science” is not pre-suppositional or that its conclusions are not shaped by an a priori world-view. We must be careful and analytical of both. There seems to be evidence on both sides. I must ask myself to which view am I naturally, emotionally or educationally drawn (i.e. self-fulfilling assumption)?

V. Personal conclusion

A. Since I am a theologian, not a scientist, it was crucial for me to read and assimilate as much as I could from modern uniformitarian science. I am not personally agitated by “evolution” but by “naturalism” (one definition made popular by Carl Sagan is, “the universe is all that was, all that is and all that will be”).

I realize this is a bias, but my unifying theory is supernaturalism and special creationism, however, I do not deny or feel threatened by evolution. My basic perspective is that there is a personal God Who initiated and directs the process for a purpose! For me “intelligent design” becomes a reasonable theory (cf. M. J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box and William A. Demski, ed. Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design). It is the “randomness” of evolution and the “agentlessness” of naturalism that causes me personal pain and confusion. Process is an obvious part of life. I must be sure that I do not embrace what is comfortable without evaluation. I have tried to identify my assumptions:

1. Genesis 1-3 (and for that matter, much of the book of Revelation), is not intended by its original inspired author to be taken literally. “How it all began” and “How it will all end” is veiled in literary genre.

2. Evolution is obvious at certain levels (“horizontal evolution,” “micro-evolution,” evolution within species) but not the only unifying factor for life on this planet nor the development of the universe. There is mystery here! I feel personally comfortable with the Bible (i.e. special revelation) telling me the “Who” and the “why” and nature (i.e. natural revelation), that is, modern scientific research, telling me the “how” and the “when” based on developing models and theories.

3. Even the ultimate reality of “theistic evolution” would not cause me to reject any of my faith assumptions. See Darrel R. Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the World’s Between Faith and Biology. I do have faith assumptions (as do you)! My world-view is biblical Christianity. My world-picture is a growing and changing understanding.

B. The “real” age of the earth is not an issue in my theology except:

1. The apparent “Big Bang” concept of universal organization of matter which asserts a beginning to the universe seems to limit the possibilities of an unlimited time for evolutionary development (i.e. naturalism).

2. The starts and stops in the fossil records may imply a “punctuated equilibrium” which asserts that evolutionary chance occurs in spurts (possibly God’s on-going creative acts) and not necessarily only gradual change over time.

3. An old earth and a recent special creation of humanity is a pre-suppositional model I choose to embrace until I understand more from my study of the Bible, archaeology and modern science. The order of these shows my bias (but we all have them)!

4. Science is not an enemy to me, nor a savior! It is so exciting to live in this age of increasing knowledge! It is so comforting to be a hermeneutically informed believer! Integration of faith and reason, or the Bible and Science, with credibility, is a wonderful possibility!

VI. Present assumptions as to the age of the earth

A. The radiometric dating of moon rocks and meteors has been consistent at 4.6 billion years. They contain the same elements as the planets of this solar system so the inference is that our sun and its associated planets, comets and asteroids were formed at this time. The oldest earth rocks have been radiometric dated at 3.8 billion years.

B. A date for the supernatural creation of the first human pair (Homo sapiens) is a more difficult issue but it is in the tens of thousands degree range, possibly 40,000.

Time is only an issue to those of us created in a chronological sequential time frame. God is not affected by the passing of time. I believe the earth and its environment was created over time for the specific purpose of providing a “place” for God to fellowship with His highest creation, who was created by Him in His image. The only source for these beliefs is an inspired Bible. I cling to it and allow modern science to increase my understanding of the physical aspects of God’s creative activity.

 

(Return to Index)

---

SPECIAL TOPIC: THIS AGE AND THE AGE TO COME

 

The OT prophets viewed the future as an extension of the present. For them the future will be a restoration of geographical Israel. However, even they saw it as a new day (cf. Isa. 65:17; 66:22). With the continued willful rejection of YHWH by the descendants of Abraham (even after the exile) a new paradigm developed in Jewish intertestamental apocalyptic literature (i.e., I Enoch, IV Ezra, II Baruch). These writings begin to distinguish between two ages: a current evil age dominated by Satan and a coming age of righteousness dominated by the Spirit and inaugurated by the Messiah (often a dynamic warrior).

In this area of theology (eschatology) there is an obvious development. Theologians call this “progressive revelation.” The NT affirms this new cosmic reality of two ages (i.e., a temporal dualism):

Jesus	Paul	Hebrews
Matthew 12:32 Matthew13:22 & 29 Mark 10:30 Luke 16:8 Luke 18:30 Luke 20:34-35	Romans 12:2 I Cor. 1:20; 2:6,8; 3:18 II Cor. 4:4 Galatians 1:4 Eph. 1:21; 2:1,7; 6:12 I Timothy 6:17 II Timothy 4:10 Titus 2:12	1:2 6:5 11:3

In NT theology these two Jewish ages have been overlapped because of the unexpected and overlooked predictions of the two comings of the Messiah. The incarnation of Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies of the inauguration of the new age (Dan. 2:44-45). However, the OT also saw His coming as Judge and Conqueror, yet He came at first as the Suffering Servant (cf. Isaiah 53), humble and meek (cf. Zech. 9:9). He will return in power just as the OT predicted (cf. Revelation 19). This two-stage fulfillment caused the Kingdom to be present (inaugurated), but future (not fully consummated). This is the NT tension of “the already, but not yet”!

 

(Return to Index)

---

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY

 

The church, following Paul, has focused on Genesis 3 as the source of human sin/evil. This developed into an Augustinian/Calvinistic emphasis on total depravity (i.e., human inability to respond to God unaided). This became one of the five pillars of Calvinism and a basic principle of Christianity.

However, the rabbis never focused on Genesis 3 as the source of evil (some did focus on Genesis 6), but on individual responsibility based on knowledge and commitment. They would posit two intents (netzers), one good and one evil. The classical example would be the saying, “in every human heart are two dogs, one evil and one good. The one that is fed the most becomes the biggest.” Therefore, humans are only responsible after a period of maturity and covenant knowledge/commitment (i.e., Bar Mitzvah for boys at age 13 and Bat Mitzvah for girls at age 12). Other biblical examples of this theological perspective are Jonah 4:11 and Isaiah 7:15-16.

 

To put this is in contrasting terms:

1. Paul/Augustine/Calvin focused on God’s sovereignty and human inability.

2. Rabbis/Jesus/Paul focused on covenantal responsibility.

It is not an either/or, but a both/and! Be careful of theological systems! Realize that biblical truth is presented in tension-filled pairs. Believers are to live godly lives within the tension, not desire quick, easy answers or playing the blame game!

 

(Return to Index)

---

SPECIAL TOPIC: ALCOHOL (fermentation) AND ALCOHOLISM (addiction)

I. Biblical Terms

A. Old Testament

1. Yayin - This is the general term for wine (BDB 406), which is used 141 times. The etymology is uncertain because it is not from a Hebrew root. It always means fermented fruit juice, usually grape. Some typical passages are Gen. 9:21; Exod. 29:40; Num. 15:5,10.

2. Tirosh - This is “new wine” (BDB 440). Because of climatic conditions of the Near East, fermentation started as soon as six hours after extracting the juice. This term refers to wine in the process of fermenting. For some typical passages see Deut. 12:17; 18:4; Isa. 62:8-9; Hos. 4:11.

3. Asis - This is obviously alcoholic beverages (“sweet wine” BDB 779, e.g., Joel 1:5; Isa. 49:26).

4. Sekar - This is the term “strong drink” (BDB 1016). The Hebrew root is used in the term “drunk” or “drunkard.” It had something added to it to make it more intoxicating. It is parallel to yayin (cf. Prov. 20:1; 31:6; Isa. 28:7).

B. New Testament
 

               1.  Oinos - the Greek equivalent of Yayin.

2.  Neos oinos (new wine) - the Greek equivalent of tirosh (cf. Mark 2:22).

3. Gleuchos vinos (sweet wine, asis) - wine in the early stages of fermentation (cf. Acts 2:13).

II. Biblical Usage

A. Old Testament

1. Wine is a gift of God (Gen. 27:28; Ps. 104:14-15; Eccl. 9:7; Hos. 2:8-9; Joel 2:19,24; Amos 9:13; Zech. 10:7).

2. Wine is a part of a sacrificial offering (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:7,10; 28:14; Deut. 14:26; Judg. 9:13).

3. Wine is used as medicine (II Sam. 16:2; Prov. 31:6-7).

4. Wine can be a real problem (Noah - Gen. 9:21; Lot - Gen. 19:33,35; Samson - Judg. 16:19; Nabal - I Sam. 25:36; Uriah - II Sam. 11:13; Ammon - II Sam. 13:28; Elah - I Kin. 16:9; Benhadad - I Kin. 20:12; Rulers - Amos 6:6; and Ladies - Amos 4).

5. Wine can be abused (Prov. 20:1; 23:29-35; 31:4-5; Isa. 5:11,22; 19:14; 28:7-8; Hosea 4:11).

6. Wine was prohibited to certain groups (Priests on duty, Lev. 10:9; Ezek. 44:21; Nazarites, Num. 6; and Rulers, Prov. 31:4-5; Isa. 56:11-12; Hosea 7:5).

7. Wine is used in an eschatological setting (Amos 9:13; Joel 3:18; Zech. 9:17).

B. Interbiblical

1. Wine in moderation is very helpful (Ecclesiasticus 31:27-30).

2. The rabbis say, “Wine is the greatest of all medicine, where wine is lacking, then drugs are needed.” (BB 58b).

C. New Testament

1. Jesus changed a large quantity of water into wine (John 2:1-11).

2. Jesus drank wine (Matt. 11:18-19; Luke 7:33-34; 22:17ff).

3. Peter accused of drunkenness on “new wine” at Pentecost (Acts 2:13).

4. Wine can be used as medicine (Mark 15:23; Luke 10:34; I Tim. 5:23).

5. Leaders are not to be abusers. This does not mean total abstainers (I Tim. 3:3,8; Titus 1:7; 2:3; I Pet. 4:3).

6. Wine used in eschatological settings (Matt. 22:1ff; Rev. 19:9).

7. Drunkenness is deplored (Matt. 24:49; Luke 11:45; 21:34; I Cor. 5:11-13; 6:10; Gal. 5:21; I Pet. 4:3; Rom. 13:13-14).

III. Theological Insight

A. Dialectical tension

1. Wine is the gift of God.

2. Drunkenness is a major problem.

3. Believers in some cultures must limit their freedoms for the sake of the gospel (Matt. 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23; I Corinthians 8-10; Romans 14).

B. Tendency to go beyond given bounds

1. God is the source of all good things.

2. Fallen mankind has abused all of God’s gifts by taking them beyond God-given bounds.

C. Abuse is in us, not in things. There is nothing evil in the physical creation (cf. Mark 7:18-23; Rom. 14:14,20; I Cor. 10:25-26; I Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:15).

IV. First Century Jewish Culture and Fermentation

A. Fermentation begins very soon, approximately 6 hours after the grape is crushed.

B. Jewish tradition says that when a slight foam appeared on the surface (sign of fermentation), it is liable to the wine-tithe (Ma aseroth 1:7). It was called “new wine” or “sweet wine.”

C. The primary violent fermentation was complete after one week.

D. The secondary fermentation took about 40 days. At this state it is considered “aged wine” and could be offered on the altar (Edhuyyoth 6:1).

E. Wine that had rested on its lees (old wine) was considered good but had to be strained well before use.

F. Wine was considered to be properly aged usually after one year of fermentation. Three years was the longest period of time that wine could be safely stored. It was called “old wine” and had to be diluted with water.

G. Only in the last 100 years with a sterile environment and chemical additives has fermentation been postponed. The ancient world could not stop the natural process of fermentation.

V. Closing Statements

A. Be sure your experience, theology, and biblical interpretation does not depreciate Jesus and first century Jewish/Christian culture! They were obviously not total-abstainers.

B. I am not advocating the social use of alcohol. However, many have overstated the Bible’s position on this subject and now claim superior righteousness based on a cultural/denominational bias.

C. For me, Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8-10 have provided insight and guidelines based on love and respect for fellow believers and the spread of the gospel in our cultures, not personal freedom or judgmental criticism. If the Bible is the only source for faith and practice, then maybe we must all rethink this issue.

D. If we push total abstinence as God’s will, what do we imply about Jesus, as well as those modern cultures that regularly use wine (e.g., Europe, Israel, Argentina)?

 

(Return to Index)

---

SPECIAL TOPIC: ALMSGIVING

I. The term itself

A. This term developed within Judaism (i.e., the Septuagint period).

B. It refers to giving to the poor and/or needy.

C. The English word “almsgiving” comes from a contraction of the Greek term eleēmosunē.

II. Old Testament concept

A. The concept of helping the poor was expressed early in the Torah (writings of Moses, Genesis-Deuteronomy).

1. typical context, Deut. 15:7-11

2. “gleaning,” leaving part of the harvest for the poor, Lev. 19:9; 23:22; Deut. 24:20

3. “sabbath year,” allowing the poor to eat the produce of the seventh, fallow year, Exod. 23:10-11; Lev. 25:2-7.

B. The concept was developed in Wisdom Literature (selected examples)

1. Job 5:8-16; 29:12-17 (the wicked described in 24:1-12)

2. the Psalms 11:7

3. Proverbs 11:4; 14:21,31; 16:6; 21:3,13

III. Development in Judaism

A. The first division of the Mishnah deals with how to treat the poor, needy, and local Levites.

B. Selected quotes

1. “as water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sin” (Ecclesiasticus [also known as the Wisdom of Ben Sirach] 3:30, NRSV)

2. “store up almsgiving in your treasury and it will rescue you from every disaster” (Ecclesiasticus 29:12, NRSV)

3. “for those who act in accordance with truth will prosper in all their activities. To all those who practice righteousness ⁷give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from anyone who is poor, and the face of God will not be turned away from you. ⁸If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. ⁹So you will be laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity. ¹⁰For almsgiving delivers from death and keeps you from going into the Darkness. ¹¹Indeed, almsgiving, for all who practice it, is an excellent offering in the presence of the Most High.” (Tobit 4:6-11, NRSV)

4. “⁸Prayer and fasting is good, but better than both is almsgiving with righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than wealth with wrongdoing. It is better to give alms than to lay up gold. ⁹For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life.” (Tobit 12:8-9, NRSV)

C. The last quote from Tobit 12:8-9 shows the problem developing. Human actions/human merits were seen as the mechanism for both forgiveness and abundance.

This concept developed further in the Septuagint, where the Greek term for almsgiving (eleēmosunē) became a synonym for righteousness (dikaiosunē). They could be substituted

each other in translating the Hebrew terms hesed (God’s covenant love and loyalty, cf. Deut. 6:25; 24:13; Isa. 1:27; 28:17; 59:16; Dan. 4:27).

D. Human acts of compassion became a goal in themselves to achieve one’s personal abundance here and salvation at death. The act itself, instead of the motive behind the act, became theologically preeminent. God looks at the heart, then judges the work of the hand. This was the

teaching of the rabbis, but it somehow got lost in the pursuit of individual self righteousness (cf. Micah 6:8).

IV. New Testament reaction

A. The term is found in:

1. Matt. 6:1-4

2. Luke 11:41; 12:33

3. Acts 3:2-3,10; 10:2,4,31; 24:17

B. Jesus addresses the traditional Jewish understanding of righteousness (cf. II Clement 16:4) in His Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5-7) as referring to

1. almsgiving

2. fasting

3. prayer

SPECIAL TOPIC: AMEN

I. OLD TESTAMENT

A. The term “Amen” is from a Hebrew word for truth (emeth) or truthfulness (emun, emunah) and faith or faithfulness.

B. Its etymology is from a person’s physical stable stance (BDB 52-54). The opposite would be one who is unstable, slipping (cf. Deut. 28:64-67; Ps. 40:2; 73:18; Jer. 23:12) or stumbling (cf. Ps. 73:2). From this literal usage developed the metaphorical extension of faithful, trustworthy, loyal, and dependable (cf. Gen. 15:6; Hab. 2:4).

C. Special usages:

1. a pillar, II Kgs. 18:16 (I Tim. 3:15)

2. assurance, Exod. 17:12

3. steadiness, Exod. 17:12

4. stability, Isa. 33:6; 34:5-7

5. true, I Kgs. 10:6; 17:24; 22:16; Prov. 12:22

6. firm, II Chr. 20:20; Isa. 7:9

7. reliable (Torah), Ps. 119:43,142,151,168

D. In the OT two other Hebrew terms are used for active faith:

1. bth, trust (BDB 105)

2. yr’, fear, respect, worship (BDB 431, cf. Gen. 22:12)

E. From the sense of trust or trustworthiness developed a liturgical usage which was used to affirm a true or trustworthy statement of another (cf. Deut. 27:15-26; Neh. 8:6; Ps. 41:13; 70:19; 89:52; 106:48).

F. The theological key to this term is not mankind’s faithfulness, but YHWH’s (cf. Exod. 34:6; Deut. 32:4; Ps. 108:4; 115:1; 117:2; 138:2). Fallen humanity's only hope is the merciful faithful covenant loyalty of YHWH and His promises.

Those who know YHWH are to be like Him (cf. Hab. 2:4). The Bible is history and a record of God restoring His image (cf. Gen. 1:26-27) in mankind. Salvation restores mankind’s ability to have intimate fellowship with God. This is why we were created.

II. NEW TESTAMENT

A. The use of the word “amen” as a concluding liturgical affirmation of the trustworthiness of a statement is common in the NT (cf. I Cor. 14:16; II Cor. 1:20; Rev. 1:7; 5:14; 7:12)

B. The use of the term as a close to a prayer is common in the NT (cf. Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; Gal. 1:5; 6:18; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20; II Thess. 3:18; I Tim. 1:17; 6:16; II Tim. 4:18).

C. Jesus is the only one who used the term (often doubled in John) to introduce significant statements (cf. Luke 4:24; 12:37; 18:17,29; 21:32; 23:43)

D. It is used as a title for Jesus in Rev. 3:14 (possibly a title of YHWH from Isa. 65:16).

E. The concept of faithfulness or faith, trustworthiness, or trust is expressed in the Greek term pistos or pistis, which is translated into English as trust, faith, believe.

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: AMORITE

 

The term “Amorite” is used in three senses.

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: Ancient near Eastern Weights and Volumes (Metrology)

 

The weights and measurements used in commerce were crucial in ancient agricultural economy. The Bible urges the Jews to be fair in their dealings with one another (cf. Lev. 19:35-36; Deut. 25:13-16; Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:1). The real problem was not only honesty, but the non-standardized terms and systems used in Palestine. It seems that there were two sets of weights; a “light” and a “heavy” of each amount (see The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, p. 831). Also the decimal system (base of 10) of Egypt had been combined with the sexagesimal (base of 6) of Mesopotamia.

Many of the “sizes” and “amounts” used were based on human body parts, animal loads, and farmer’s containers, none of which were standardized. Therefore, the charts are only estimations and are tentative. The easiest way to show weights and measures is on a relational chart.

I. Volume terms used most often

A. Dry measures

1. Homer (BDB 330, possibly a “donkey-load,” BDB 331), e.g., Lev. 27:16; Hosea 3:2

2. Letekh (or lethech, BDB 547), cf. Hosea 3:2

3. Ephah (BDB 35), e.g., Exod. 16:36; Lev. 19:36; Ezek. 45:10-11,13,24

4. Se’ah (BDB 684, e.g., Gen. 18:6; I Sam. 25:18; I Kgs. 18:32

5. Omer (BDB 771 II, possibly “a sheaf: [a row of fallen grain], BDB 771 I), e.g., Exod. 16:16,22,36; Lev. 23:10-15

6. ‘Issaron (BDB 798, “a tenth part”), e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 14:21

7. Qav (or Kab, BDB 866), cf. II Kgs. 6:25

B. Liquid Measures

1. Kor (BDB 499), e.g., I Kgs. 5:2,25; Ezek. 45:14

2. Bath (BDB 330, equal to a homer), e.g., II Chr. 2:10; Ezek. 45:10-11,14

3. Hin (BDB 228), e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 19:36; Ezek. 45:24

4. Log (BDB 528), cf. Lev. 14:10,12,15,21,24

C. Chart (taken from Roland deVaux, Ancient Israel, vol. 1, p. 201 and Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 16, p. 379.

                                

homer (dry) = kor (liquid)	1
ephah (dry) = bath (liquid)	10	1
se’ah (dry)	30	3	1
hin (liquid)	60	6	2	1
omer/issaron (dry)	100	10	-	-	1
qav/kab (dry)	180	18	6	3	-	1
og (liquid)	720	72	24	12	-	4	1

II. Weight terms used most often

A. The three most common weights are the talent, the shekel, and the gerah.

1. The largest weight in the OT is the talent. From Exod. 38:25-26 we learn that one talent equals 3,000 shekels (i.e., “Round weight,” BDB 503).

2. The term shekel (BDB 1053, “weight”) is used so often that it is assumed, but not stated in the text. There are several values of shekel mentioned in the OT.

a. “commercial standard” (NASB of Gen. 23:16)

b. “the shekel of the sanctuary” (NASB of Exod. 30:13)

c. “by the king’s weight” (NASB of II Sam. 14:26), also called “royal weight” in the Elephantine papyri.

3. The gerah (BDB 176 II) is valued at 20 per shekel (cf. Exod. 30:13). These ratios vary from Mesopotamia to Egypt. Israel followed the evaluation most common in Canaan (Ugarit)

4. The mina (BDB 584) is valued at either 50 or 60 shekels. This term is found mostly in later OT books (i.e., Ezek. 45:12; Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70-71). Ezekiel used the 60 to 1 ratio, while Canaan used the 50 to 1 ratio.

5. The beka (BDB 132, “half a shekel,” cf. Gen. 24:22) is used only twice in the OT (cf. Gen. 24:22; Exod. 38:26) and is valued at one-half a shekel. Its name means “to divide.”

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE ANGEL OF THE LORD

 

It is obvious that deity manifests Himself physically in human form in the OT. The question for Trinitarians becomes which person of the Trinity fulfills this role. Since God the Father (YHWH) and His Spirit are consistently non-corporal, it seems possible to suggest that these human manifestations are the pre-incarnate Messiah.

To demonstrate the difficulties one faces in trying to identify a theophany from an angelic encounter the following list is illustrative:

1. the angel of the Lord as an angel

a. Gen. 24:7,40

b. Exod. 23:20-23; 32:34

c. Num. 22:22

d. Jdgs. 5:23

e. II Sam. 24:16

f. I Chr. 21:15-30

g. Zech. 1:12-13

2. the angel of the Lord as theophany

a. Gen. 16:7-13; 18:2,16,17-21,22-33; 22:11-15; 31:11,13; 48:15-16

b. Exod. 3:2,4; 14:19 (13:21)

c. Jdgs. 2:15; 6:22-24; 13:3-23

d. Hosea 12:3-4

e. Zech. 3:1-5

SPECIAL TOPIC: ANGELS AND THE DEMONIC

A. Ancient peoples were animists. They attributed personality to forces of nature, animals, natural objects, and traits of human personality. Life is explained through the interaction of these spiritual entities with mankind.

B. This personification became polytheism (many gods). Usually the demonic (genii) were lesser gods or demigods (good or evil) that impacted individual human lives.

1. Mesopotamia, chaos and conflict

2. Egypt, order and function

3. Canaan, see W. F. Albright’s Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, Fifth Edition, pp. 67-92

C. The OT does not dwell on or develop the subject of lesser gods, angels, or the demonic, probably because of its strict monotheism (cf. Exod. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; Deut. 4:35,39; 6:4; 33:26; Ps. 35:10; 71:19; 86:6; Isa. 46:9; Jer. 10:6-7; Mic. 7:18). It does mention the false gods of the pagan nations (Shedim, cf. Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37) and it does name some of them.

1. Se’im (satyrs or hair demons, cf. Lev. 17:7; II Chr. 11:15)

2. Lilith (female, a seducing demon, cf. Isa. 34:14)

3. Mavet (Hebrew term for death used for Canaanite god of the underworld, Mot, cf. Isa. 28:15, 18; Jer. 9:21; and possibly Deut. 28:22)

4. Resheph (plague, cf. Deut. 33:29; Ps. 78:48; Hab. 3:5)

5. Dever (pestilence, cf. Ps. 91:5-6; Hab. 3:5)

6. Az’azel (name uncertain, but possibly a desert demon or place name, cf. Lev. 16:8,10,26)

(These examples are taken from Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 5, p. 1523.) However, there is no dualism or angelic independence from YHWH in the OT. Satan is a servant of YHWH (cf. Job 1-3; Zech. 3), not an enemy (cf. A. B. Davidson, A Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 300-306).

D. Judaism developed during the Babylonian exile (586-538 b.c.). It was theologically influenced by the Persian personified dualism of Zoroastrianism, a good high god called Mazda or Ormazd and an evil opponent called Ahriman. This allowed within post-exilic Judaism the personified dualism between YHWH and His angels and Satan and his angels or demons. Judaism’s theology of personified evil is explained and documented well in Alfred Edersheim’s The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 2, appendix XIII (pp. 749-863) and XVI (pp. 770-776). Judaism personified evil in three ways.

1. Satan or Sammael

2. the evil intent (yetzer hara) within mankind

3. the Death Angel

Edersheim characterizes these as (1) the Accuser; (2) the Tempter; and (3) the Punisher (vol. 2, p. 756). There is a marked theological difference between post-exilic Judaism and the NT presentation and explanation of evil.

 

E. The NT, especially the Gospels, asserts the existence and opposition of evil spiritual beings to humanity and to YHWH (in Judaism Satan was an enemy to mankind, but not to God). They oppose God’s will, rule, and kingdom.

Jesus confronted and expelled these demonic beings, also called (1) unclean spirits (cf. Luke 4:36; 6:18) or (2) evil spirits (cf. Luke 7:21; 8:2). Jesus clearly made a distinction between illness (physical and mental) and the demonic. He demonstrated His power and spiritual insight by recognizing and exorcizing these evil spirits. They often recognized Him and attempted to address Him, but Jesus rejected their testimony, demanded their silence, and expelled them. Exorcisms are a sign of the defeat of Satan’s kingdom.

There is a surprising lack of information in the NT Apostolic letters on this subject. Exorcism is never listed as a spiritual gift nor is a methodology or procedure for its use given for future generations of ministers or believers.

F. Evil is real; evil is personal; evil is present. Neither its origin nor purpose is revealed. The Bible asserts its reality and aggressively opposes its influence. There is no ultimate dualism in reality. God is in total control; evil is defeated and judged and will be removed from creation.

G. God’s people must resist evil (cf. James 4:7). They cannot be controlled by it (cf. I John 5:18), but they can be tempted and their witness and influence damaged (cf. Eph. 6:10-18). Evil is a revealed part of the Christian’s world-view. Modern Christians have no right to redefine evil (the demythologizing of Rudolf Bultmann); depersonalize evil (the social structures of Paul Tillich), nor attempt to explain it completely in psychological terms (Sigmund Freud). Its influence is pervasive, but defeated. Believers need to walk in the victory of Christ!

C. Human emotions (some examples)

1. regret/repent - Gen. 6:6,7; Exod. 32:14; Jdgs. 2:18; I Sam. 15:29,35; Amos 7:3,6

2. anger - Exod. 4:14; 15:7; Num. 11:10; 12:9; 22:22; 25:3,4; 32:10,13,14; Deut. 6:5; 7:4; 29:20

3. jealousy - Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; 32:16,21; Josh. 24:19

4. loath/abhor - Lev. 20:23; 26:30; Deut. 32:19

D. Family terms (some examples)

1. Father

a. of Israel - Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; 39:5

b. of the king - II Sam. 7:11-16; Ps. 2:7

c. metaphors of fatherly action - Deut. 1:31; 8:5; 32:1; Ps. 27:10; Pro. 3:12; Jer. 3:4,22; 31:20; Hosea 11:1-4; Mal. 3:17

2. Parent - Hosea 11:1-4

3. Mother - Ps. 27:10 (analogy to nursing mother); Isa. 49:15; 66:9-13

4. Young faithful lover - Hosea 1-3

II. Reasons for the use of this type of language

A. It is a necessity for God to reveal Himself to human beings. The very pervasive concept of God as male is an anthropomorphism because God is spirit!

B. God takes the most meaningful aspects of human life and uses them to reveal Himself to fallen humanity (father, mother, parent, lover)

C. Though necessary, God does not want to be limited to any physical form (cf. Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5)

D. The ultimate anthropomorphism is the incarnation of Jesus! God became physical, touchable (cf. I John 1:1-3). The message of God became the Word of God (cf. John 1:1-18).

SPECIAL TOPIC: FAITH (PISTIS [noun], PISTEUŌ, [verb], PISTOS [adjective])

A. This is such an important term in the Bible (cf. Heb. 11:1,6). It is the subject of Jesus’ early preaching (cf. Mark 1:15). There are at least two new covenant requirements: repentance and faith (cf. 1:15; Acts 3:16,19; 20:21).

B. Its etymology

1. The term “faith” in the OT meant loyalty, fidelity, or trustworthiness and was a description of God’s nature, not ours.

2. It came from a Hebrew term (emun, emunah, BDB 53), which meant “to be sure or stable.” Saving faith is mental assent (set of truths), moral living (a lifestyle), and primarily a relational (welcoming of a person) and volitional commitment (a decision) to that person.

C. Its OT usage

It must be emphasized that Abraham’s faith was not in a future Messiah, but in God’s promise that he would have a child and descendants (cf. Gen. 12:2; 15:2-5; 17:4-8; 18:14). Abraham responded to this promise by trusting in God. He still had doubts and problems about this promise, which took thirteen years to be fulfilled. His imperfect faith, however, was accepted by God. God is willing to work with flawed human beings who respond to Him and His promises in faith, even if it is the size of a mustard seed (cf. Matt. 17:20).

D. Its NT usage

The term “believed” is from the Greek term (pisteuō), which can also be translated “believe,” “faith,” or “trust.” For example, the noun does not occur in the Gospel of John, but the verb is used often. In John 2:23-25 there is uncertainty as to the genuineness of the crowd’s commitment to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Other examples of this superficial use of the term “believe” are in John 8:31-59 and Acts 8:13, 18-24. True biblical faith is more than an initial response. It must be followed by a process of discipleship (cf. Matt. 13:20-22,31-32).

E. Its use with prepositions

1. Eis means “into.” This unique construction emphasizes believers putting their trust/faith in Jesus:

a. into His name (John 1:12; 2:23; 3:18; I John 5:13)

b. into Him (John 2:11; 3:15,18; 4:39; 6:40; 7:5,31,39,48; 8:30; 9:36; 10:42; 11:45,48; 17:37,42; Matt. 18:6; Acts 10:43; Phil. 1:29; I Pet. 1:8)

c. into Me (John 6:35; 7:38; 11:25,26; 12:44,46; 14:1,12; 16:9; 17:20)

d. into the Son (John 3:36; 9:35; I John 5:10)

e. into Jesus (John 12:11; Acts 19:4; Gal. 2:16)

f. into Light (John 12:36)

g. into God (John 14:1)

2. En means “in” as in John 3:15; Mark 1:15; Acts 5:14

3. Epi means “in” or upon, as in Matt. 27:42; Acts 9:42; 11:17; 16:31; 22:19; Rom. 4:5,24; 9:33; 10:11; I Tim. 1:16; I Pet. 2:6

4. The dative case with no preposition as in Gal. 3:6; Acts 18:8; 27:25; I John 3:23; 5:10

5. Hoti, which means “believe that,” gives content as to what to believe

a. Jesus is the Holy One of God (John 6:69)

b. Jesus is the I Am (John 8:24)

c. Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Him (John 10:38)

d. Jesus is the Messiah (John 11:27; 20:31)

e. Jesus is the Son of God (John 11:27; 20:31)

f. Jesus was sent by the Father (John 11:42; 17:8,21)

g. Jesus is one with the Father (John 14:10-11)

h. Jesus came from the Father (John 16:27,30)

i. Jesus identified Himself in the covenant name of the Father, “I Am” (John 8:24; 13:19)

j. We will live with Him (Rom. 6:8)

k. Jesus died and rose again (I Thess. 4:14)

SPECIAL TOPIC: BLAMELESS, INNOCENT, GUILTLESS, WITHOUT REPROACH

A. Opening Statements

1. This concept theologically describes mankind’s original state (i.e., Gen. 1, the Garden of Eden).

2. Sin and rebellion have decimated this condition of perfect fellowship (i.e., Gen. 3).

3. Humans (male and female) long for the restoration of fellowship with God because they are made in His image and likeness (i.e., Gen. 1:26-27).

4. God has dealt with sinful mankind in several ways

a. godly leaders (i.e., Abraham, Moses, Isaiah)

b. sacrificial system (i.e., Lev. 1-7)

c. godly examples (i.e., Noah, Job)

5. Ultimately God provided the Messiah

a. as full revelation of Himself

b. as the perfect sacrifice for sin

6. Christians are made blameless

a. legally through Christ’s imputed righteousness

b. progressively through the work of the Spirit

c. the goal of Christianity is Christlikeness (cf. Rom. 8:28-29; Eph. 1:4), which in reality, is the restoration of the image of God lost in the fall of Adam and Eve

7. Heaven is a restoration of the perfect fellowship of the Garden of Eden. Heaven is the New Jerusalem coming down out of God’s presence (cf. Rev. 21:2) to a purified earth (cf. II Pet. 3:10). The Bible begins and ends on the same themes.

a. intimate, personal fellowship with God

b. in a garden setting (Gen. 1-2 and Rev. 21-22)

c. by prophetic statement, the presence and companionship of animals (cf. Isa. 11:6-9)

B. Old Testament

1. There are so many different Hebrew words that carry the concept of perfection, blamelessness, innocence that it would be hard to name and show all the intricate relationships.

2. The main terms carrying the concept of perfection, guiltlessness, or innocence (according to Robert B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, pp. 94-99) are:

a. shalom

b. thamam

c. calah

3. The Septuagint (i.e., the Bible of the early church) translates many of these concepts into Koine Greek terms used in the NT.

4. The key concept is connected to the sacrificial system.

a. amōmos (cf. Exod. 29:1; Lev. 1:3,10; 3:1,6,9; Num. 6:14; Ps. 26:1,11)

b. amiantos and aspilus also have cultic connotations

C. New Testament

1. the legal concept

a. Hebrew legal cultic connotation is translated by amōmos (cf. Eph. 5:27; Phil. 2:15; I Pet. 1:19)

b. Greek legal connotation (cf. I Cor. 1:8; Col. 1:22)

2. Christ is the sinless, blameless, innocent One (amōmos) (cf. Heb. 9:14; I Pet. 1:19)

3. Christ’s followers must emulate Him (amōmos) (cf. Eph. 1:4; 5:27; Phil. 2:15; Col. 1:22; II Pet. 3:14; Jude 24; Rev. 14:5)

4. This concept is also used of church leaders

a. anegklētos, “without accusation” (cf. I Tim. 3:10; Titus 1:6-7)

b. anepileptos, “above criticism” or “no handle for reproach” (cf. I Tim. 3:2; 5:7; 6:14; Titus 2:8)

5. The concept of “undefiled” (amiantos) is used of:

a. Christ Himself (cf. Heb. 7:26)

b. the Christian’s inheritance (cf. I Pet. 1:4)

6. The concept of “wholeness” or “soundness” (holoklēria) (cf. Acts 3:16; I Thess. 5:23; James 1:4)

7. The concept of “without fault,” guiltless innocence is conveyed by amemptos (cf. Luke 1:6; Phil. 2:15; 3:6; I Thess. 2:10; 3:13; 5:23)

8. The concept of “not subject to blame” is conveyed by amōmētos (cf. I Pet. 3:14)

9. The concept of “spotless,” “unblemished” is often used in passages that have one of the above terms also (cf. I Tim. 6:14; James 1:27; I Pet. 1:19; II Pet. 3:14)

D. The number of words in Hebrew and Greek which convey this concept shows its importance. God has provided our need through Christ and now calls on us to be like Him.

SPECIAL TOPIC: BLESSING

 

There are several kinds of blessings (BDB 139) in the OT. The two most common are:

1. blessings of God:

a. to all nations through Abraham (and the Patriarchs), Gen. 12:3; 27:29; Acts 3:25; Gal. 3:8

b. conditioned on repentance, Exod. 32:29; Joel 2:12-14

c. conditioned on obedience to the covenant, Lev. 25:18-21

d. a proper relationship with God brings prosperity (i.e., the cursings vs. blessings), Deut. 11:26,27,29; 23:5; 28:2,8; 30:1,19; Josh. 8:34; Ps. 133:3; Pro. 10:22

e. on obedient Israel, Deut. 12:15; 16:17; 32:23; Isa. 44:3; Ezek. 34:25-31; Mal. 3:10-12

f. on Levitical priests, Ezek. 44:28-31; Mal. 3:10-12

g. on Davie and the Messianic line, II Sam. 7:29; Ps. 3:8; 21:3; 118:26 (cf. Matt. 21:9; 23:39; Mark 11:9; Luke 13:35; 19:38; John 12:13)

h. on the one who is sent by God, Ps. 118:26; 129:8

2. the blessing of parents:

a. Isaac blessing Jacob (by trickery), Gen. 27:12,18-29,35

b. Jacob, Gen. 49:3-27,28-29

c. Moses (surrogate parent), Deut. 33:1-25

God’s word, and for that matter, the spoken blessings of the Patriarchs, became an independent, self-directed power to accomplish its purpose, Isa. 55:11; 45:23; Matt. 24:35 (5:17-19); Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33. The power of the spoken word can be seen in:

1. creation (i.e., “He said. . .”)

2. Messiah called “word,” John 1:1,14; I John 1:1; Rev. 19:13

SPECIAL TOPIC: BOASTING

 

These Greek terms kauchaomai, kauchēma, and kauchēsis are used about thirty-five times by Paul and only twice in the rest of the NT (both in James). Its predominate use is in I and II Corinthians.

There are two main truths connected to boasting.

1. No flesh shall glory/boast before God (cf. I Cor. 1:29; Eph. 2:9).

2. Believers should glory in the Lord (cf. I Cor. 1:31; II Cor. 10:17, which is an allusion to Jer. 9:23-24).

Therefore, there is appropriate and inappropriate boasting/glorying (i.e., pride).

1. appropriate

a. in the hope of glory (cf. Rom. 4:2)

b. in God through the Lord Jesus (cf. Rom. 5:11)

c. in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e., Paul’s main theme, cf. I Cor. 1:17-18; Gal. 6:14)

d. Paul boasts in

(1) his ministry without compensation (cf. I Cor. 9:15,16; II Cor. 10:12)

(2) his authority from Christ (cf. II Cor. 10:8,12)

(3) his not boasting in other men’s labor (as some at Corinth were, cf. II Cor. 10:15)

(4) his racial heritage (as others were doing at Corinth, cf. II Cor. 11:17; 12:1,5,6)

(5) his churches

(a) Corinth (II Cor. 7:4,14; 8:24; 9:2; 11:10)

(b) Thessalonica (cf. II Thess. 1:4)

(6) his confidence in God’s comfort and deliverance (cf. II Cor. 1:12)

2. inappropriate

a. in relation to Jewish heritage (cf. Rom. 2:17,23; 3:27; Gal. 6:13)

b. some in the Corinthian church were boasting

(1) in men (cf. I Cor. 3:21)

(2) in wisdom (cf. I Cor. 4:7)

(3) in freedom (cf. I Cor. 5:6)

c. false teachers tried to boast in the church at Corinth (cf. II Cor. 11:12)

SPECIAL TOPIC: BOB’S EVANGELICAL BIASES

 

I must admit to you the reader that I am biased at this point. My systematic theology is not Calvinism or Dispensationalism, but it is Great Commission evangelism. I believe God had an eternal plan for the redemption of all mankind (e.g., Gen. 3:15; 12:3; Exod. 19:5-6; Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 18; 36:22-39; Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:28; 13:29; Rom. 3:9-18,19-20,21-32), all those created in His image and likeness (cf. Gen. 1:26-27). The covenants are united in Christ (cf. Gal. 3:28-29; Col. 3:11). Jesus is the mystery of God, hidden but now revealed (cf. Eph. 2:11-3:13)!

This pre-understanding colors all my interpretations of Scripture (i.e., Jonah). I read all texts through it! It is surely a bias (all interpreters have them!), but it is a Scripturally-informed presupposition.

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: CHARACTERISTICS OF ISRAEL’S GOD

1. Compassionate (BDB 933) - Exod. 34:6; Deut. 4:31; II Chr. 30:9; Ps. 86:15; 103:8; 111:4; Neh. 9:17,31; Joel 2:13; Jon. 4:2

2. Gracious (BDB 337) - Exod. 34:6; II Chr. 30:9; Ps. 86:15; 103:8; 111:4; Neh. 9:17,31; Joel 2:13; Jon. 4:2

3. Slow to anger (BDB74 construct BDB 60) - Exod. 34:6; Ps. 86:15; 103:8; Neh. 9:17; Joel 2:13; Jon. 4:2

4. Abounding in steadfast love (BDB 912 I construct BDB 338) - Exod. 34:6-7; Ps. 86:15; 103:8; Neh. 9:17; Joel 2:13; Jon. 4:2

5. Faithful (BDB 54) - Exod. 34:6; Ps. 86:15

6. Abundant forgiveness (BDB 699) - Neh. 9:17

7. Did not forsake them (BDB 736 I) - Neh. 9:17,31

8. Repents of evil (BDB 636, KB 688, Niphal participle + BDB 948) - Joel 2:13; Jon. 4:2

9. The great God (BDB 42, 152) - Neh. 1:5; 9:32

10. Great and terrible (BDB 152, 431) - Neh. 1:5; 4:14; 9:32

11. Keeps covenant (BDB 1036, 136) - Neh. 1:5; 9:32

12. Steadfast love (BDB 338 - Neh. 1:5; 9:32

SPECIAL TOPIC: CHARIOTS

 

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery notes that chariots were used in three distinct ways (p. 138):

1. Royal transportation

a. Egypt - Gen. 41:43; 50:9

b. Israel - II Sam. 15:1; I Kgs. 1:5; Song of Songs 3:9

2. Divine transportation and army - II Kgs. 2:11; 6:17; Ps. 68:17,104; Isa. 66:15; Jer. 17:25; Hab. 3:8

3. Military weapon (selected examples)

a. Egypt - Exod. 14:6,7,9,17,18,23,26,28; 15:4,9; Deut. 11:4; Josh. 24:6

b. Canaanite - Deut. 20:1; Josh. 11:4; 17:16,18; Jdgs. 1:19; 4-5

c. Philistine - Jdgs. 1:19; I Sam. 13:5; II Sam. 1:6

d. Israelite - I Sam. 8:11-12; II Sam. 15:1; I Kgs. 10:26-29

(note Ps. 20:1; Isa. 31:1)

The iron may have been around the wheels or simply ornamental. It represented a superior technology!

SPECIAL TOPIC: CHERUBIM

A. One of several types of angelic beings. This particular type guarded sacred areas (cf. Exod. 25:18-22; I Kgs. 8:6-7).

B. Etymology is uncertain:

1. From Akkadian “intercessor” or “mediator” between God and man

2. From Hebrew this is a possible word play, “chariot” and cherub” (cf. Ezek. 1; 10)

3. Some say it means “brilliant appearance”

C. Physical form - This has been difficult to ascertain because of varying descriptions within the Bible and varying animal-human forms found in the ancient Near East. Some link them to:

1. Winged bull of Mesopotamia

2. Winged eagle - lions of Egypt called “griffins”

3. Winged creatures on Hiram, King of Tyres’ throne

4. Sphinx of Egypt and similar forms found in King Ahab’s ivory palace in Samaria

D. Physical Description

1. The form cherubim is linked with the Seraphim of Isaiah 6.

2. Examples of different forms

a. Number of faces

(1) two – Ezek. 41:18

(2) four – Ezek. 1:6, 10; 10:14,16,21,22

(3) one – Rev. 4:7

b. Number of wings

(1) two – I Kgs. 6:24

(2) four – Ezek. 1:6,11; 2:23; 10:7,8-21

(3) six (like Seraphim of Isa. 6:2)  – Rev. 4:8

3. Other features

a. Human hands – Ezek. 1:8; 10:8,21

b. Legs

(1) Straight, no knee – Ezek. 1:7

(2) Calf feet – Ezek. 1:7

4. Flavius Josephus admits that no one knew what cherubim looked like (cf. Antiquities of the Jews, VIII:3:3).

E. Places and purpose found in the Bible

1. Guardian of the tree of life, Gen. 3:24 (possibly used metaphorically of Satan in Ezek. 28:14,16)

2. Guardian of the Tabernacle

a. Over the Ark of the Covenant; Exod. 25:18-20; Num. 7:89; I Sam. 4:4

b. Depicted on veil and curtains; Exod. 26:1,31; 36:8,35

3. Guardian of Solomon’s Temple

a. Two large carved cherubs in Holy of Holies; I Kgs. 6:23-28; 8:6-7; II Chron. 3:10-14; 5:7-9

b. On walls of inner shrine; I Kgs. 6:29,35; II Chron. 3:7

c. On panels that were associated with the several lavers; I Kgs. 7:27-39

4. Guardian of Ezekiel’s Temple

a. Carved on walls and doors; Ezek. 41:18-20, 25

5. Connected with transportation of deity

a. possibly a metaphor for wind; II Sam. 22:11; Ps. 18:10; 104:3-4; Isa. 19:1

b. guardian of God’s throne; Ps.80:1; 99:1; Isa. 37:16

c. guardian of God’s portable throne chariot; Ezek. 1:4-28; 10:3-22; I Chron. 28:18

6. Herod’s Temple

a. Painted on walls (i.e. guardian cf. Talmud “Yoma” 54a)

7. Revelation throne scene (i.e. guardian cf. Rev. 4-5)

SPECIAL TOPIC: CONSEQUENCES OF IDOLATRY

A. “hearts are not deceived” - BDB 834, KB 984, Qal imperfect, cf. Job 31:27

1. “turn away” - BDB 693, KB 747, Qal perfect, cf. Exod. 32:8; 9:12; 17:11,17; Jer. 5:23

2. “serve other gods” - BDB 712, KB 773, Qal perfect, cf. 7:4,16; 8:19; 11:16; 13:6,13; 17:3; 28:14,36,64; 29:26; 30:17; 31:20; Josh. 23:16; 24:2,16; Jer. 11:10; 13:10; 16:11,13; 22:9; 25:6; 35:15

3. “to worship” - BDB 1005, KB 295, Hithpael (Owens, p. 805) and Hishtaphel (Parsing Guide, p. 146)

Obviously this was a recurrent tendency on Israel’s part! The consequences for idolatry were severe.

B. “the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you” - BDB 354, KB 351, Qal perfect, cf. Exod. 4:14; 22:24; 32:10; Num. 11:1,10; 12:9; 32:10; Deut. 6:15; 7:4; 11:17; 29:27; Josh. 23:11

1. “He will shut up the heavens so that there will be no rain.” This is part of the curse for disobeying the covenant, cf. 28:24; II Chr. 6:26-28; 7:13

2. “the ground will not yield its fruit” - results of no rain

C. “you will perish quickly from the good land” - BDB 1, KB 2, Qal perfect, cf. 4:26; 7:4; 8:19,20; 28:20,22; 30:18; Josh. 23:13,16

There is no middle option! God presents His covenant as fully compliant or in default. Fallen humanity cannot obtain this level of consistent or complete obedience (cf. Josh. 24:19). Therefore, there was/is a need for a new covenant based on God’s mercy and His performance (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:22-38; Rom. 3:9-18,23; Galatians 3)!

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: CORNERSTONE

I. OT Usages

A. The concept of a stone as a hard durable item which made a good foundation was used to describe YHWH (cf. Ps. 18:1).

B. It then developed into a Messianic title (cf. Gen. 49:24; Ps. 118:22; Isa. 28:16).

C. It came to represent a judgment from YHWH by the Messiah (cf. Isa. 8:14; Dan. 2:34-35,44-45).

D. This developed into a building metaphor:

1. a foundation stone, the first placed, which was secure and set the angles for the rest of the building, called “the cornerstone”

2. it could also refer to the final stone put in place, which holds the walls together (cf. Zech. 4:7; Eph. 2:20,21), called “the cap stone” from the Hebrew rush (i.e., head)

3. it could refer to the “key stone,” which is in the center of the doorway arch and holds the weight of the entire wall

II. NT Usages

A. Jesus quoted Ps. 118 several times in reference to Himself (cf. Matt. 21:41-46; Mark 12:10-11; Luke 20:17)

B. Paul uses Ps. 118 in connection with YHWH’s rejection of faithless, rebellious Israel (cf. Rom. 9:33)

C. Paul uses the concept of a “cap stone” in Eph. 2:20-22 in reference to Christ

D. Peter uses this concept of Jesus in I Pet. 2:1-10. Jesus is the cornerstone and believers are the living stones (i.e., believers as temples, cf. I Cor. 6:19), built on Him (i.e., Jesus is the new Temple, cf. Mark 14:58; Matt. 12:6; John 2:19-20).

The Jews rejected the very foundation of their hope when they rejected Jesus as Messiah

III. Theological Statements

A. YHWH allowed David/Solomon to build a temple. He told them that if they kept the covenant He would bless them and be with them, but if they did not the temple would be in ruins (cf. I Kgs. 9:1-9)!

B. Rabbinical Judaism focused on form and ritual and neglected the personal aspect of faith (this is not a blanket statement; there were godly rabbis). God seeks a daily, personal, godly relationship

with those created in His image (cf. Gen. 1:26-27). Luke 20:17-18 contains frightening words of judgment.

C. Jesus used the concept of a temple to represent His physical body. This continues and expands the concept of personal faith in Jesus as the Messiah as key to a relationship with YHWH.

D. Salvation is meant to restore the image of God in human beings so that fellowship with God is possible. The goal of Christianity is Christlikeness now. Believers are to become living stones (i.e., little temples) built on/patterned after Christ.

E. Jesus is the foundation of our faith and the cap stone of our faith (i.e., the Alpha and Omega). Yet also the stone of stumbling and the rock of offense. To miss Him is to miss everything. There can be no middle ground here!

SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT

 

The OT term berith, covenant, is not easy to define. There is no matching VERB in Hebrew. All attempts to derive an etymological definition have proved unconvincing. However, the obvious centrality of the concept has forced scholars to examine the word usage to attempt to determine its functional meaning.

Covenant is the means by which the one true God deals with His human creation. The concept of covenant, treaty, or agreement is crucial in understanding the biblical revelation. The tension between God’s sovereignty and human free-will are clearly seen in the concept of covenant. Some covenants are based exclusively on God’s character and actions

1. creation itself (cf. Gen. 1-2)

2. the call of Abraham (cf. Gen. 12)

3. the covenant with Abraham (cf. Gen. 15)

4. the preservation of and promise to Noah (cf. Gen. 6-9)

However, the very nature of covenant demands a response

1. by faith Adam must obey God and not eat of the tree in the midst of Eden

2. by faith Abraham must leave his family, follow God, and believe in future descendants

3. by faith Noah must build a huge boat far from water and gather the animals

4. by faith Moses brought the Israelites out of Egypt and received specific guidelines for religious and social life with promises of blessings and cursings (cf. Deut. 27-29)

This same tension involving God’s relationship to humanity is addressed in the “new covenant.” The tension can be clearly seen in comparing Ezek. 18 with Ezek. 36:27-37. Is the covenant based on God’s gracious actions or mandated human response? This is the burning issue of the Old Covenant and the New. The goals of both are the same: (1) the restoration of fellowship lost in Gen. 3 and (2) the establishment of a righteous people who reflect God’s character.

The new covenant of Jer. 31:31-34 solves the tension by removing human performance as the means of attaining acceptance. God’s law becomes an internal desire instead of an external performance. The goal of a godly, righteous people remains the same, but the methodology changes. Fallen mankind proved themselves inadequate to be God’s reflected image. The problem was not the covenant, but human sinfulness and weakness (cf. Rom. 7; Gal. 3).

The same tension between OT unconditional and conditional covenants remains in the NT. Salvation is absolutely free in the finished work of Jesus Christ, but it requires repentance and faith (both initially and continually). It is both a legal pronouncement and a call to Christlikeness, an indicative statement of acceptance and an imperative to holiness! Believers are not saved by their performance, but unto obedience (cf. Eph. 2:8-10). Godly living becomes the evidence of salvation, not the means of salvation. This tension is clearly seen in Hebrews.

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT PROMISES TO PATRIARCHS

 

This initial promise of a special covenant relationship was made to:

1. Abraham, Gen. 12:1-3

a. land, Gen. 12:7; 13:4-15; 15:18-21

b. people, Gen. 13:16; 15:4-5; 17:2-6; 22:18

c. blessing to the world, Gen. 18:18; 22:18

2. Isaac, Gen. 26:2-4

a. land

b. people

c. blessing to the world

3. Jacob, Gen. 28:2-4,13; 35:9-12; 48:3-4

a. land

b. people

4. the nation of Israel (a land), Exod. 3:8,17; 6:8; 13:5; 33:1-3; Deut. 1:7-8,35; 4:31; 9:3; 11:25; 31:7; Josh. 1:6

SPECIAL TOPIC: CREMATION

I. OLD TESTAMENT

A. Cremation (burning) was one of the four ways to inflict capital punishment in Leviticus (cf. 20:14; 21:9, examples, Gen. 28:24 and Josh. 7:15,25).

B. People friendly with Saul, reclaimed his body and those of his three sons from the Philistines and burned them before burying their bones in the land of Benjamin (cf. I Sam. 31:12-13, omitted in the parallel of I Chr. 10:12)

There is some dispute among scholars about the reading “burned” vs. “anointed.” This text is the only seemingly positive cremation in the OT (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 5, p. 1074). It may also refer to burning spices (cf. II Chr. 16:14; 21:19; Jer. 34:5).

C. Later, a Judean prophet predicts the burning of the priests at Bethel on its sacrificial altar (cf. I Kgs. 13:2).

D. The issue of cremation has sometimes been falsely linked to the OT use of fire as a metaphor for judgment (cf. Isa. 30:33). Cremation metaphors (i.e. “pyre”) are used to accentuate eschatological condemnation.

E. Burial was practiced by all of the countries of the ancient Near East (cf. Roland deVaux, Ancient Israel, vol. 1, p. 57). Cremation was seen as a humiliation (cf. Amos 2:1).

II. GREECE AND ROME

A. Both of these civilizations practiced cremation.

1. Greece regularly (Sophocles, Electra, 1136-1139

2. Rome as a viable, but not common, option (Cicero, Deleg 2,22,56)

B. The cultures of the Mediterranean had a different attitude toward cremation than the cultures of the ancient Near East. Tacitus mentions that the Jews bury, not burn (His. 5.5)

III. RABBINICAL JUDAISM

C. Most early rabbis assert that burying is commanded by Deut. 21:23.

D. Cremation is forbidden in the Talmud (Sanh. 7:2,24b) and Mishna (’Abodiah Zarah 1.3).

E. Modern Judaism allows those cremated to be placed in Jewish cemeteries (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 5, p. 1074).

IV. NEW TESTAMENT

SPECIAL TOPIC: CUBIT

 

There are two cubits (BDB 52, KB 61) in the Bible. The regular cubit is the distance between an average man’s longest finger and his elbow, usually around 18 inches (e.g., Gen. 6:15; Exod. 25:10,17,23; 26:2,8,13,16; 27:1,9,12,13,14,16,18; Num. 35:4,5; Deut. 3:11). There is also a longer cubit (royal cubit) used in construction (i.e., Solomon’s temple), which was common in Egypt (i.e., 21 fingers), Palestine (i.e., 24 fingers), and sometimes Babylon (i.e., 30 fingers). It was 21 inches long (cf. Ezek. 40:5; 43:13).

The ancients used parts of the human body for measurement. The people of the ancient Near East used:

1. length from elbow to middle finger (cubit)

2. width from outstretched thumb to little finger (span, cf. Exod. 28:16; 39:9; I Sam. 17:4)

3. length between all four fingers of a closed hand (handbreadth, cf. Exod. 25:25; 37:12; I Kgs. 7:26; II Chr. 4:5)

4. length of middle joint of finger (fingerbreadth, Jer. 52:21)

 

The cubit (BDB 52, KB 61) was not completely standardized, but there were two basic lengths.

1. normal male’s elbow to middle finger (about 18 inches, cf. Deut. 3:11)

2. royal cubit was a bit longer (about 20 inches, cf. II Chr. 3:3; Ezek. 40:5; 43:13)

SPECIAL TOPIC: CURSE

 

The Hebrew term “accursed” (BDB 887, KB 1105) is used in two senses:

1. the curses of people against people (common in the ancient world) - Jdgs. 9:57; II Sam. 16:12; I Kgs. 2:8; Ps. 109:17-18; Pro. 27:14

2. the opposite of divine blessing

a. patriarchal - Gen. 27:12,33

b. YHWH - Deut. 11:26,28; 21:23; 23:5; 28:15,45; 30:1; Josh. 8:34; II Kgs. 22:19; Jer. 24:9; 25:18; 26:6; Zech. 8:13 (related to covenant obedience)

The key text theologically is Deut. 11:26,28. This sets the volitional stage for the consequences of covenant disobedience to become a reality. YHWH desires all peoples to know and honor Him so that He can bless and prosper them on the earth. However, disobedience results in the lack of even the taking away of physical blessing. These blessings are always related to an intimate, personal, and obedient relationship with God.

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: DATE OF THE EXODUS

A. There have been two scholarly opinions on the date of the Exodus:

1. from I Kings 6:1, which says, “480 years from the Exodus to the building of Solomon’s Temple”:

a. Solomon began to reign in 970 b.c. This is figured by using the battle of Qarqar (853 b.c.) as a certain starting date.

b. The Temple was built in his fourth year (965 b.c.), and the Exodus occurred about 1445/6 b.c.

2. This would make it occur in the 18^th Egyptian Dynasty.

a. The Pharaoh of the oppression would be Thutmose III (1490-1436 b.c.).

b. The Pharaoh of the Exodus would be Amenhotep II (1436-1407 b.c.).

(1) Some believe evidence from Jericho based on the fact that no diplomatic correspondence occurred between Jericho and Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep III (1413-1377 b.c.).

(2) The Amarna texts record diplomatic correspondence written on ostraca about the Habiru over-running the land of Canaan in the reign of Amenhotep III. Therefore, the Exodus occurred in the reign of Amenhotep II.

(3) The period of the Judges is not long enough if the 13^th century is the date of Exodus.

3. The possible problems with these dates are:

a. The Septuagint (LXX) has 440 years not 480.

b. It is possible that 480 years is representative of 12 generations of 40 years each, therefore, a figurative number.

c. There are 12 generations of priests from Aaron to Solomon (cf. I Chr. 6), then 12 from Solomon to the Second Temple. The Jews, like the Greeks, reckoned a generation as forty years. So, there is a 480 year period back and forward (symbolic use of numbers) (cf. Bimson’s Redating the Exodus and Conquest).

4. There are three other texts that mention dates:

a. Genesis 15:13,16 (cf. Acts 7:6), 400 years of bondage;

b. Exodus 12:40-41 (cf. Gal. 3:17);

(1) MT - 430 years of sojourn in Egypt

(2) LXX - 215 years of sojourn in Egypt

c. Judges 11:26 - 300 years between Jephthah’s day and the conquest (supports 1445 date)

d. Acts 13:19, exodus, wanderings and conquest - 450 years

5. The author of Kings used specific historical references and did not round numbers (Edwin Thiele, A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings, pp. 83-85

B. The tentative evidence from archaeology seems to point toward a date of 1290 b.c., or the 19^th Egyptian Dynasty.

1. Joseph was able to visit his father and Pharaoh in this same day. The first native Pharaoh who began to move the capital of Egypt from Thebes back to the Nile Delta, to a place called Avaris/Zoan/Tanis which was the old Hyksos capital, was Seti I (1309-1290). He would be the Pharaoh of the oppression.

a. This seems to fit two pieces of information about the Hyksos reign of Egypt.

(1) A stele has been found from the time of Rameses II that commemorates the founding of Avaris four hundred years earlier (1700's b.c. by the Hyksos)

(2) The prophecy of Gen. 15:13 speaks of a 400 year oppression

b. This implies that Joseph’s rise to power was under a Hyksos (Semitic) Pharaoh. The new Egyptian dynasty is referred to in Exod. 1:8.

2. The Hyksos, an Egyptian word meaning “rulers of foreign lands,” who were a group of non-Egyptian Semitic rulers, controlled Egypt during the 15^th and 16^th Dynasties (1720-1570 b.c.). Some want to relate them to Joseph’s rise to power. If we subtract the 430 years of Exod. 12:40 from 1720 b.c., we get a date of about 1290 b.c.

3. Seti I’s son was Rameses II (1290-1224). This name is mentioned as one of the store cities built by the Hebrew slaves, Exod. 1:11. Also this same district in Egypt near Goshen is called Rameses, Gen. 47:11. Avaris/Zoan/Tanis was known as “House of Rameses” from 1300-1100 b.c.

4. Thutmoses III was known as a great builder, as was Rameses II.

5. Rameses II had 47 daughters living in separate palaces.

6. Archaeology has shown that most of the large walled cities of Canaan (Hazor, Debir, Lachish) were destroyed and rapidly rebuilt around 1250 b.c. In allowing for a 38 year wilderness wandering period this fits a date of 1290 b.c.

7. Archaeology has found a reference to the Israelis being in southern Canaan on a memorial stele of Rameses’ successor Merneptah (1224-1214 b.c. [cf. The Stele of Merneptah, dated 1220 b.c.]).

8. Edom and Moab seem to have attained strong national identity in the late 1300's b.c. These countries were not organized in the 15th century (Glueck).

9. The book entitled Redating the Exodus and Conquest by John J. Bimson, published by the University of Sheffield, 1978, argues against all of the archaeological evidence for an early date.

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE DEATH PENALTY IN ISRAEL

 

Ancient Israel was to reflect the character of YHWH to the world (cf. Gen. 12:3; 22:18; Exod. 19:5-6). When intentional covenant rebellion distorted this missionary purpose, serious consequences manifested (i.e., death penalty).

The Pentateuch lists several categories:

1. sins against YHWH

a. Canaanite worship practices - Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:2-3,27; Deut. 18:10-11

b. idolatry (heavenly hosts) - Exod. 22:20; Deut. 17:2-7

c. blasphemy - Exod. 22:28; Lev. 24:15-16

d. false prophecy - Deut. 13:1-11; 18:20-22

e. Sabbath violations - Exod. 31:14-15; 35:2

2. sexual sins

a. incest - Lev. 20:11-21

b. fornication - Lev. 19:29; 21:19; Deut. 22:13-21; 23:17-18

c. adultery - Exod. 20:14; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:23-24

d. sodomy - Lev. 18:22; 20:13

e. bestiality - Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16

3. violation of covenant regulations against fellow Israelites

a. murder - Exod. 20:13; 21:12-14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16-21; Deut. 5:17

b. kidnaping (to sell) - Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7 and possibly Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19

c. rebellion against parents - Deut. 21:18-21

d. false witness

e. taking holy war spoils - Joshua 7

The methods of execution also varied:

1. stoning - most common

2. burning - Gen. 38:24; Lev. 20:14; 21:9

3. hanging/impaling - Deut. 21:22-23

4. sword - Deut. 13:15

 

Exceptions for special cases:

1. cities of refuge and subsequent trial - Joshua 20

2. stringent investigations of accusations - Deut. 13:15; 17:4; 19:18

3. need for two witnesses - Num. 35:36; Deut. 17:6; 19:15

 

The death penalty was to be:

1. a way to cleanse the land - Deut. 13:5; 17:12; 19:13,19; 21:9,21; 22:21,22,24; 24:7

2. a deterrent to others - Deut. 17:13; 19:20; 21:21

3. a way of stopping clan violence (i.e., no personal revenge, except regulations set for blood-avenger) See Ancient Israel, vol. 1, pp. 147-163).

SPECIAL TOPIC: The Deity of Christ from the OT

 

The two lines from Micah 5:2, “His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity,” are parallel. The verb, going forth (BDB 422, KB 425, Qal imperative) is a very common verb. It was used in Micah eight times (e.g., [1] of the Lord coming in 1:3; [2] of God’s law going forth in 4:2; and [3] of repentant Israel being restored in 7:9 [a new exodus, 7:15]). It can refer to the Messiah’s origin (NRSV, NJB) or actions (cf. vv. 4 and 5a).

These two lines could refer to:

1. the pre-existence of the Messiah (cf. Prov. 8:22-31; John 1:1,14-15; 8:56-59; 16:28; 17:5; I Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:6-7; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3; 10:5-8)

2. a way of referring to famous descendants of the past (i.e., Abraham, Noah, or more probably, David).

This whole verse alludes to a Davidic king, of David’s line, from David’s hometown. David was viewed as the ideal king.

The term “eternity” (BDB 761) is ’olam. See Special Topic: Forever (’Olam) at Hosea 2:19.

The NIDOTTE, vol. 3, p. 347, which discusses ’olam, makes this comment,

“While it is tempting to see here a reference to the eternal preexistence of the Messiah, no such an idea is found in biblical or post-biblical Jewish literature before the ‘Similitudes of Enoch’ (first century b.c. - first century a.d.; see I Enoch 48:2-6.”

I think, although there are hints in the OT of an incarnation, the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day were surprised at His claims of equality with God (e.g., Mark 2:5-7; John 1:1-14; 8:58 and Paul, II Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Phil. 2:6; Titus 2:13). A partial list of OT texts that have been used to assert the full deity of Jesus follows:

1. Ps. 2:7, quoted in Heb. 1:5 (see esp. 1:2-3)

2. Ps. 45:6-7 quoted in Heb. 1:8-9

3. Ps. 110:1 quoted in Heb. 1:13

4. Isa. 9:6; Jer. 23:5-6; Micah 5:2 alluded to in Luke 1:32

5. Dan. 7:13 quoted in Matt. 26:64; Mark14:62

6. Zech. 13:7 quoted in Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27

7. Mal. 3:1 quoted in Mark 1:1-3; Luke 2:26-27

SPECIAL TOPIC: DEGREES OF REWARDS AND PUNISHMENT

A. Appropriate and inappropriate response to God is based on knowledge. The less knowledge one has the less responsible one is. The opposite is also true.

B. Knowledge of God comes in two basic ways.

1. creation (cf. Psalm 19; Romans 1-2)

2. Scripture (cf. Psalm 19, 119; the gospel)

C. OT evidence

1. rewards

a. Gen. 15:1 (usually associated with earthly reward, land and sons)

b. Deuteronomy 27-28 (covenant obedience brings blessing)

c. Dan. 12:3

2. punishment

a. Deuteronomy 27-28 (covenant disobedience brings cursing)

3. The OT pattern of reward for personal, covenantal righteousness is modified because of human sin. This modification is seen in Job and Psalm 73. The NT changes the focus from this world to the next (of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7).

D. NT evidence

1. rewards (beyond salvation)

a. Mark 9:41

b. Matt. 5:12,46; 6:1-4,5-6,6-18; 10:41-42; 16:27; 25:14-23

c. Luke 6:23,35; 19:11-19,25-26

2. punishment

a. Mark 12:38-40

b. Luke 10:12; 12:47-48; 19:20-24; 20:47

c. Matthew 5:22,29,30; 7:19; 10:15,28; 11:22-24; 13:49-50; 18:6; 25:14-30

d. James 3:1

E. For me the only analogy that makes sense is from the opera. I do not attend opera presentations so I do not understand them. The more I knew of the difficulty and intricateness of the plot, music, and dance the more I would appreciate the performance. I believe heaven will fill our cups, but I think our earthly service determines the size of the cup.

Therefore, knowledge and a response to that knowledge results in rewards and punishments (cf. Matt. 16:7; I Cor. 3:8,14; 9:17,18; Gal. 6:7; II Tim. 4:14). There is a spiritual principle—we reap what we sow! Some sow more and reap more (cf. Matt. 13:8,23).

F. “The crown of righteousness” is ours in the finished work of Jesus Christ (cf. II Tim. 4:8), but notice, “the crown of life” is connected to perseverance under trial (cf. James 1:12; Rev. 2:10; 3:10-11). The “crown of glory” for Christian leaders

is connected to their lifestyle (cf. I Pet. 5:1-4). Paul knows he has an imperishable crown, but he exercises extreme self-control (cf. I Cor. 9:24-27).

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE DEMONIC IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

A. The exact relationship between fallen angels and the demonic is uncertain. I Enoch asserts that the Nephilim of Gen. 6:1-8 is the source of evil (the rabbis also focus on the text and not Genesis 3). I Enoch says that these half angel/half human beings were killed by the flood (it even asserts

that their death was the purpose of the flood), but now their disembodied spirits are seeking a body host.

B. There are several hostile spirits or demons named in the OT:

1. Satyrs or “hairy ones,” possibly goat demons (BDB 972 III) - Lev. 17:7; II Chr. 11:15; Isa. 13:21; 34:14

2. Shedim (BDB 993) - Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37, to which sacrifices were made (similar to Molech)

3. Lilith, the female night demon (BDB 539) - Isa. 34:14 (part of Babylonian and Ugaritic myth)

4. Azazel, demon of the desert (name of chief demon in I Enoch, cf. 8:1; 9:6; 10:4-8; 13:1-2; 54:5; 55:4; 69:2) - Lev. 16:8,10,26

5. Psalm 91:5-6 are personifications of pestilence (cf. v. 10), not spiritual beings (cf. Song of Songs 3:8)

6. Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14 list several desert animals as a way to show the desolation of destroyed places. Some who assume that the list includes the demonic to illustrate that these destroyed places are also haunted (cf. Matt. 12:43; Luke 11:24; Rev. 18:2)

C. The OT monotheism silenced and modified the legends of the pagan nations, but sometimes names and titles of their superstitions are referred to (esp. poetic texts). The reality of evil spirits is a part of progressive revelation and is developed in the NT as is the person/angel of Satan.

SPECIAL TOPIC: Election/predestination and the Need for a Theological Balance

 

Election is a wonderful doctrine. However, it is not a call to favoritism, but a call to be a channel, a tool or means of others’ redemption! In the Old Testament the term was used primarily for service; in the New Testament it is used primarily for salvation which issues in service. The Bible never reconciles the seeming contradiction between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will, but affirms them both! A good example of the biblical tension would be Romans 9 on God’s sovereign choice and Romans 10 on mankind’s necessary response (cf. 10:11,13).

    The key to this theological tension may be found in Eph. 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind’s need (Karl Barth). Eph. 1:4 also helps clarify the issue by asserting that the goal of predestination is not heaven, but holiness (Christlikeness). We are often attracted to the benefits of the gospel and ignore the responsibilities! God’s call (election) is for time as well as eternity!

Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths:

1. Predestination vs. human free will

2. Security of the believers vs. the need for perseverance

3. Original sin vs. volitional sin

4. Sinlessness (perfectionism) vs. sinning less

5. Initial instantaneous justification and sanctification vs. progressive sanctification

6. Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility

7. God’s transcendence vs. God’s immanence

8. God as ultimately unknowable vs. God as knowable in Scripture

9. The Kingdom of God as present vs. future consummation

10. Repentance as a gift of God vs. repentance as a necessary human covenantal response

11. Jesus as divine vs. Jesus as human

12. Jesus is equal to the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father

The theological concept of “covenant” unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the initiative and sets the agenda) with a mandatory initial and continuing repentant, faith response from humans. Be careful of proof-texting one side of the paradox and depreciating the other! Be careful of asserting only your favorite doctrine or system of theology!

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: FAITH (PISTIS [noun], PISTEUŌ, [verb], PISTOS [adjective])

A. This is such an important term in the Bible (cf. Heb. 11:1,6). It is the subject of Jesus’ early preaching (cf. Mark 1:15). There are at least two new covenant requirements: repentance and faith (cf. 1:15; Acts 3:16,19; 20:21).

B. Its etymology

1. The term “faith” in the OT meant loyalty, fidelity, or trustworthiness and was a description of God’s nature, not ours.

2. It came from a Hebrew term (emun, emunah, BDB 53), which meant “to be sure or stable.” Saving faith is mental assent (set of truths), moral living (a lifestyle), and primarily a relational (welcoming of a person) and volitional commitment (a decision) to that person.

C. Its OT usage

D. Its NT usage

The term “believed” is from the Greek term (pisteuō) which can also be translated “believe,” “faith,” or “trust.” For example, the noun does not occur in the Gospel of John, but the verb is used often. In John 2:23-25 there is uncertainty as to the genuineness of the crowd’s commitment to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Other examples of this superficial use of the term “believe” are in John 8:31-59 and Acts 8:13, 18-24. True biblical faith is more than an initial response. It must be followed by a process of discipleship (cf. Matt. 13:20-22,31-32).

E. Its use with prepositions

1. eis means “into.” This unique construction emphasizes believers putting their trust/faith in Jesus:

a. into His name (John 1:12; 2:23; 3:18; I John 5:13)

b. into Him (John 2:11; 3:15,18; 4:39; 6:40; 7:5,31,39,48; 8:30; 9:36; 10:42; 11:45,48; 17:37,42; Matt. 18:6; Acts 10:43; Phil. 1:29; I Pet. 1:8)

c. into Me (John 6:35; 7:38; 11:25,26; 12:44,46; 14:1,12; 16:9; 17:20)

d. into the Son (John 3:36; 9:35; I John 5:10)

e. into Jesus (John 12:11; Acts 19:4; Gal. 2:16)

f. into Light (John 12:36)

g. into God (John 14:1)

2. en means “in” as in John 3:15; Mark 1:15; Acts 5:14

3. epi means “in” or upon, as in Matt. 27:42; Acts 9:42; 11:17; 16:31; 22:19; Rom. 4:5,24; 9:33; 10:11; I Tim. 1:16; I Pet. 2:6

4. the dative case with no preposition as in Gal. 3:6; Acts 18:8; 27:25; I John 3:23; 5:10

5. hoti, which means “believe that,” gives content as to what to believe

a. Jesus is the Holy One of God (John 6:69)

b. Jesus is the I Am (John 8:24)

c. Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Him (John 10:38)

d. Jesus is the Messiah (John 11:27; 20:31)

e. Jesus is the Son of God (John 11:27; 20:31)

f. Jesus was sent by the Father (John 11:42; 17:8,21)

g. Jesus is one with the Father (John 14:10-11)

h. Jesus came from the Father (John 16:27,30)

i. Jesus identified Himself in the covenant name of the Father, “I Am” (John 8:24; 13:19)

j. We will live with Him (Rom. 6:8)

k. Jesus died and rose again (I Thess. 4:14)

SPECIAL TOPIC: “The Faithful Remnant”

The OT concept of “a faithful remnant” is a recurrent theme of the Prophets (mostly in the eighth century prophets and Jeremiah). It is used in three senses:

1. those who survived the Exile (e.g., Isa. 10:20-23; 17:4-6; 37:31-32; Jer. 42:15,19; 44:12,14,28; Amos 1:8)

2. those who remain faithful to YHWH (e.g., Isa. 4:1-5; 11:11,16; 28:5; Joel 2:32; Amos 5:14-15; Micah 2:12-13; 4:6-7; 5:7-9; 7:18-20)

3. those who are a part of the eschatological renewal and recreation (e.g., Amos 9:11-15)

SPECIAL TOPIC: New Testament Theological Development on the Fall

1. The Fall affected all mankind as clearly expressed in Paul’s discussion of Rom. 5:12-21.

Romans 5:12-21 is a discussion of Jesus as the second Adam (cf. I Cor. 15:21-22, 45-49; Phil. 2:6-8). It gives emphasis to the theological concept of both individual sin and corporate guilt.

Paul’s development of mankind’s (and creation’s) fall in Adam was unique and different from the rabbis while his view of corporality was very much in line with rabbinical teaching. It showed Paul’s ability under inspiration to use, or supplement, the truths he was taught during his training in Jerusalem under Gamaliel (cf. Acts 22:3).

The doctrine of original sin from Gen. 3 was developed by Augustine and Calvin. It asserts that humans are born sinful. Often Psalm 51:5; 58:3; and Job 15:14; 25:4 are used as OT proof-texts. The alternate theological position that humans are morally and spiritually responsible for their own choices and destiny was developed first by the rabbis and then in the church by Pelagius and Arminius. There is some evidence for their view in Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15; and Jonah 4:11; John 9:41; 15:22,24; Acts 17:30; Rom. 4:15. The thrust of this theological position would be that children are innocent until an age of moral responsibility (for the rabbis this was 13 years old for boys and 12 years old for girls).

There is a mediating position in which both an innate evil propensity and an age of moral responsibility are both true! Evil is not only corporate, but a developing evil of self and sin (life apart from God). The wickedness of humanity is not the issue (cf. Gen. 6:5,11-12,13; Rom. 3:9-18,23), but the when, at birth or later in life?

2. “A new heaven and a new earth” become the NT eschatological theme.

“A new heaven and a new earth.” This Greek term for “new,” kainos, emphasizes quality, not chronological time (cf. 2:17; 3:12; 5:9; 14:3; 21:1,2,5). This was an OT theme, a recreated earth (cf. Isa. 11:6-9; 65:17; 66:22; Rom. 8:18-25; II Pet. 3:10,12). All believers are citizens of this new Kingdom (cf. Phil. 3:20; Eph. 2:19; Heb. 12:23) and share this new creation (cf. II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 4:24). A parallel theological concept would be the “city of God not made with human hands” of Heb. 11:10,16; 12:22; 13:14.

The new creation will be like the initial creation. Heaven will be a restored Garden of Eden. God, mankind, the animals, and all natural creation will fellowship and rejoice again! The Bible begins with God, mankind and the animals in perfect fellowship in a garden (cf. Gen. 1-2). The Bible ends with God and mankind in a garden setting (cf. Rev. 21-22) and by prophetic implication, the animals (cf. Isa. 11:6-8; 65:25). Believers are not going to heaven; the new Jerusalem is coming down out of heaven (cf. Rev. 21:2) and coming to a recreated and cleansed earth. God and mankind are together again (cf. Gen. 3:15; Isa. 7:14; 8:8,10; Rev. 21:3).

SPECIAL TOPIC: FATHERHOOD OF GOD

I. Old Testament

A. There is a sense that God is father by means of creation:

1. Gen. 1:26-27

2. Mal. 2:10

3. Acts 17:28

B. Father is an analogy used in several senses:

1. father of Israel (by election)

a. “Son” - Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; 39:5; Isa. 1:2; 63:16; 64:8; Jer. 3:19; 31:20; Hosea 1:10; 11:1; Mal. 1:6

b. “firstborn” - Exod. 4:22; Jer. 31:9

2. father of the king of Israel (Messianic)

a. II Sam. 7:11-16

b. Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5

c. Hosea 11:1; Matt. 2:15

3. analogy of loving parent

a. father (metaphor)

(1) carries his son - Deut. 1:31

(2) disciplines - Deut. 8:5; Pro. 3:!2

(3) provision (i.e., Exodus) - Deut. 32:1

(4) will never forsake - Ps. 27:10

(5) loves - Ps. 103:13

(6) friend/guide - Jer. 3:4

(7) healer/forgiver - Jer. 3:22

(8) mercy giver - Jer. 31:20

(9) trainer - Hosea 11:1-4

(10) special son - Mal. 3:17

b. mother (metaphor)

(1) will never forsake - Ps. 27:10

(2) love of a nursing mother - Isa. 49:15; 66:9-13 and Hosea 11:4 (with the proposed textual emendation of “yoke” to “infant”)

II. New Testament

A. The Trinity (texts where all three are mentioned)

1. Gospels

a. Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19

b. John 14:26

2. Paul

a. Rom. 1:4-5; 5:1,5; 8:1-4,8-10

b. I Cor. 2:8-10; 12:4-6

c. II Cor. 1:21; 13:14

d. Gal. 4:4-6

e. Eph. 1:3-14,17; 2:18; 3:14-17; 4:4-

f. I Thess. 1:2-5

g. II Thess. 2:13

h. Titus 3:4-6

3. Peter - I Pet. 1:2

4. Jude - vv. 20-21

B. Jesus

1. Jesus as “only begotten” - John 1:18; 3:16,18; I John 4:9

2. Jesus as “Son of God” - Matt. 4:3; 14:33; 16:16; Luke 1:32,35; John 1:34,49; 6:69; 11:27

3. Jesus as Beloved Son - Matt. 3:17; 17:5

4. Jesus’ use of abba for God - Mark 14:36

5. Jesus’ use of pronouns to show both His and our relationship to God

a. “My Father,” e.g., John 5:18; 10:30,33; 19:7; 20:17

b. “your Father,” e.g., Matt. 17:24-27

c. “our Father,” e.g., Matt. 6:9,14,26

C. One of many family metaphors to describe the intimate relationship between God and humankind:

1. God as Father

2. Believers as:

a. sons of God

b. children

c. born of God

d. born again

e. adopted

f. brought forth

g. family of God

SPECIAL TOPIC: FEASTS OF ISRAEL

I. Mosaic Annual Feasts (cf. Exod. 23:14-17; Lev. 23; Num 28; Deut. 16)

A. All male Jews were required to attend three annual feasts (cf. Exod. 23:14,17; 34:23) if possible.

B. These feasts had agricultural, as well as national significance.

C. Each was a day of rest, worship, and community fellowship.

D. The three required annual feasts

1. Passover (cf. Exod. 12:1-14,21-28; Lev. 23:4-14; Num. 28:16-25; Deut. 16:1-8)

a. thanksgiving and dedication of the barley harvest

b. commemorates the Exodus

c. it was followed by an eight day Feast of Unleavened Bread (cf. Exod. 12:15-20;

34:18-20)

2. Pentecost (Feast of Weeks, cf. Exod. 23:16; 34:22)

a. thanksgiving and dedication of the wheat harvest

b. commemorates the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai by rabbinical reckoning

c. See Lev. 23:15-21; Num. 28:26-31

3. Tabernacles/Booths/Huts (Succoth)

a. thanksgiving for the general harvest

b. commemorates the beginning of the wilderness wandering period

c. see Exod. 23:16; 34:22; Lev. 23:34-44; Deut. 16:13-17

d. it was followed by an eight day feast (cf. Lev. 23:36; Num. 29:35-38)

E. Other annual feasts

1. New Year Celebration (Rosh Hashanah)

a. see Lev. 23:23-25; Num. 29:1-6

b. this day of rest and sacrifice was held on the first day of Tishri

c. the feast aspect of this day, so common in the NT era, is unspecified in the Torah

2. Day of Atonement - “day of covering” or Yom Kippur (the only fast day)

a. a day of rest, fasting, and repentance

b. a ritual for the removal of corporate uncleanness (tabernacle, priests, and people)

c. see Exod. 30:10; Lev. 16; 23:26-32; 25:9; Num. 29:7-11

d. it is difficult to pin down when this feast was re-instituted after the Exile

II. Other Mosaic Feast Days

A. the Sabbath

1. weekly day of rest and worship

2. see Gen. 2:1-3; Exod. 16:22-30; 20:8-11; 23:12; 31:12-16; Lev. 23:1-3; Num. 28:9-10

B. Sabbath Year

1. every seventh year the land rested (no sowing)

2. see Exod. 23:10-11; Lev. 25:1-7; Deut. 15:1

3. it signified that YHWH owned the land and gave it to Israel

4. all slaves were set free (cf. Exod. 21:2-6) and all debts were forgiven (cf. Deut. 15:1-6)

C. Jubilee Year

1. every seventh Sabbath year (i.e., 50th year)

2. see Lev. 25:8-18; 27:17-24

3. release of debt and returning of land, freeing of slaves (cf. Lev. 25:10,13, very similar to Sabbath Year)

4. its inauguration is never recorded

D. New Moon

1. special offerings and a day of rest

2. see Num. 10:10; 28:11-15

3. possibly commemorated the setting up of the tabernacle (cf. Exod. 40:2,17)

4. Jewish calendar is based on lunar cycles

III. These rituals and regulations show a development over time. These feasts and fasts may have had a beginning in pagan calendars, but developed into uniquely Jewish praise and devotion to YHWH. Nature (seasonal), agricultural (planting, rain, and harvest), and national events (Exodus, giving of the Law, etc.) combined to highlight certain times of the year for worship.

SPECIAL TOPIC: FERTILITY WORSHIP OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

I. Reasons For

A. Ancient humans began as a hunter-gatherers, but as nomadic life became settled, the need for crops and herds developed.

B. Ancient Near Eastern inhabitants were vulnerable to the forces of nature. As civilizations developed around the major bodies of fresh water they became dependant on the regular order of the seasons.

C. The forces of nature became gods who needed to be supplicated and controlled.

II. Where and Why

A. Fertility religions developed in

1. Egypt (Nile)

2. Mesopotamia (Tigris and Euphrates)

3. Canaan (Jordan)

B. There is a basic commonality among the fertility cults of the ancient Near East.

C. The changing and unpredictable seasons and weather conditions caused the development of myths using human/divine analogies as the basis of life in the spiritual realm and on earth.

III. Who and How

A. Who (the gods and goddesses)

1. Egypt

a. Isis (female)

b. Osiris (male)

2. Mesopotamia

a. Ishtar/Inanna (female)

b. Tammuz/Dumuzi (male)

3. Canaan

a. Ba’al (male)

b. Asherah, Astarte, Anath (female)

B. Each of these pairs were mythologized in similar ways.

1. one dies

2. the other restores

3. the pattern of dying and rising gods mimic the annual cycles of nature

C. Imitation magic saw human sexual unions (i.e. marriage of the gods) as a way of insuring fertility of crops, herds, and people.

IV. The Israelites

A. YHWH’s people were warned (i.e. Leviticus and Deuteronomy) to avoid the fertility cults (especially of Canaan).

B. These cults were very popular because of the superstition of human beings and the added incentive of sexual activity.

C. Idolatry involves the blessing of life to be sought in cultic or ritual ways instead of a personal faith and trust in YHWH.

IV. Suggested Reading

A. W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel

B. J. H. Breasted, Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt

C. James G. Frazer

1. Adonis, Attis, Osiris

2. Folklore in the Old Testament

3. The Worship of Nature

D. C. H. Gordon, Before the Bible

E. S. N. Kramer, Mythologies of the Ancient World

SPECIAL TOPIC: FIRE

 

Fire has both positive and negative connotations in Scripture.

A. Positive

1. warms (cf. Isa. 44:15; John 18:18)

2. lights (cf. Isa. 50:11; Matt. 25:1-13)

3. cooks (cf. Exod. 12:8; Isa. 44:15-16; John 21:9)

4. purifies (cf. Num. 31:22-23; Prov. 17:3; Isa. 1:25; 6:6-8; Jer. 6:29; Mal. 3:2-3)

5. holiness (cf. Gen. 15:17; Exod. 3:2; 19:18; Ezek. 1:27; Heb. 12:29)

6. God’s leadership (cf. Exod. 12:21; Num. 14:14; I Kgs. 18:24)

7. God’s empowering (cf. Acts 2:3)

B. Negative

1. burns (cf. Josh. 6:24; 8:8; 11:11; Matt. 22:7)

2. destroys (cf. Gen. 19:24; Lev. 10:1-2)

3. anger (cf. Num. 21:28; Isa. 10:16; Zech. 12:6)

4. punishment (cf. Gen. 38:24; Lev. 20:14; 21:9; Josh. 7:15)

5. false eschatological sign (cf. Rev. 13:13)

C. God’s anger against sin is expressed in fire metaphors

1. His anger burns (cf. Hos. 8:5; Zeph. 3:8)

2. He pours out fire (cf. Nah. 1:6)

3. eternal fire (cf. Jer. 15:14; 17:4)

4. eschatological judgment (cf. Matt. 3:10; 13:40; John 15:6; II Thess. 1:7; II Pet. 3:7-10; Rev. 8:7; 13:13; 16:8)

D. Like so many metaphors in the Bible (i.e., leaven, lion) fire can be a blessing or a curse, depending on the context.

SPECIAL TOPIC: FOREVER (GREEK IDIOMS)

 

One Greek idiomatic phrase is “unto the ages” (cf. Luke 1:33; Rom. 1:25; 11:36; 16:27; Gal. 1:5; I Tim. 1:17), which may reflect the Hebrew ’olam. See Robert B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, pp. 321-319. Other related phrases are “unto the age” (cf. Matt. 21:19 [Mark 11:14]; Thess. 1:55; John 6:58; 8:35; 12:34; 13:8; 14:16; II Cor. 9:9) and “of the age of the ages” (cf. Eph. 3:21). There seems to be no distinction between these idioms for “forever.” The term “ages” may be plural in a figurative sense of the rabbinical grammatical construction called “the plural of majesty” or it may refer to the concept of several “ages” in the Jewish sense of “age of innocence,” “age of wickedness,” “age to come,” or “age of righteousness.”

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: TERMS USED FOR TALL/POWERFUL WARRIORS OR PEOPLE GROUPS

 

These large/tall/powerful people are called by several names:

1. Nephilim (BDB 658) - Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33

2. Rephaim (either BDB 952 or BDB 952 II) - Gen. 14:5; Deut. 2:11,20; 3:11,13; Josh. 12:4; 13:12; II Sam. 21:16,18,20,22; I Chr. 20:4,6,8

3. Zamzummin (BDB 273), zuzim (BDB 265) - Gen. 14:5; Deut. 2:20

4. Emim (BDB 34) - Gen. 14:5; Deut. 2:10-11

5. Anakim (sons of Anak, BDB 778 I) - Num. 13:33; Deut. 1:28; 2:10-11,21; 9:2; Josh. 11:21-22; 14:12,15

SPECIAL TOPIC: GLORY

 

The biblical concept of “glory” is difficult to define. Believers’ glory is that they understand the gospel and glory in God, not in themselves (cf. 1:29-31; Jer. 9:23-24).

 

In the OT the most common Hebrew word for “glory” (kbd) was originally a commercial term relating to scales (“to be heavy”). That which was heavy was valuable or had intrinsic worth. Often the concept of brightness was added to the word to express God’s majesty (cf. Exod. 19:16-18; 24:17; Isa. 60:1-2). He alone is worthy and honorable. He is too brilliant for fallen mankind to behold (cf. Exod 33:17-23; Isa. 6:5. YHWH can only be truly known through Christ (cf. Jer. 1:14; Matt. 17:2; Heb. 1:3; James 2:1).

 

The term “glory” is somewhat ambiguous: (1) it may be parallel to “the righteousness of God”; (2) it may refer to the “holiness” or “perfection” of God; or (3) it could refer to the image of God in which mankind was created (cf. Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6), but which was later marred through rebellion (cf. Gen. 3:1-22). It is first used of YHWH’’s presence with His people during the wilderness wandering period in Exod. 16:7,10; Lev. 9:23; and Num. 14:10.

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: GRIEVING RITES

 

The Israelites expressed sorrow for the death of a loved one and for personal repentance, as well as corporate crimes, in several ways:

1. tear other robe, Gen. 37:29,34; 44:13; Jdgs. 11:35; II Sam. 1:11; 3:31; I Kgs. 21:27; Job 1:20

2. put on sackcloth, Gen. 37:34; II Sam. 3:31; I Kgs. 21:27; Jer. 48:37

3. take off shoes, II Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:3

4. put hands on head, II Sam. 13:9; Jer. 2:37

5. put dust on head, Josh. 7:6; I Sam. 4:12; Neh. 9:1

6. sit on the ground, Lam. 2:10; Ezek. 26:16 (lay on the ground, II Sam. 12:16) Isa. 47:1

7. beat the breast, I Sam. 25:1; II Sam. 11:26; Nah. 2:7

8. cut the body, Deut. 14:1; Jer. 16:6; 48:37

9. fast, II Sam. 1:16,22; I Kgs. 21:27

10. chant a lament, II Sam. 1:17; 3:31; II Chr. 35:25

11. baldness (hair pulled out or shaved), Jer. 48:37

12. cut beards short, Jer. 48:37

13. cover head or face, II Sam. 15:30; 19:4

SPECIAL TOPIC: HAGGAI (TAKEN FROM DR. UTLEY’S OLD TESTAMENT SURVEY)

I. NAME OF THE BOOK

A. Named after its speaker

B. His name means “Festival.” The yod or “I” at the end may be an abbreviation for YHWH; if so, “festival of YHWH” (cf. I Chr. 6:30) or the PRONOUN “my,” which would also refer to YHWH.

II. CANONIZATION

A. This book is part of the “latter prophets” (Ecclesiasticus 49:10).

B. It is part of “the Twelve,” a grouping of minor prophets (Baba Bathra 14b):

1. like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, they fit on one scroll.

2. they represent the twelve tribes or the symbolic number of organization.

3. they reflect the traditional view of the book’s chronology.

C. The order of “the Twelve” or Minor Prophets has been linked by many scholars to a chronological sequence. It is obvious that Haggai and Zechariah are paired historically.

III. GENRE

A. This is a series of four or five sermons (1:13).

B. It is not poetic.

III. AUTHORSHIP

A. Haggai is mentioned in Ezra 5:1; 6:14, and Zech. 8:9, where he is linked with Zechariah. He was probably a returnee from Exile.

B. He is also mentioned in I Esdras 6:1; 7:3 and II Esdras 1:40. Ecclesiasticus 49:11 is a quote from Haggai 2:23.

C. Jerome says that he was a priest, but this is a misunderstanding derived from 2:10-19.

D. Ewald and Pusey suggest that 2:3 implies that he saw Solomon’s Temple, which would make him 70 or 80 years old.

E. Cyril of Alexandria mentions a general opinion in his day that he was an angel. This is from a misunderstanding of the Hebrew term “messenger” in 1:13.

F. The LXX attributes several Psalms to Haggai and Zechariah: 112, 126, 127, 137, 146-149.

G. all of Haggai’s four sermons are recorded in the third person which implies:

1. a common literary technique

2. a scribe or editor.

IV. DATE

A. Haggai was a post-exilic prophet along with Zechariah, his contemporary.

B. The book is dated from the first day of the sixth month (1:1) until the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month (2:10,20) of the second year of Darius I Hystaspes (521-486 b.c.). Therefore, the date is 520 b.c. This was four years before the second Temple was finished in 516 B.C., and fulfills the prophecy of Jeremiah regarding the seventy years of exile, which began in 586 b.c.

VI. CHRONOLOGY OF THE PERIOD (taken from The Minor Prophets by Dr. Theo Laetsch, published by Concordia, p. 385).

 

Darius’ Regnal Year	Year b.c.	Month	Day	Text	Content
2	520		6
		Sept/Oct	1	Hag. 1:1-11	Haggai rouses the people into activity
			24	Hag. 1:12-15	The people begin to build
			7
		Oct/Nov	1	Hag. 2:1-9	The latter glory of God’s Temple
			8
		Nov/Dec	?	Zech. 1:1-6	Zechariah begins to prophesy
			9
		Dec/Jan	24	Hag. 2:10-19	God will begin to bless
				Hag. 2:20-23	Messiah’s kingdom established after overthrow of world powers
	519		11
		Feb/Mar	24	Zech. 1:7-6:8	Zechariah’s night visions
4	518		9
		Dec/Jan	4	Zech. 7, 8	Repentance urged; blessing promised
6	516		12
		Mar/Apr	3	Ezra 6:15	Dedication of Temple
		?		Zech. 9-14	After dedication of Temple

   VII. LITERARY UNITS—It is outlined by the prophet’s sermons

A. First Sermon, 1:1-11, Rebuild the Temple!

B. The leaders and people respond, 1:12-15.

C. Second Sermon, 2:1-9, The Temple size is not the issue!

D. Third Sermon, 2:10-19, God’s blessings will flow if the people obey and rebuild the Temple.

E. Fourth Sermon, 2:20-23, The universal reign of the Messiah foreshadowed in Zerubbabel.

VIII. MAIN TRUTHS

A. The book focuses on the rebuilding of the Second Temple, which had been neglected several years earlier.

1. Ezra 5:16 (1^st year, under Sheshbazzar)

2. Ezra 3:8-13 (2^nd year, under Zerubbabel)

B. God’s promises of immediate physical blessings and future Messianic blessings are linked to the rebuilding of the Temple (restoration of Mosaic Covenant).

C. The size and majesty of the Temple was not the issue, rather its presence. God’s presence, which it symbolized, was the true glory!

SPECIAL TOPIC: HANG

 

The verb “hang” (BDB 1067, KB 1738) has two senses:

1. literally to hang by a rope

a. Arabic, “let down a rope”

b. a Hebrew practice, II Sam. 17:23 and NT, Matt. 17:5

c. a Babylonian practice, Code of Hammurabi

d. a Persian practice, cf. Ezra 6:11; Esther 5:14; 7:9-10; 9:13,25

2. to impale the person on a sharpened stake

a. an Egyptian procedure, cf. Gen. 40:19; 41:13

b. a Babylonian procedure, cf. Code of Hammurabi

c. an Assyrian procedure

Usually it was done after someone was killed by other means as a way of public shaming. A proper burial was very important to ancient people and affected their view of a contented afterlife (e.g., Deut. 21:23).

 

In the Bible itself it is hard to know for sure if #1 or #2 above is right. Clearly in Deut. 21:22-23; Josh. 10:26-27; I Sam. 31:10,12; II Sam. 4:12; 21:12, the people publicly exposed were already dead, but what about Josh. 8:29 and II Sam. 21:9?

 

The rabbis of Jesus’ day saw this text as referring to crucifixion. The religious leaders wanted Jesus crucified so that as a Messianic pretender He would be cursed by YHWH (cf. Deut. 21:23). The normal death for blasphemy was stoning. I have often heard it said that the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day did not have the legal right of capital punishment under Roman rule, so they took Jesus to Pilate to have Him killed. However, they stoned Stephen (cf. Acts 7) without Roman permission, why not Jesus? They wanted Him crucified to reflect not only death and public shame, but the curse of God!

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE HEART

 

The Greek term kardia is used in the Septuagint and NT to reflect the Hebrew term lēb. It is used in several ways (cf. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon, pp. 403-404):

1. the center of physical life, a metaphor for the person (cf. Acts 14:17; II Cor. 3:2-3; James 5:5)

2. the center of spiritual (moral) life

a. God knows the heart (cf. Luke 16:15; Rom. 8:27; I Cor. 14:25; I Thess. 2:4; Rev. 2:23)

b. used of mankind’s spiritual life (cf. Matt. 15:18-19; 18:35; Rom. 6:17; I Tim. 1:5; II Tim. 2:22; I Pet. 1:22)

3. the center of the thought life (i.e., intellect, cf. Matt. 13:15; 24:48; Acts 7:23; 16:14; 28:27; Rom. 1:21; 10:6; 16:18; II Cor. 4:6; Eph. 1:18; 4:18; James 1:26; II Pet. 1:19; Rev. 18:7; heart is synonymous with mind in II Cor. 3:14-15 and Phil. 4:7)

4. the center of the volition (i.e., will, cf. Acts 5:4; 11:23; I Cor. 4:5; 7:37; II Cor. 9:7)

5. the center of the emotions (cf. Matt. 5:28; Acts 2:26,37; 7:54; 21:13; Rom. 1:24; II Cor. 2:4; 7:3; Eph. 6:22; Phil. 1:7)

6. unique place of the Spirit’s activity (cf. Rom. 5:5; II Cor. 1:22; Gal. 4:6 [i.e., Christ in our hearts, Eph. 3:17])

7. The heart is a metaphorical way of referring to the entire person (cf. Matt. 22:37, quoting Deut. 6:5). The thoughts, motives, and actions attributed to the heart fully reveal the type of individual. The OT has some striking usages of the terms:

a. Gen. 6:6; 8:21, “God was grieved to His heart” (also notice Hosea 11:8-9)

b. Deut. 4:29; 6:5, “with all your heart and all your soul”

c. Deut. 10:16, “uncircumcised heart” and Rom. 2:29

d. Ezek. 18:31-32, “a new heart”

e. Ezek. 36:26, “a new heart” vs. “a heart of stone”

SPECIAL TOPIC: HEBREW POETRY

I. INTRODUCTION

A. This type of literature makes up 1/3 of the Old Testament. It is especially common in the “Prophets” (all but Haggai and Malachi contain poetry) and “Writings” sections of the Hebrew canon.

B. It is very different from English poetry. English poetry is developed from Greek and Latin poetry, which is primarily sound-based. Hebrew poetry has much in common with Canaanite poetry. It is basically thought-based in balanced, parallel lines.

C. The archaeological discovery north of Israel at Ugarit (Ras Shamra) has helped scholars understand OT poetry. This poetry from the 15^th century b.c. has obvious literary connections with biblical poetry.

II. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF POETRY

A. It is very compact.

B. It tries to express truth, feelings or experiences in imagery.

C. It is primarily written not oral. It is highly structured. This structure is expressed in:

1. balanced lines (parallelism)

2. word plays

3. sound plays

III. THE STRUCTURE ®. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp.965-975)

A. Bishop Robert Lowth in his book, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews (1753) was the first to characterize biblical poetry as balanced lines of thought. Most modern English translations are formatted to show the lines of poetry.

1. synonymous - the lines express the same thought in different words:

a. Psalm 3:1; 49:1; 83:14; 103:13

b. Proverbs 19:5; 20:1

c. Isaiah 1:3,10

d. Amos 5:24; 8:10

2. antithetical - the lines express opposite thoughts by means of contrast or stating the positive and the negative:

a. Psalm 1:6; 90:6

b. Proverbs 1:29; 10:1,12; 15:1; 19:4

3. synthetic - the next two or three lines develop the thought - Ps. 1:1-2; 19:7-9; 29:1-2

4. chiasmic - a pattern of poetry expressing the message in a descending and ascending order. The main point is found in the middle of the pattern.

B. Charles A. Briggs in his book, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture (1899) developed the next stage of analysis of Hebrew poetry:

C. G. B. Gray in his book, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry (1915), developed the concept of balanced clauses further by:

1. complete balance - where every word in line one is repeated or balanced by a word in line two - Psalm 83:14 and Isaiah 1:3

2. incomplete balance where the clauses are not the same length - Ps. 59:16; 75:6

D. Today there is a growing recognition of literary structural pattern in Hebrew called a chiasm, which usually denotes a number of parallel lines (a.b,b,a; a,b,c,b,a) forming an hour glass shape, often the central line(s) is emphasized.

E. Type of sound patterns found in poetry in general, but not often in eastern poetry

1. play on alphabet (acrostic, cf. Ps. 9,34,37,119; Prov. 31:10ff; Lamentations 1-4)

2. play on consonants (alliteration, cf. Ps. 6:8; 27:7; 122:6; Isa. 1:18-26)

3. play on vowels (assonance, cf. Gen. 49:17; Exod. 14:14; Ezek. 27:27)

4. play on repetition of similar sounding words with different meanings (paronomasia)

5. play on words which, when pronounced, sound like the thing they name (onomatopoeia)

6. special opening and close (inclusive)

F. There are several types of poetry in the Old Testament. Some are topic related and some are form related:

1. dedication song - Num. 21:17-18

2. work songs - (alluded to but not recorded in Jdgs. 9:27); Isa. 16:10; Jer. 25:30; 48:33

3. ballads - Num. 21:27-30; Isa. 23:16

4. drinking songs - negative, Isa. 5:11-13; Amos 6:4-7 and positive, Isa. 22:13

5. love poems - Song of Songs, wedding riddle - Jdgs. 14:10-18, wedding song - Ps. 45

6. laments/dirge - (alluded to but not recorded in II Sam. 1:17 and II Chr. 35:25) II Sam. 3:33; Ps. 27, 28; Jer. 9:17-22; Lam.; Ezek. 19:1-14; 26:17-18; Nah. 3:15-19)

7. war songs - Gen. 4:23-24; Exod. 15:1-18,20; Num. 10:35-36; 21:14-15; Josh. 10:13; Jdgs. 5:1-31; 11:34; I Sam. 18:6; II Sam. 1:18; Isa. 47:1-15; 37:21

8. special benedictions or blessing of leader - Gen. 49; Num. 6:24-26; Deut. 32; II Sam. 23:1-7

9. magical texts - Balaam, Num. 24:3-9

10. sacred poems - Psalms

11. acrostic poems - Ps. 9,34,37,119; Prov. 31:10ff and Lamentations 1-4

12. curses - Num. 21:22-30

13. taunt poems - Isa. 14:1-22; 47:1-15; Ezek. 28:1-23

14. a book of war poems (Jashar) - Num. 21:14-15; Josh. 10:12-13; II Sam. 1:18

IV. GUIDELINE TO INTERPRETING HEBREW POETRY

A. Look for the central truth of the stanza or strophe (this is like a paragraph in prose.) The RSV was the first modern translation to identify poetry by stanzas. Compare modern translations for helpful insights.

B. Identify the figurative language and express it in prose. Remember this type of literature is very compact, much is left for the reader to fill in.

C. Be sure to relate the longer issue-oriented poems to their literary context (often the whole book) and historical setting.

D. Judges 4 & 5 are very helpful in seeing how poetry expresses history. Judges 4 is prose and Judges 5 is poetry of the same event (also compare Exod. 14 & 15).

E. Attempt to identify the type of parallelism involved, whether synonymous, antithetical, or synthetic. This is very important.

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: A HERMENEUTICS APPROACH TO GENESIS

A. Studying Genesis 1-11 is difficult because:

1. we are all affected by our own cultures and denominational training

2. today several pressures consciously and subconsciously affect our view of “the beginnings”

a. modern archaeology (Mesopotamian parallels)

b. modern science (current theories)

c. the history of interpretation

(1) Judaism

(2) early church

3. this opening literary unit of the Bible is presented as history, but several things surprise the interpreter

a. Mesopotamian parallels

b. eastern literary techniques (two apparent accounts of creation)

c. unusual events

(1) woman created from a “rib”

(2) a talking snake

(3) a boat with all the animals on board for a year

(4) mixing of angels and humans

(5) long life of people

d. several word plays on the names of the main characters (cf. K. 3)

4. Christians need to be reminded of how the NT reinterprets Gen. 1 and 2 in light of Christ. He is the Father’s agent in creation (cf. John 1:3,10; I Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2), of both the visible and the invisible realm (cf. Col. 1:16). This new revelation shows the need to be cautious of literalism in Gen. 1-3. The Trinity is involved in creation.

a. God the Father in Genesis 1:1

b. God the Spirit in Genesis 1:2

c. God the Son in the NT.

This may explain the PLURALS in Genesis 1:26; 5:1,3; 9:6

B. Genesis 1-11 is not a scientific document, but in some ways modern science parallels its presentation (order of creation and geological levels). It is not anti-scientific but pre-scientific. It presents truth:

1. from an earth perspective

2. from a phenomenological perspective (i.e. the five senses)

It has functioned as a revealer of truth for many cultures over many years. It presents truth to a modern scientific culture but without specific explanation of events.

1. things divide

2. things develop

D. The keys to its understanding are found in

1. its genre

2. its relation to its own day

3. its structure

4. its monotheism

5. its theological purpose

Interpretation must balance:

1. an exegesis of the verses

2. a systematic understanding of all Scripture

3. genre specificity

E. The great truth of this chapter is not how or when, but who, moving rapidly toward why!

F. Genesis reflects true knowledge but not exhaustive knowledge. It is given to us in ancient (Mesopotamian) thought forms, but it is infallible truth. It is related to its day, but it is totally unique. It speaks of the inexpressible, yet it speaks truly. Basically it is a world-view (who), not a world-picture (how).

G. Without Genesis 1-3 the Bible is incomprehensible. Notice how quickly the story moves from (1) sin to redemption and (2) humanity to Israel. Creation forms an integral but passing piece of the account of God’s choice of Israel for the purpose of world-wide redemption (cf. Gen. 3:15; 12:3; Exod. 19:5-6 and John 3:16; I Tim. 2:4; II Pet. 3:9).

H. Your answer to the question, “What is the purpose of Inspiration and Revelation?” will affect the way you see Genesis 1. If you see the purpose as the impartation of facts about creation, you will view it one way (i.e. propositional truths). If you see it as conveying general truths about God , humanity, and sin, then

possibly you will see it theologically (i.e. paradigmatic). If, however, you view the basic purpose as the establishment of a relationship between God and mankind, possibly another (i.e. existentially).

I. This section of Genesis is surely theological. As the plagues of the Exodus showed YHWH’s power over the nature gods of Egypt, Genesis 1,2 may show YHWH’s power over the astral gods of Mesopotamia. The main element is God. God alone did it for His own purposes.

J. I marvel at my own ignorance! I am appalled at my own historical, cultural, and denominational conditioning! What a mighty God we serve! What an awesome God has reached out to us (even in our

rebellion)! The Bible is a balance of love and power; grace and justice! The more we know the more we know we don’t know!

K. Here are the basic approaches of some helpful books:

1. Genesis 1-2 interpreted along the lines of modern science:

a. Barnard Ramm’s The Christian’s View of Science and Scripture (good scientifically and theologically)

b. Hugh Ross’ Creation and Time and The Genesis Question (good scientifically but weak theologically)

c. Harry Peo and Jimmy Davis’ Science and Faith: An Evangelical Dialog (very helpful)

d. Darrel R. Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology (evangelical approach to theistic evolution)

a. R. K. Harrison’s Introduction to the Old Testament and Old Testament Times

b. John H. Walton’s Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context

c. K. A. Kitchen’s Ancient Orient and Old Testament

d. Edwin M. Yamauchi’s The Stones and the Scriptures

3. Genesis 1-2 interpreted along the lines of theology from LaSor, Hubbard and Bush’s Old Testament Survey

a. “Literary device also is found in the names used. The correspondence of the name with the person’s function or role is striking in several instances. Adam means “mankind” and Eve is “(she who gives) life.” Surely, when an author of a story names the principal characters Mankind and Life, something is conveyed about the degree of literalness intended! Similarly Cain means “forger (of metals)”; Enoch is connected with “dedication, consecration” (4:17; 5:18); Jubal with horn and trumpet (4:21); while Cain, condemned to be a nād, a “wanderer,” goes to live in the land of Nod, a name transparently derived from the same Hebrew root, thus the land of wandering! This suggests that the author is writing as an artist, a storyteller, who

uses literary device and artifice. One must endeavor to distinguish what he intends to teach from the literary means employed” p. 72.

b. the theological implication of Gen. 1-11:

“Implication for Gen. 1-11. Recognizing the literary technique and form and noting the literary background of chs. 1-11 does not constitute a challenge to the reality, the “eventness,” of the facts portrayed. One need not regard this account as myth; however, it is not “history” in the modern sense of eyewitness, objective reporting. Rather, it conveys theological truths about events, portrayed in a largely symbolic, pictorial literary genre. This is not to say that Gen. 1-11 conveys historical falsehood. That conclusion would follow only if it purported to contain

objective descriptions. The clear evidence already reviewed shows that such was not the intent. On the other hand, the view that the truths taught in these chapters have no objective basis is mistaken. They affirm fundamental truths: creation of all things by God; special divine intervention in the production of the first man and woman; unity of the human race; pristine goodness of the created world, including humanity; entrance of sin through the disobedience of the first pair; depravity and rampant sin after the Fall. All these truths are facts, and their certainty implies the reality of the facts. Put another way, the biblical author uses such literary traditions to describe unique primeval events that have no time-conditioned, human-conditioned, experience-based historical analogy and hence can be described only by symbol.

The same problem arises at the end time: the biblical author there, in the book of Revelation, adopts the esoteric imagery and involved literary artifice of apocalyptic” p. 74.

c. If it is true that one language was spoken in Gen. 1-10 (cf. Samuel Noah Kramer, The Babel of Tongues: A Sumerian Version, “Journal of the American Oriental Society, 88:108-11), then it needs to be clearly stated that it was not Hebrew. Therefore, all of the Hebrew word plays are from Moses’ day. This verifies the literary nature of Gen. 1-11.

4. I would like to make a personal comment. I love and appreciate those who love and appreciate the Bible. I am so grateful for people who take its message as an inspired, authoritative message from the One true God. All of us who study the Scriptures are attempting to worship and glorify God with our minds (cf. Matt. 22:37). The fact that we as individual believers approach the Bible differently is not an aspect of unbelief or rebellion but an act of sincere devotion and an attempt to understand so as to incorporate God’s truth into our lives. The more I study Genesis 1-11 and for that matter, much of the book of Revelation, I perceive it is true but literary, not literal. The key in interpreting the Bible is not my applying a personal philosophical or hermeneutical grid over the text but allowing the intent of the inspired original authors to fully express themselves. To take a literary passage and demand it to be literal when the text itself gives clues to its symbolic and figurative nature imposes my biases on a divine message. Genre (type of literature) is the key in a theological understanding of “how it all began” and “how it will all end.” I appreciate the sincerity and commitment of those who, for whatever reason, usually personality type or professional training, interpret the Bible in modern, literal, western categories, when in fact it is an ancient eastern book. I say all this to say that I am grateful to God for those who approach Genesis 1-11 with presuppositions that I personally do not share, for I know they will help, encourage and reach people of like personalities and perspectives to love, trust and apply God’s Book to their lives! However, I do not agree that Genesis 1-11 or the book of Revelation should be approached literally, whether it is Creation Research Society (i.e. young earth) or Hugh Ross’s Reasons to Believe (i.e. old earth). For me this section of the Bible emphasizes the “Who” and “why” not the “how” and “when” of creation. I accept the modern science’s sincerity in studying the physical aspects of creation. I reject “naturalism” (i.e. all life is a chance development of natural processes), but surely see process as a valid and demonstrable aspect of our world and universe. I think God directed and used process. But natural processes do not explain the diversity and complexity of life, current and past. To truly understand current reality I need both the theoretical models of modern science and the theological models of Genesis 1-11. Genesis 1-11 is a theological necessity for understanding the rest of the Bible, but it is an ancient, literary, succinct, artistic, eastern presentation, not a literal, modern, western presentation. Parts of the Bible are surely historical narrative. There is a place for the literal interpretation of Scripture: there was a call of Abraham, an Exodus, a virgin birth, a Calvary, a resurrection; there will be a second coming and an eternal kingdom. The question is one of genre, not reality, of authorial intent, not personal preferences in interpretation. Let all men be liars – and God be true (cf. Rom. 3:4)!!!

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: BRIEF OUTLINE OF HISTORICAL ALLUSIONS TO PERSIAN KINGS

A. The rebuilding of the temple as approved and subsidized by Cyrus II, vv. 1-5

B. Letter of accusation from the leaders of the Province Beyond the River to Ahasuerus about rebuilding the walls of the city of Jerusalem (Xerxes I, 486-465 b.c.), v. 6

C. Letter of accusation from the leaders of the Province Beyond the River to Artaxerxes (I Longimanus, 465-424 b.c.) about rebuilding of the walls of the city of Jerusalem, vv. 7-23.

It is possible to see v. 7 as separate from v. 8 because the names are different (cf. Kidner, Tyndale Commentary Series, p. 51). If so it marks a separate legal attempt. However, it could be that simply different officials are involved.

D. Darius I (Hystaspes, 523-486 b.c.), which was the time of Haggai and Zechariah, is mentioned specifically in vv. 5b and 24. The temple was started in about 520 and finished in 516 b.c.

E. This chapter is a summary of the opposition (both to the temple and the walls of Jerusalem) from the local people group to the returning Jews rebuilding.

1. Verses 1-5,24 refer to the temple

2. Verses 6-23 refer to the walls of Jerusalem

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: HOLY

I. Old Testament Usage

A. The etymology of the term (kadosh) is uncertain, possibly Canaanite. It is possible that part of the root (i.e., kd) means “to divide.” This is the source of the popular definition “separated (from Canaanite culture, cf. Deut. 7:6; 14:2,21; 26:19) for God’s use.”

B. It relates to cultic things, places, times, and persons. It is not used in Genesis, but becomes common in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.

C. In the Prophetic literature (esp. Isaiah and Hosea) the personal element previously present, but not emphasized, comes to the fore. It becomes a way of designating the essence of God (cf. Isa. 6:3). God is holy His name representing His character is Holy. His people who are to reveal His character to a needy world are holy (if they obey the covenant in faith).

D. God’s mercy and love are inseparable from the theological concepts of covenants, justice, and essential character. Herein is the tension in God toward an unholy, fallen, rebellious humanity. There is a very interesting article on the relationship between God as “merciful” and God as “holy” in Robert B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, pp. 112-113.

II. The New Testament

A. The writers of the NT are Hebrew thinkers (except Luke), but influenced by Koine Greek (i.e., the Septuagint). It is the Greek translation of the OT that controls their vocabulary, not Classical Greek literature, thought, or religion.

B. Jesus is holy because He came from God and is like God and He is God (cf. Luke 1:35; 4:34; Acts 3:14; 4:27,30). He is the Holy and Righteous One (cf. Acts 3:14; 22:14). Jesus is holy because He is sinless (cf. John 8:46; II Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; I Pet. 1:19; 2:22; I John 3:5).

C. Because God is holy, His children are to be holy (cf. Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7,26; Matt. 5:48; I Pet. 1:16). Because Jesus is holy His followers are to be holy (cf. Rom. 8:28-29; II Cor. 3:18; Gal. 4:19; Eph. 1:4; I Thess. 3:13; 4:3; I Pet. 1:15). Christians are saved to serve in Christlikeness.

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: HORNS USED BY ISRAEL

 

1. “the ram’s horn” (BDB 901) - turned into an instrument of sound, cf. Josh. 6:5. This same word is used for the ram caught by his horns which Abraham will substitute for Isaac in Gen. 22:13.

2. “trumpet” (BDB 1051) - from Assyrian term for wild sheep (ibex). This is the horn that was used in Exod 19:16,19 at Mt. Sinai/Horeb. #1 and #2 are parallel in Josh. 6:5. It was used to communicate times to worship and time to fight (i.e., Jericho was both, cf. 6:4).

3. “ram’s horn” (BDB 385) - from Phoenician word for Ram (cf. 6:4,6,8,13). It also stands for the Year of Jubilee (cf. Lev. 25:13,28,40,50,52,54; 27:17,18,23,24).

(All of these first three seem interchangeable with no distinction intended. The Mishnah (RH 3.2) allowed any animal horn—sheep, goat, or antelope, but not from a cow.)

4. “trumpets” (BDB 348) - possibly from the verb “stretch out,” implying a straight bone (not curved as the animal horns). These were made of silver (after the shape and form of Egypt). These are used:

a. with worship rites (cf. Num. 10:2,8,10)

b. for military purposes (cf. Num. 10:9; 31:6; Hosea 5:8; Ezra 3:10; Neh. 12:35,41)

c. for royal purposes (cf. II Kgs. 11:14)

One of these metal horns is depicted on the Arch of Titus in Rome; also Josephus describes them in Antiq. 3.12.6.

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: ISRAEL (the name)

I. The Name’s meaning is uncertain (BDB 975).

A. El Persisteth

B. Let El Persist (jussive)

C. El Perseveres

D. Let El Contend

E. El Strives

F. He who strives with God (Gen. 32:28).

II. Usages in the OT

A. Jacob’s name (supplanter, heel grabber, BDB 784, cf. Gen. 25:26) is changed after wrestling with the spiritual personage at the river Jabbok (cf. Gen. 32:22-32; Exod. 32:13). Often the meanings of Hebrew names are sound plays, not etymologies (cf. 32:28). Israel becomes his name (e.g., Gen. 35:10; 32:13).

B. It came to be used as a collective name for all of his twelve sons (e.g., Gen. 32:32; 49:16; Exod. 1:7; 4:22; 28:11; Deut. 3:18; 10:6).

C. It came to designate the nation formed by the twelve tribes before the exodus (cf. Gen. 47:27; Exod. 4:22; 5:2) and after (cf. Deut. 1:1; 18:6; 33:10).

D. After the united monarchy of Saul, David, and Solomon the tribes split under Rehoboam (cf. I Kings 12).

1. the distinction starts even before the official split (e.g., II Sam. 3:10; 5:5; 20:1; 24:9; I Kgs. 1:35; 4:20)

2. designates the northern tribes until the fall of Samaria to Assyria in 7:22 b.c. (cf. II Kings 17).

E. Used of Judah in a few places (e.g., Isaiah 1; Micah 1:15-16).

F. After the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles it became the collective name for all of Jacob’s descendants again (e.g., Isa. 17:7,9; Jer. 2:4; 50:17,19).

G. Used of laity in contradistinction from priests (cf. I Chr. 9:2; Ezra 10:25; Neh. 11:3).

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: Israel’s Mandated Response to Canaanite Fertility Worship

 

Deuteronomy 12:3 lists several cultic items of Ba’al worship and how Israel is to destroy them.

1. “You shall tear down their altars”

a. the verb, BDB 683, KB 736, Piel perfect, cf. Deut. 7:5; II Chr. 31:3; 34:4

b. the item, “altars,” BDB 258, Ba’al’s altars were raised platforms of cut stone with an uplifted stone (pillar) and a hole to plant a tree or secure a wooden, carved stake (Asherah)

2. “smash their sacred pillars”

a. the verb, BDB 990, KB 1402, Piel perfect, cf. Deut. 7:5; II Kgs. 3:2; 10:27

b. the item, “pillars,” BDB 663. These were uplifted stones used as a phallic symbol for the male fertility god (cf. 16:22).

3. “burn their Asherim with fire”

a. the verb, BDB 976, KB 1358, Qal imperfect, cf. Deut. 7:5, in II Chr. 31:1 and34:4 they were to be “chopped down.”

b. the item, Asherim, BDB 81. It symbolized the tree of life. Asherah (cf. ABD, vol. 1, pp. 483-87, although in the poetic literature from Ugarit, Anath is Ba’al’s consort, cf. ABD, vol. 1, pp. 225-26) was the female consort of Ba’al. It may have been a live tree or a curved stake.

4. “you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods”

a. the verb, BDB 154, KB 180, Piel imperfect, cf. Deut. 7:5; II Chr. 14:2; 31:1; 34:4,7

b. the item, “engraved images of their gods,” BDB 820 construct 43. Deut. 7:5; and II Chr. 34:7 make a distinction between the Asherim and the images.

5. “obliterate their name from that place”

a. the verb, BDB 1, KB 2, Piel perfect, cf. Deut. 12:2(twice)

b. the item, “name,” BDB 1027. This seems to represent the god’s name as owner of the place, which is now destroyed and, therefore, their names have perished. It is YHWH’s name that has a name/worship site now (cf. Deut. 12:5,11).

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: JESUS THE NAZARENE

 

There are several different Greek terms that the NT uses to precisely designate which Jesus is being referenced.

1. NT Terms

a. Nazareth - the city in Galilee (cf. Luke 1:26; 2:4,39,51; 4:16; Acts 10:38). This city is not mentioned in contemporary sources, but has been found in later inscriptions.

For Jesus to be from Nazareth was not a compliment (cf. John 1:46). The sign over Jesus’ cross which included this place name was a sign of Jewish contempt.

b. Nazarēnos - seems to also refer to a geographical location (cf. Luke 4:34; 24:19).

c. Nazōraios - may refer to a city, but could also be a play on the Hebrew Messianic term “Branch” (netzer, cf. Isa. 4:2; 11:1; 53:2; Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; in the NT Rev. 22:16). Luke uses this of Jesus in 18:37 and Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 24:5; 26:9.

d. Related to #3 nāzir means consecrated one by means of a vow.

2. Historical usages outside the NT. This designation has other historical usages.

a. It denoted a Jewish (pre-Christian) heretical group (Aramaic nāsōrayyā).

b. It was used in Jewish circles to describe believers in Christ (cf. Acts 24:5,14; 28:22, nosri).

c. It became the regular term to denote believers in the Syrian (Aramaic) churches. “Christian” was used in the Greek churches to denote believers.

d. Sometime after the fall of Jerusalem, the Pharisees reorganized at Jamnia and instigated a formal separation between the synagogue and the church. An example of the type of curse formulas against Christians is found in “the Eighteen Benedictions” from Berakoth 28b-29a, which calls the believers “Nazarenes.”

“May the Nazarenes and heretics disappear in a moment; they shall be erased from the book of life and not be written with the faithful.”

e. It was used by Justin Martyr, Dial. 126:1 who used Isaiah’s netzer of Jesus.

3. Author’s opinion

I am surprised by so many spellings of the term, although I know this is not unheard of in the OT as “Joshua” has several different spellings in Hebrew. Yet, because of:

a. the close association with the Messianic term “Branch”

b. combined with the negative context

c. little or no contemporary attestation to the city of Nazareth in Galilee

d. it coming from the mouth of a demon in an eschatological sense (i.e., “Have you come to destroy us?”)

I remain uncertain as to its precise meaning.

For a full bibliography of studies of this word group by scholarship see Colin Brown (ed.), New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2, p. 346 or Raymond E. Brown, Birth, pp. 209-213, 223-225.

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: KNOW (using mostly Deuteronomy as a paradigm)

 

The Hebrew word “know” (BDB 393) has several senses (semantic fields) in the Qal.

1. to understand good and evil - Gen. 3:22; Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:14-15; Jonah 4:11

2. to know by understanding - Deut. 9:2,3,6; 18:21

3. to know by experience - Deut. 3:19; 4:35; 8:2,3,5; 11:2; 20:20; 31:13; Josh. 23:14

4. to consider - Deut. 4:39; 11:2; 29:16

5. to know personally

a. a person - Gen. 29:5; Exod. 1:8; Deut. 22:2; 28:35,36; 33:9

b. a god - Deut. 11:28; 13:2,6,13; 28:64; 29:26; 32:17

c. YHWH - Deut. 4:35,39; 7:9; 29:6; Isa. 1:3; 56:10-11

d. sexual - Gen. 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26

6. a learned skill or knowledge - Isa. 29:11,12; Amos 5:16

7. be wise - Deut. 29:4; Pro. 1:2; 4:1; Isa. 29:24

8. God’s knowledge

a. of Moses - Deut. 34:10

b. of Israel - Deut. 31:21,27,29

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: LAYING ON OF HANDS IN THE BIBLE

 

This gesture of personal involvement is used in several different ways in the Bible.

1. passing on the family leadership (cf. Gen. 48:18)

2. identifying with the death of a sacrificial animal as a substitute

a. priests (cf. Exod. 29:10,15,19; Lev. 16:21; Num. 8:12)

b. lay persons (cf. Lev. 1:4; 3:2,8; 4:4,15,24; II Chr. 29:23)

3. setting persons aside to serve God in a special task or ministry (cf. Num. 8:10; 27:18,23; Deut. 34:9; Acts 6:6; 13:3; I Tim. 4:14; 5:22; II Tim. 1:6)

4. participating in the judicial stoning of a sinner (cf. Lev. 24:14)

5. receiving a blessing for health, happiness, and godliness (cf. Matt. 19:13,15; Mark 10:16)

6. relating to physical healing (cf. Matt. 9:18; Mark 5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:23; 16:18; Luke 4:40; 13:13; Acts 9:17; 28:8)

7. receiving the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 8:17-19; 9:17; 19:6)

There is a surprising lack of uniformity in the passages that have been historically used to support the ecclesiastical installation of leaders (i.e., ordination).

1. In Acts 6:6 it is the Apostles who lay hands on the seven for local ministry.

2. In Acts 13:3 it is the prophets and teachers who lay hands on Barnabas and Paul for missionary service.

3. In I Tim. 4:14 it is the local elders who were involved in Timothy’s initial call and installation

4. In II Tim. 1:6 it is Paul who lays hands on Timothy.

This diversity and ambiguity illustrate the lack of organization in the first century church. The early church was much more dynamic and regularly used the spiritual gifts of believers (cf. I Cor. 14). The NT is simply not written to advocate or delineate a governmental model or ordinational procedure.

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: LIONS IN THE OT

 

Often an individual’s or nation’s power is described as being like a lion, the king of the predators.

1. Judah, Gen. 49:9; Micah 5:8

2. YHWH on Israel’s behalf, Num. 24:9; Isa. 31:4; 35:9; Hos. 11:10

3. Israel as a defeated lion, Ezek. 19

4. tribe of Dan, Deut. 33:22

5. David’s power over lions, I Sam. 17:34-37

6. Saul and Jonathan, II Sam. 1:23

7. symbolic protectors of the throne of Solomon, I Kgs. 10:19-20

8. God uses lions as punishment, I Kgs. 13,20; II Kgs. 17:25-26; Isa. 15:9; metaphor in Job 4:10 and Jer. 2:30; 49:19,44; Lam. 3:10; Amos 3:4,8,12; 5:19; Hos. 5:14; 13:7-8; Nah. 2:11-12

9. describe David’s enemies from whom God will deliver him, Ps. 7:2; 10:9; 17:12; 22:13,21

10. a metaphor for unknown evil, Prov. 22:13; 26:13; 28:15

11. used to describe Babylon’s military, Jer. 4:7; 49:19-22; 51:38

12. the military of the nations against God’s people, Jer. 5:6; 25:32-38; 50:17; Joel 1:6

13. how God’s people treat Him, Jer. 12:8

14. how God’s leaders treat the people, Ezek. 22:25; Zeph. 3:3

15. metaphor for king’s anger, Prov. 19:12; 20:2

16. metaphor for the godly, Prov. 28:1;

17. metaphor for the Messiah, Gen. 49:9; Rev. 5:5

 

In light of usage #11 and 12 in Jeremiah, Daniel’s metaphor of the Babylonian military as a fast moving lion is obvious. Empires of the Fertile Crescent often used lions to symbolize the nation (e.g., the winged lions on the Isthar Gate of the city of Babylon).

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: LOCATION OF MT. SINAI

A. If Moses was speaking literally and not figuratively of the three day journey he requested of Pharaoh (3:18; 5:3; 8:27), that was not a long enough time to get to the traditional site in the southern Sinai peninsula. Therefore, some scholars place the mountain near the oasis of Kadesh-Barnea.

B. The traditional site called “Jebel Musa,” in the Wilderness of Sin, has several things in its favor:

1. A large plain before the mountain

2. Deut. 1:2 says it was an eleven day journey from Mt. Sinai to Kadesh-Barnea,

3. The term “Sinai” is a non-Hebrew term. It may be linked to the Wilderness of Sin, which refers to a small desert bush. The Hebrew name for the mountain is Horeb (wilderness).

4. Mt. Sinai has been the traditional site since the 4^th century a.d. It is in the “land of Midian” which included a large area of the Sinai peninsula and Arabia.

5. It seems that archaeology has confirmed the location of some of the cities mentioned in the Exodus account (Elim, Dophkah, Rephidim) as being on the western side of the Sinai Peninsula.

C. The traditional site of Mt. Sinai was not established until Pilgrimage of Silvia, written about a.d. 385-8 (cf. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts, p. 151).

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE LORD HARDENED

 

This seeming paradox has become the theological conflict between competing theological systems:

1. God’s sovereignty - human free will

2. Augustine - Pelagius

3. Calvin - Arminius

For me both are biblical truths. Both truths must be held in a theological tension. The concept of “covenant” holds them together. God always comes first, sets the agenda, and calls to fallen mankind, e.g., John 6:44,65), but we are responsible for our choices (e.g., John 1:12; 3:16). Human responsibility and its consequences mandate a human freedom (i.e., soul competency)! Moral actions are based on real choices. The Scriptures assert both truths (i.e., theological poles)!

 

Notice God’s sovereignty, “I have begun to deliver” and human free will, “begin to occupy, that you may possess the land”!

It is surely possible that this theological difficulty for us is predicated on our misunderstanding of ancient Hebrew theological idioms. Israel’s unique monotheism demanded she defend it at all points. YHWH’s cause of all things was a Hebrew way of affirming monotheism. Nothing just happened. There was one and only one cause—YHWH. The texts that assert this have caused moderns to:

1. attribute evil to God

2. assert a radical form of sovereignty to God

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: LOVINGKINDNESS (HESED)

 

This term has a wide semantic field. The BDB characterizes it this way (338-339):

A. Used in connection to human beings

1. kindness to fellow men (e.g., I Sam. 20:14; II Chr. 24:22)

2. kindness toward the poor and needy (e.g., Micah 6:8)

3. affection (cf. Jer. 2:2; Hos. 6:4)

4. appearance (cf. Isa. 40:6)

B. Used in connection to God

1. covenant loyalty and love

a. “in redemption from enemies and troubles” (e.g., Jer. 31:3; Ezra 27:28; 9:9)

b. “in preservation of life from death” (e.g., Job 10:12; Ps. 86:13)

c. “in quickening of spiritual life” (e.g., Ps. 119:41,76,88,124,149,150)

d. “in redemption from sin” (cf. Ps. 25:7; 51:3)

e. “in keeping the covenants” (e.g., II Chr. 6:14; Neh. 1:5; 9:32)

2. describes a divine attribute (e.g., Exod. 34:6; Micah 7:20)

3. kindness of God

a. “abundant” (e.g., Neh. 9:17; Ps. 103:8)

b. “great in extent” (e.g., Exod. 20:6; Deut. 5:10; 7:9)

c. “everlasting” (e.g., I Chr. 16:34,41; II Chr. 5:13; 7:3,6; 20:21; Ezra 3:11)

4. deeds of kindness (e.g., II Chr. 6:42; Ps. 89:2; Isa. 55:3; 63:7; Lam. 3:22)

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: MATTHEW 27:9

“spoken through Jeremiah the prophet” This is a direct quote from Zech. 11:12-13. Jeremiah 18:1ff; 19:1ff and 32:7-9 also speak of a potter and Jer. 32:7-9 of buying a field. This has caused commentators great problems:

1. Augustine, Beza, Luther, and Keil said Matthew quoted the name Jeremiah in error.

2. The Peshitta, a 5^th century a.d. Syriac translation and the Diatessaron simply removed the prophet’s name from the text.

3. Origen and Eusebius said a copyist caused the problem.

4. Jerome and Ewald said it is a quote from an apocryphal writing ascribed to Jeremiah.

5. Mede said Jeremiah wrote Zechariah, chapters 9-11.

6. Lightfoot and Scofield said Jeremiah was listed first in the Hebrew division of the canon known as “the prophets” and, therefore, his name stands for that section of the canon.

7. Hengstenberg said that Zechariah quoted Jeremiah.

8. Calvin said an error has crept into the text.

9. F. F. Bruce and a JB footnote said it was a composite quote from Zechariah and Jeremiah.

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: MEDO-PERSIAN EMPIRE: SURVEY OF THE RISE OF CYRUS II  (Isa. 41:2,25; 44:28-45:7; 46:11; 48:15)

A. 625-585 - Cyaxares was the king of Media that helped Babylon defeat Assyria.

B. 585-550 - Astyages was king of Media, Ecbatana was the capital). Cyrus II was his grandson by Cambyses I (600-559, Persian) and Mandane (daughter of Astyages, Median).

C. 550-530 - Cyrus II of Ansham (eastern Elam) was a vassal king who revolted:

1. Nabonidus, the Babylonian king, supported Cyrus.

2. Astyages’ General Harpagus led his army to join Cyrus’ revolt.

3. Cyrus II dethroned Astyages.

4. Nabonidus, in order to restore a balance of power, made an alliance with:

a. Egypt

b. Croesus, King of Lydia (Asia Minor)

5. 547 - Cyrus II marched against Sardis (capital of Lydia) and it fell in 546 b.c.

6. 539 - In mid-October the generals Ugbaru and Gobryas, both of Gutium, with Cyrus’ army took Babylon without resistance. Ugbaru was made governor, but died of war wounds within weeks, then Gobryas was made governor of Babylon.

7. 539 - In late October Cyrus II “the Great” personally entered as liberator. His policy of kindness to national groups reversed years of deportation as a national policy.

8. 538 - Jews and others of the Cyrus Cylinder were allowed to return home and rebuild their native temples (cf. II Chr. 36:22,23; Ezra 1:1-4). He also restored the vessels from YHWH’s temple which Nebuchadnezzar had taken to Marduk’s temple in Babylon (cf. Ezra 1:7-11; 6:5).

9. 530 - Cyrus’ son, Cambyses II, succeeded him briefly as co-regent, but later the same year Cyrus died while on a military campaign.

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: MOLECH

 

This YHWH prohibits the worship of Molech (BDB 574), the Canaanite (Ammon) fire god worshiped by sacrificing the first born child of every family in the community to insure fertility. His name (as used by Israelites) is a Hebrew pun on the consonants for “king” and the vowels for “shame.” Israel is warned about this god early and often (cf. Lev. 18:21; 20:2,3,4,5; I Kgs. 11:7; II Kgs. 23:10; Jer. 32:35; Micah 6:7). This worship was often characterized by the phrase, “passing through the fire” (cf. 12:31; 18:10; II Kgs. 16:3; 17:17,31; 21:6; Ps. 106:37; Jer. 7:31; 19:5).

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: MOSES’ AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH

I. Genesis

A. The Bible itself does not name the author. Genesis has no “I” sections like Ezra, Nehemiah or “we” sections like Acts.

B. Jewish tradition:

1. Ancient Jewish writers say Moses wrote it:

a. Ben Sirach, Ecclesiasticus 24:23, written about 185 b.c.

b. The Baba Bathra 14b, a part of the Talmud

c. Philo of Alexandria, Egypt, a Jewish philosopher, writing just before Jesus’ ministry

d. Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, writing just after Jesus’ ministry.

2. The Torah is one unified historical account. After Genesis each book begins with the conjunction “and” (except Numbers).

3. This was a revelation to Moses

a. Moses is said to have written:

(1) Exodus 17:14

(2) Exodus 24:4, 7

(3) Exodus 34:27, 28

(4) Numbers 33:2

(5) Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24-26

b. God is said to have spoken through Moses:

c. Moses is said to have spoken the words of the Torah to the people:

(1) Deuteronomy 1:1, 3

(2) Deuteronomy 5:1

(3) Deuteronomy 27:1

(4) Deuteronomy 29:2

(5) Deuteronomy 31:1, 30

(6) Deuteronomy 32:44

(7) Deuteronomy 33:1

4. OT authors attribute it to Moses:

a. Joshua 8:31

b. II Kings 14:6

c. Ezra 6:18

d. Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1-2

e. II Chronicles 25:4; 34:12; 35:12

f. Daniel 9:11

g. Malachi 4:4

C. Christian tradition

1. Jesus attributes quotes from the Torah to Moses:

a.Matthew 8:4; 19:8

b. Mark 1:44; 7:10; 10:5; 12:26

c. Luke 5:14; 16:31; 20:37; 24:27, 44

d. John 5:46-47; 7:19, 23

2. Other NT authors attribute quotes from the Torah to Moses:

a. Luke 2:22

b. Acts 3:22; 13:39; 15:1,15-21; 26:22; 28:23

c. Romans 10:5, 19

d. I Corinthians 9:9

e. II Corinthians 3:15

f. Hebrews 10:28

g.Revelation 15:3

3. Most early Church Fathers accepted Mosaic authorship. Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Tertullian all had questions about Moses’ relationship to the current canonical form of Genesis.

D. Modern Scholarship

1. There have obviously been some editorial additions to the Torah (seemingly to make the ancient work more understandable to contemporary readers):

a. Genesis 12:6; 13:7; 14:14; 21:34; 32:32; 36:31; 47:11

b. Exodus 11:3; 16:36

c. Numbers 12:3; 13:22; 15:22-23; 21:14-15; 32:33ff

d. Deuteronomy 3:14; 34:6

e. Ancient scribes were highly trained and educated. Their techniques differed from country to country:

(1) in Mesopotamia they were very careful not to change anything, and even checked their works for accuracy. Here is an ancient Sumerian scribal footnote, (“the work is complete from beginning to end, has been copied, revised, compared, and verified sign by sign” from about 1400 b.c.)

(2) in Egypt they freely revised ancient texts to update them for contemporary readers. The scribes at Qumran followed this approach.

2. Scholars of the 19th Century theorized that the Torah is a composite document from many sources over an extended period of time (Graft-Wellhausen). This was based on the following:

a. the different names for God,

b. apparent doublets in the text,

c. the form of the accounts,

d.the theology of the accounts.

3. Supposed sources and dates:

a. J source (use of YHWH), 950 b.c.

b. E source (use of Elohim), 850 b.c.

c. JE combined, 750 b.c.

d. D source (“The Book of the Law,” 22:8, discovered during Josiah’s reform while remodeling the Temple was supposedly the book of Deuteronomy, written by an unknown priest of Josiah’s time to support his reform.), 621 b.c.

e. P source (all priestly material especially ritual and procedure), 400 b.c.

f. There have obviously been editorial additions to the Torah. The Jews assert that it was:

(1)The High Priest at the time of the writing,

(2) Jeremiah the Prophet,

(3) Ezra the Scribe - IV Esdras says he rewrote it because the originals were destroyed in the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 b.c.

g. However, the J. E. D. P. theory says more about our modern literary theories and categories than evidence from the Torah ®. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 495-541 and Tyndale Commentary Series, “Leviticus,” pp. 15-25).

h. Characteristics of Hebrew Literature

(1) Doublets, like Gen. 1 & 2, are common in Hebrew. Usually a general description is given and is then followed by a specific account. This may have been a way to accent truths or help oral memory.

(2) The ancient rabbis said the two most common names for God have theological significance:

(a) YHWH - the Covenant name for Deity as He relates to Israel as Savior and Redeemer (cf. Ps. 103).

(b) Elohim - Deity as Creator, Provider, and Sustainer of all life on earth (cf. Ps. 104).

(3) It is common in non-biblical Near Eastern Literature for a variety of styles and vocabulary to occur in unified literary works (Harrison, pp. 522-526).

E. The evidence from Ancient Near Eastern literature implies that Moses used written cuneiform documents or Mesopotamian style oral traditions to write Genesis. This in no way means to imply a lessening of inspiration but is an attempt to explain the literary phenomenon of the book of

Genesis. Beginning in Gen. 37 a marked Egyptian influence of style, form and vocabulary seems to indicate Moses used either literary productions or oral traditions from the Israelites’ days in Egypt. Moses’ formal education was entirely Egyptian! The exact literary formation of the Pentateuch is uncertain. I believe that Moses is the compiler and author of the vast majority of the Pentateuch, though he may have used scribes and/or written and oral traditions. The historicity and trustworthiness of these first few books of the OT is certain.

II. Exodus

A. The Torah is one unified account. Exodus starts with the conjunction “and.” See lengthy discussion in Genesis outline.

B. There are several places in Exodus where it says that Moses wrote:

1. 17:14

2. 24:4, 12

3. 34:27, 28

C. Joshua 8:31 quotes Exodus 20:25 and attributes it to Moses. Jesus quotes Exod. 20:12,17 and attributes it to Moses, Mark 7:10.

III. Numbers

A. This is the first book of the Torah to name a written source, “The Book of the Wars of Lord,” 21:14-15. This clearly shows that Moses did use other written documents.

B. This book states that Moses could and did record the events of the Wilderness Wandering Period.

C. Numbers also provides several examples of obvious editorial additions (possibly Joshua or Samuel):

1. 12:1,3

2. 13:22

3. 15:22-23

4. 21:14-15

5. 32:33ff

6. 32:33ff

D. In most cases Moses is referred to in the third person except in direct quotes. This implies Moses used scribal help in compiling these materials.

E. It is interesting to notice that Numbers includes two non-Israelite literary productions: (1) the Amorite taunt poem in 21:27-30 (possibly v. 30 was an Israelite addition); and (2) Balaam’s

conversations with Balak, King of Moab in 23-24. They do show the use of written or oral material included in the compilation of the book (cf. The Book of the Wars of the Lord.).

IV. Deuteronomy

A. Jewish Tradition:

1. Ancient tradition is unanimous that the author was Moses.

2. This is stated in:

a. Talmud - Baba Bathra 14b

b. Mishnah

c. Ben Sirach’s Ecclesiasticus 24:23 (written about 185 b.c.)

d. Philo of Alexandria

e. Flavius Josephus

3. The Scripture itself:

a. Judges 3:4 and Joshua 8:31

b. “Moses spoke”:

(1) Deut. 1:1, 3

(2) Deut. 5:1

(3) Deut. 27:1

(4) Deut. 29:2

(5) Deut. 31:1, 30

(6) Deut. 32:44

(7) Deut. 33:1

c. “YHWH spoke to Moses”:

(1) Deut. 5:4-5, 22

(2) Deut. 6:1

(3) Deut. 10:1

d. “Moses wrote”:

(1) Deut. 31:9, 22, 24

(2) Exodus 17:14

(3) Exodus 24:4, 12

(4) Exodus 34:27-28

(5) Numbers 33:2

e. Jesus quotes from or alludes to Deuteronomy and states “Moses said”/”Moses wrote”:

(1) Matthew 19:7-9; Mark 10:4-5 - Deut. 24:1-4

(2) Mark 7:10 - Deut. 5:16

(3) Luke 16:31; 24:27, 44; John 5:46-47; 7:19, 23

f. Paul asserts Moses as author:

(1) Romans 10:19 - Deut. 32:21

(2) I Cor. 9:9 - Deut. 25:4

(3) Gal. 3:10 - Deut. 27:26

(4) Acts 26:22; 28:23

g. Peter asserts Moses as author in his Pentecostal sermon - Acts 3:22

h. The author of Hebrews asserts Moses as author - Hebrews 10:28 - Deut. 17:2-6

B. Modern Scholarship

1. Many of the 18^th- and 19^th-century theologians, following the Graf-Wellhausen theory of multiple authorship (J.E.D.P.), assert that Deuteronomy was written by a priest/prophet during Josiah’s reign in Judah to support his spiritual reform. This would mean that the book was written in Moses’ name about 621 b.c.

2. They base this on:

a. II Kings 22:8; II Chr. 34:14-15, “I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord”

b. chapter 12 discussed a single site for the Tabernacle and later Temple

c. chapter 17 discussed a later king

d. it is true that writing a book in the name of a famous person from the past was common in the Ancient Near East and in Jewish circles

e. there are similarities of style, vocabulary and grammar between Deut. and Joshua, Kings and Jeremiah

f. Deuteronomy records the death of Moses, chapter 34

g. there are obvious later editorial additions in the Pentateuch:

(1) Deuteronomy 3:14

(2) Deuteronomy 34:6

h. the sometimes unexplainable variety in the use of the names of deity: El, El Shaddai, Elohim, YHWH, in seemingly unified contexts and historical periods

V. Conclusion

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: “THE NAME” OF YHWH

 

The use of “the name” as a substitute for YHWH Himself is parallel to the Exod. 23:20-33 use of “angel,” who is said to have “My name is in Him.” This same substitution can be seen in the use of “His glory” (e.g., John 1:14; 17:22). All are attempts to soften the personal anthropomorphic presence of YHWH (cf. Exod. 3:13-16; 6:3). YHWH is surely spoken of in human terms, but it was also known that He was spiritually present throughout creation (cf. I Kgs. 8:27; Ps. 139:7-16; Jer. 23:24; Acts 7:49 quotes Isa. 66:1).

There are several examples of “the name” representing YHWH’s divine essence and personal presence:

1. Deut. 12:5; II Sam. 7:13; I Kgs. 9:3; 11:36

2. Deut. 28:58

3. Ps. 5:11; 7:17; 9:10; 33:21; 68:4; 91:14; 103:1; 105:3; 145:21

4. Isa. 48:9; 56:6

5. Ezek. 20:44; 36:21; 39:7

6. Amos 2:7

7. John 17:6, 11, 26

 

The concept of “calling on” (i.e., worshiping) the name of YHWH is seen early in Genesis:

1. 4:26, the line of Seth

2. 12:8, Abraham

3. 13:4, Abraham

4. 16:13, Hagar

5. 21:33, Abraham

6. 26:25, Isaac

 

and in Exodus:

1. 5:22, speak in Thy name

2. 9:16, show My name through all the earth (cf. Rom. 9:17)

3. 20:7, do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain (cf. Lev. 19:12; Deut. 5:11; 6:13; 10:20)

4. 20:24, where I cause my name to be remembered (cf. Deut. 12:5; 26:2)

5. 23:20-21, an angel (“since My name is in him”)

6. 34:5-7, Moses calls on (or “called out”) the name of the Lord. This is one of a handful of texts that describe YHWH’s character (cf. Neh. 9:17; Ps. 103:8; Joel 2:13)

Knowing someone by name implies an intimacy (cf. Exod. 33:12), Moses knows YHWH’s name and in 33:17, YHWH knows Moses’ name. This is the context where Moses wants to see God’s glory (cf. v. 18), but God allows him to see “His goodness” (v. 19), which is parallel to “the name” (v. 19).

 

The Israelites are to destroy “the names” of Canaan’s gods (cf. Deut. 12:3) and call on Him (cf. Deut. 6:13; 10:20; 26:2) at the special place He causes His name to dwell (cf. Exod. 20:24; Deut. 12:5,11,21; 14:23,24; 16:2,6,11; 26:2).

YHWH has a universal purpose involving His name:

1. Gen. 12:3

2. Exod. 9:16

3. Exod. 19:5-6

4. Deut. 28:10,58

5. Micah 4:1-5

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE NAMES FOR DEITY

A. El

1. The original meaning of the generic ancient term for deity is uncertain, though many scholars believe it comes from the Akkadian root, “to be strong” or “to be powerful” (cf. Gen. 17:1; Num. 23:19; Deut. 7:21; Ps. 50:1).

2. In the Canaanite pantheon the high god is El (Ras Shamra texts)

3. In the Bible El is not usually compounded with other terms. These combinations became a way to characterize God.

a. El-Elyon (God Most High), Gen. 14:18-22; Deut. 32:8; Isa. 14:14

b. El-Roi (“God who sees” or “God who reveals Himself”), Gen. 16:13

c. El-Shaddai (“God Almighty” or “God the All Compassion” or “God of the mountain”), Gen. 17:1; 35:11; 43:14; 49:25; Exod. 6:3

d. El-Olam (the Everlasting God), Gen. 21:33. This term is theologically linked to God’s promise to David, II Sam. 7:13,16

e. El-Berit (“God of the Covenant”), Jdgs. 9:46

4. El is equated with

a. YHWH in Ps. 85:8; Isa. 42:5

b. Elohim in Gen. 46:3; Job 5:8, “I am El, the Elohim of your father

c. Shaddai in Gen. 49:25

d. “jealousy” in Exod. 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15

e. “mercy” in Deut. 4:31; Neh. 9:31; “faithful” in Deut. 7:9; 32:4

f. “great and awesome” in Deut. 7:21; 10:17; Neh. 1:5; 9:32; Dan. 9:4

g. “knowledge” in I Sam. 2:3

h. “my strong refuge” in II Sam. 22:33

i. “my avenger” in II Sam. 22:48

j. “holy one” in Isa. 5:16

k. “might” in Isa. 10:21

l. “my salvation” in Isa. 12:2

m. “great and powerful” in Jer. 32:18

n. “retribution: in Jer. 51:56

5. A combination of all the major OT names for God is found in Joshua 22:22 (El, Elohim, YHWH, repeated)

B. Elyon

1. Its basic meaning is “high,” “exalted,” or “lifted up” (cf. Gen. 40:17; I Kgs. 9:8; II Kgs. 18:17; Neh. 3:25; Jer. 20:2; 36:10; Ps. 18:13).

2. It is used in a parallel sense to several other names/titles of God.

a. Elohim - Ps. 47:1-2; 73:11; 107:11

b. YHWH - Gen. 14:22; II am. 22:14

c. El-Shaddai - Ps. 91:1,9

d. El - Num. 24:16

e. Elah - used often in Daniel 2-6 and Ezra 4-7, linked with illair (Aramaic for “High God”) in Dan. 3:26; 4:2; 5:18,21

3. It is often used by non Israelites.

a. Melchizedek, Gen. 14:18-22

b. Balaam, Num. 24:16

c. Moses, speaking of the nations in Deut. 32:8

d. Luke’s Gospel in the NT, writing to Gentiles, also uses the Greek equivalent Hupsistos (cf. 1:32,35,76; 6:35; 8:28; Acts 7:48; 16:17)

C. Elohim (plural), Eloah (singular), used primarily in poetry

1. This term is not found outside the Old Testament.

2. This word can designate the God of Israel or the gods of the nations (cf. Exod. 12:12; 20:3). Abraham’s family were polytheistic (cf. Josh. 24:2).

3. It can refer to Israeli judges (cf. Exod. 21:6; Ps. 82:6).

4. The term elohim is also used of other spiritual beings (angels, the demonic) as in Deut. 32:8 (LXX); Ps. 8:5; Job 1:6; 38:7. It can refer to human judges (cf. Exod. 21:6; Ps. 82:6)

5. In the Bible it is the first title/name for deity (cf. Gen. 1:1). It is used exclusively until Gen. 2:4, where it is combined with YHWH. It basically (theologically) refers to God as creator, sustainer, and provider of all life on this planet (cf. Ps. 104).

It is synonymous with El (cf. Deut. 32:15-19). It can also parallel YHWH as Ps. 14 (elohim) is exactly like Ps. 53 (YHWH), except for the change in divine names.

6. Although plural and used of other gods, this term often designates the God of Israel, but usually it has the singular verb to denote the monotheistic usage.

7. This term is found in the mouths of non-Israelites as the name for deity.

a. Melchizedek, Gen. 14:18-22

b. Balaam, Num. 24:2

c. Moses, when speaking of the nations, Deut. 32:8

8. It is strange that a common name for the monotheistic God of Israel is plural! Although there is no certainty, here are the theories.

a. Hebrew has many plurals, often used for emphasis. Closely related to this is the later Hebrew grammatical feature called “the plural of majesty,” where the plural is used to magnify a concept.

b. This may refer to the angelic council, which God meets with in heaven and that does His biding (cf. I Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 1:6; Ps. 82:1; 89:5,7.

c. It is even possible this reflects the NT revelation of the one God in three persons. In Gen. 1:1 God creates; Gen. 1:2 the Spirit broods and from the NT Jesus is God the Father’s agent in creation (cf. John 1:3,10; Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:2; 2:10).

D. YHWH

1. This is the name which reflects deity as the covenant making God; God as savior, redeemer! Humans break covenants, but God is loyal to His word, promise, covenant (cf. Ps. 103).

This name is first mentioned in combination with Elohim in Gen. 2:4. There are not two creation accounts in Gen. 1-2, but two emphases: (1) God as the creator of the universe (the physical) and (2) God as the special creator of humanity. Genesis 2:4 begins

the special revelation about the privileged position and purpose of mankind, as well as the problem of sin and rebellion associated with the unique position.

2. In Gen. 4:26 it is said “men began to call upon the name of the Lord ” (YHWH). However, Exod. 6:3 implies that early covenant people (the Patriarchs and their families) knew God only as El-Shaddai. The name YHWH is explained only one time in Exod. 3:13-16, esp. v. 14. However, the writings of Moses often interpret words by popular word plays, not etymologies

(cf. Gen. 17:5; 27:36; 29:13-35). There have been several theories as to the meaning of this name (taken from IDB, vol. 2, pp. 409-11).

a. from an Arabic root, “to show fervent love”

b. from an Arabic root “to blow” (YHWH as storm God)

c. from a Ugartic (Canaanite) root “to speak”

d. following a Phoenician inscription, a causative participle meaning “the One who sustains,” or “the One who establishes”

e. from the Hebrew Qal form “the One who is,” or “the One who is present” (in future sense, “the One who will be”)

f. from the Hebrew Hiphil form “the One who causes to be”

g. from the Hebrew root “to live” (e.g., Gen. 3:20), meaning “the ever living, only living One”

h. from the context of Exod. 3:13-16 a play on the imperfect form used in a perfect sense, “I shall continue to be what I used to be” or “I shall continue to be what I have always been” (cf. J. Wash Watts, A Survey of Syntax in the Old Testament, p. 67)

The full name YHWH is often expressed in abbreviation or possibly an original form

(1) Yah (e.g., Hallelu - yah)

(2) Yahu (names, e.g., Isaiah)

(3) Yo (names, e.g., Joel)

3. In later Judaism this covenant name became so holy (the tetragrammaton) that Jews were afraid to say it lest they break the command of Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11; 6:13. So they substituted the Hebrew term for “owner,” “master,” “husband,” “lord”—adon or adonai

(my lord). When they came to YHWH in their reading of OT texts they pronounced “lord.” This is why YHWH is written Lord in English translations.

4. As with El, often YHWH is combined with other terms to emphasize certain characteristics of the Covenant God of Israel. While there are many possible combinations terms, here are some.

a. YHWH - Yireh (YHWH will provide), Gen. 22:14

b. YHWH - Rophekha (YHWH is your healer), Exod. 15:26

c. YHWH - Nissi (YHWH is my banner), Exod. 17:15

d. YHWH - Meqaddishkem (YHWH the One who sanctifies you), Exod. 31:13

e. YHWH - Shalom (YHWH is Peace), Jdgs. 6:24

f. YHWH - Sabbaoth (YHWH of hosts), I Sam. 1:3,11; 4:4; 15:2; often in the Prophets)

g. YHWH - Ro‘I (YHWH is my shepherd), Ps. 23:1

h. YHWH - Sidqenu (YHWH is our righteousness), Jer. 23:6

i. YHWH - Shammah (YHWH is there), Ezek. 48:35

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: NATURAL RESOURCES

I. Introduction

A. All creation is the backdrop or stage for God’s love affair with mankind.

B. It shares in the fall (cf. Gen. 3:17; 6:1ff; Rom. 8:18-20). Also, it will share in eschatological redemption (cf. Isa. 11:6-9; Rom. 8:20-22; Rev. 21-22).

C. Sinful, fallen mankind has raped the natural environment with selfish abandon. Following is a quote from The Canon of Westminster by Edward Carpenter.

“. . .man’s relentless assault, in a global context, upon the universe around him—that is on God’s creation—an attack on the air which he pollutes; the natural waterways which he befouls; the soil which he poisons; the forests which he hews down, heedless of the long-term affects of this wanton destruction. This attack is piecemeal and uncoordinated. Scant regard is paid to any balance of nature and consequently little sense of responsibility for what one generation owes to another.”

D. not only are we reaping the result of pollution and exploitation of our planet, but our posterity will reap even more severe, non-reversible consequences.

II. Biblical Material

A. Old Testament

1. Genesis 1-3

a. Creation is a special place created by God for fellowship with mankind (cf. Gen. 1:1-25).

b. Creation is good (cf. Gen. 1:4,10,12,18,21,25), yea, very good (cf. Gen. 1:31). It is meant to be a witness to God (cf. Ps. 19:1-16).

c. Humanity is the crowning purpose of creation (cf Gen. 1:26-27).

d. Humanity was meant to exercise dominion (Hebrew, “to tread”) as a steward to God (cf. Gen. 1:28-30; Ps. 8:3-8; Heb. 2:6-8). God is and remains the Creator/Sustainer/ Redeemer/Lord of creation (cf. Exod. 19:5; Job 37-41; Ps. 24:1-2; 95:3-5; 102:25; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 146:6; Isa. 37:16).

e. Mankind’s stewardship of creation can be seen in Gen. 2:15, “to cultivate it and preserve and protect it” (cf. Lev. 25:23; I Chron. 29:14).

2. God loves creation, especially animals.

a. Mosaic laws for proper treatment of animals

b. YHWH playing with Leviathan (cf. Ps. 104:26)

c. God cares for animals (cf. Jonah 4:11)

d. Eschatological presence of nature (cf. Isa. 11:6-9; Rev. 21-22)

3. Nature, to some extent, glorifies God.

a. Psalm 19:1-6

b. Psalm 29:1-9

c. Job 37-41

4. Nature is one means by which God shows His love and loyalty to the covenant.

a. Deut. 27-28; I Kings 17

b. Throughout the prophets

B. New Testament

1. God is seen as creator. There is only one Creator, the Triune God (Elohim, Gen. 1:1; the Spirit, Gen. 1:2; and Jesus, the NT). All else is created.

a. Acts 17:24

b. Hebrews 11:3

c. Revelation 4:11

2. Jesus is God’s agent of creation

a. John 1:3,10

b. I Cor. 8:6

c. Col. 1:16

d. Heb. 1:2

3. Jesus speaks of God’s care for nature in an indirect way in His sermons

a. Matt. 6:26,28-30, birds of the air and lilies of the field

b. Matt. 10:29, sparrows

4. Paul asserts that all humans are responsible for their knowledge of God in creation (i.e natural revelation, cf. Rom. 1:19-20; Rev. 21-22).

III. Conclusion

A. We are bound to this natural order!

B. Sinful mankind has abused God’s gift of nature as they have all the other good gifts of God.

C. This natural order is temporal. It is going to pass away (II Pet. 3:7). God is moving our world to a historical nexus. Sin will run its course, but God has determined its bounds. Creation will be redeemed (cf. Rom. 8:18-25).

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE NUMBER TWELVE

Twelve has always been a symbolic number of organization:

1. outside the Bible

a. twelve signs of the Zodiac

b. twelve months of the year

2. in the OT

a. the sons of Jacob (the Jewish tribes)

b. reflected in

(1) twelve pillars of the altar in Exod. 24:4

(2) twelve jewels on the high priest’s breastplate (which stand for the tribes) in Exod. 28:21

(3) twelve loaves of bread in the holy place of the tabernacle in Lev. 24:5

(4) twelve spies sent into Canaan in Num. 13 (one from each tribe)

(5) twelve rods (tribal standards) at Korah’s rebellion in Num. 17:2

(6) twelve stones of Joshua in Josh. 4:3,9,20

(7) twelve administrative districts in Solomon’s administration in I Kgs. 4:7

(8) twelve stones of Elijah’s altar to YHWH in I Kgs. 18:31

3. in the NT

a. twelve apostles chosen

b. twelve baskets of bread (one for each Apostle) in Matt. 14:20

c. twelve thrones on which NT disciples sit (referring to the 12 tribes of Israel) in Matt. 19:28

d. twelve legions of angels to rescue Jesus in Matt. 26:53

e. the symbolism of Revelation

(1) 24 elders on 24 thrones in 4:4

(2) 144,000 (12x12) in 7:4; 14:1,3

(3) twelve stars on the woman’s crown in 12:1

(4) twelve gates, twelve angels reflecting the twelve tribes in 21:12

(5) twelve foundation stones of the new Jerusalem and on them the names of the twelve Apostles in 21:14

(6) twelve thousand stadia in 21:16 (size of new city, New Jerusalem)

(7) wall is 144 cubits in 21:7

(8) twelve gates of pearl in 21:21

(9) trees in new Jerusalem with twelve kinds of fruit (one for each month ) in 22:2

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE OLD TESTAMENT AS HISTORY

 

Christianity and Judaism are historical faiths. They base their faith on historical events (accompanied by their interpretations). The problem comes in trying to define or describe what is “history” or “historical study.” Much of the problem in modern theological interpretation rests on modern literary or historical assumptions projected back onto ancient Near Eastern biblical literature. Not only is there not a proper appreciation of the temporal and cultural differences, but also of the literary differences. As modern western people we simply do not understand the genres and literary techniques of ancient Near Eastern writings, so we interpreted them in light of western literal genres.

 

The nineteenth century’s approach to biblical studies atomized and depreciated the books of the Old Testament as historical, unified documents. This historical scepticism has affected hermeneutics and historical investigation of the Old Testament. The current trend toward “canonical hermeneutics” (Brevard Childs) has helped focus on the current form of the Old Testament text. This, in my opinion, is a helpful bridge over the abyss of German higher criticism of the nineteenth century. We must deal with the canonical text that has been given us by an unknown historical process whose inspiration is assumed.

 

Many scholars are returning to the assumption of the historicity of the OT. This is surely not meant to deny the obvious editing and updating of the OT by later Jewish scribes, but it is a basic return to the OT as a valid history and the documentation of true events (with their theological interpretations).

 

A quote from R. K Harrison in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1, in the article, “Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament” is helpful:

“Comparative historiographic studies have shown that, along with the Hittites, the ancient Hebrews were the most accurate, objective, and responsible recorders of Near Eastern history. . Form-critical studies of books such as Genesis and Deuteronomy, based on specific types of tablets recovered from sites that include Mari, Nuzi, and Boghazköy, have shown that the canonical

material has certain nonliterary counterparts in the cultures of some Near Eastern peoples. As a result, it is possible to view with a new degree of confidence and respect those early traditions of the Hebrews that purport to be historiographic in nature” (p. 232).

 

I am especially appreciative of R. K. Harrison’s work because he makes it a priority to interpret the Old Testament in light of contemporary events, cultures and genres.

 

In my own classes on early Jewish literature (Genesis - Deuteronomy and Joshua), I try to establish a credible link with other ancient Near Eastern literature and artifacts:

A. Genesis literary parallels from the ancient Near East

1. Earliest known literary parallel of the cultural setting of Genesis 1-11 is the Ebla cuniform tablets from northern Syria dating about 2500 b.c., written in Akkadian.

2. Creation

a. The closest Mesopotamian account dealing with creation, Enuma Elish, dating from about 1900-1700 b.c., was found in Ashurbanipal’s library at Nineveh and several other places. There are seven cuniform tablets written in Akkadian which describe creation by Marduk.

1) the gods, Apsu (fresh water-male) and Tiamat (salt water-female) had unruly, noisy children. These two gods tried to silence the younger gods.

2) one of the god’s children, Marduk, helped defeat Tiamat. He formed the earth from her body.

3) Marduk formed humanity from another defeated god, Kingu, who was the male consort of Tiamat after the death of Apsu. Humanity came from Kingu’s blood.

4) Marduk was made chief of the Babylonian pantheon.

b. “The creation seal” is a cuniform tablet which is a picture of a naked man and woman beside a fruit tree with a snake wrapped around the tree’s trunk and positioned over the woman’s shoulder as if talking to her.

3. Creation and Flood - The Atrahasis Epic records the rebellion of the lesser gods because of overwork and the creation of seven human couples to perform the duties of these lesser gods. Because of (1) over population and (2) noise, human beings were reduced in number by a plague, two famines and finally a flood, planned by Enlil. These major events are seen in the same order in Gen. 1-8. This cuniform composition dates from about the same times as Enuma Elish and the Gilgamesh Epic, about 1900-1700 b.c. All are in Akkadian.

4. Noah’s flood

c. A Summerian tablet from Nippur, called Eridu Genesis, dating from abut 1600 b.c., tells about Zivsudra and a coming flood.

1) Enka, the water god, warned of a coming flood

2) Zivsudra, a king-priest, saved in a huge boat

3) The flood lasted seven days

4) Zivsudra opened a window on the boat and released several birds to see if dry land had appeared

5) He also offered a sacrifice of an ox and sheep when he left the boat

d. A composite Babylonian flood account from four Summerian tales, known as the Gilgamesh Epic, originally dating from about 2500-2400 b.c., although the written composite form was cuniform Akkadian, is much later. It tells about a flood survivor, Utnapishtim, who tells Gilgamesh, the king of Uruk how he survived the great flood and was granted eternal life.

1) Ea, the water god, warns of a coming flood and tells Utnapishtim (Babylonian form of Zivsudra) to build a boat

2) Utnapishtim and his family, along with selected healing plants, survived the flood

3) The flood lasted seven days

4) The boat came to rest in northeast Persia, on Mt. Nisir

5) He sent out three different birds to see if dry land had yet appeared

4. The Mesopotamian literature which describes an ancient flood draws from the same source. The names often vary, but the plot is the same. An example is that Zivsudra, Atrahasis, and Utnapishtim are all the same human king.

5. The historical parallels to the early events of Genesis can be explained in light of man’s pre-dispersion (Genesis 10-11) knowledge and experience of God. These true historical core memories have been elaborated and mythologicalized into the current flood accounts common throughout the world. The same can also be said of: creation (Genesis 1-2) and human and angelic unions (Genesis 6).

6. Patriarch’s Day (Middle Bronze)

a. Mari tablets - cuniform legal (Ammonite culture) and personal texts written in Akkadian from about 1700 b.c.

b. Nuzi tablets - cuniform archives of certain families (Horite or Hurrian culture) written in Akkadian from about 100 miles SE of Nineveh about 1500-1300 b.c. They record family and business procedures. For further specific examples, see Walton, pp. 52-58.

c. Alalak tablets - cuniform texts from Northern Syria from about 2000 b.c.

d. Some of the names found in Genesis are named as place names in the Mari Tablets: Serug, Peleg, Terah, Nahor. Other biblical names were also common: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Laban, and Joseph.

7. “Comparative historiographic studies have shown that, along with the Hittites, the ancient Hebrews were the most accurate, objective and responsible recorders of Near Eastern history,” R. K Harrison in Biblical Criticism, p. 5.

8. Archaeology has proven to be so helpful in establishing the historicity of the Bible. However, a word of caution is necessary. Archaeology is not an absolutely trustworthy guide because of:

a. poor techniques in early excavations,

b. various, very subjective interpretations of the artifacts that have been discovered,

c. no agreed-upon chronology of the Ancient Near East (although one is being developed from tree rings)

B. Egyptian creation accounts can be found in John W. Walton’s, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990. pp. 23-34, 32-34.

1. In Egyptian literature creation began with an unstructured, chaotic, primeval water. Creation was seen as developing structure out of watery chaos.

2. In Egyptian literature from Memphis, creation occurred by the spoken word of Ptah.

C. Joshua literary parallels from the ancient Near East

1. Archaeology has shown that most of the large walled cities of Canaan were destroyed and rapidly rebuilt about 1250 b.c.

a. Hazor

b. Lachish

c. Bethel

d. Debir (formerly called Kerioth Sepher, 15:15)

2. Archaeology has not been able to confirm or reject the biblical account of the fall of Jericho (cf. Joshua 6). This is because the site is in such poor condition:

a. weather/location

b. later rebuildings on old sites using older materials

c. uncertainty as to the dates of the layers

3. Archaeology has found an altar on Mt. Ebal that might be connected to Joshua 8:30-31 (Deuteronomy. 27:2-9). It is very similar to a description found in the Mishnah (Talmud).

4. The Ras Shamra texts found at Ugarit show Canaanite life and religion of 1400's b.c.:

a. polytheistic nature worship (fertility cult)

b. El was chief deity

c. El’s consort was Asherah (later she is consort to Ba’al) who was worshiped in the form of a carved stake or live tree, which symbolized “the tree of life”

d. their son was Ba’al (Haddad), the storm god

e. Ba’al became the “high god” of the Canaanite pantheon. Anat was his consort

f. ceremonies similar to Isis and Osiris of Egypt

g. Ba’al worship was focused on local “high places” or stone platforms (ritual prostitution),

h. Ba’al was symbolized by a raised stone pillar (phallic symbol)

5. The accurate listing of the names of ancient cities fits a contemporary author, not later editor(s):

a. Jerusalem called Jebus, 15:8; 18:16,28 (15:28 said the Jebusites still remained in part of Jerusalem)

b. Hebron called Kiriath-arba, 14:15; 15:13,54; 20:7; 21:11

c. Kiriath-jearim is called Baalah, 15:9,10

d. Sidon is referred to as the major Phoenician city, not Tyre, 11:8; 13:6; 19:28, which later became the chief city

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE OT FOOD LAWS

 

In my opinion, these food laws (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14) are not given primarily for health or hygienic reasons (i.e., Maimonides, Guide 3:48; Kiddushin 49b [Talmudic tractate]), but for theological reasons. Israelis are to have no contact with Canaanites (cf. Isa. 65:4; 66:3,17). Many of the regulations given to Israel through Moses relate to Canaanite eating, socializing, and worshiping practices (e.g., Exod. 8:23).

On the question of “are these food laws binding or even helpful for NT believers,” I would say No! No! No! Here are my reasons:

1. Jesus rejected the food laws as a way to approach and please God, Mark 7:14-23 (surely the editorial comment by either Peter of John Mark in v. 19 is equally inspired)

2. This very question was the issue of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, where it was decided that Gentiles did not have to follow OT cultic laws (cf. esp. v. 19). Verse 20 is not a food law, but a fellowship concession to believing Jews who may be in their Gentile churches.

3. Peter’s experience in Acts 10 in Joppa is not about food, but about the acceptability of all people, yet the Spirit used the food law’s irrelevance as the symbol to teach Peter!

4. Paul’s discussion of “weak” and “strong” believers cautions us not to force our personal interpretation, particularly of OT laws, on all other believers (cf. Rom. 14:1-15:13; I Corinthians 8-10).

5. Paul’s warnings about legalism and judgmentalism in relation to the Gnostic false teachers recorded in Col. 2:16-23 ought to be a warning to all believers in every age!

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: OLD TESTAMENT HISTORIOGRAPHY COMPARED WITH CONTEMPORARY NEAR EASTERN CULTURES

Mesopotamian sources

1. Like most ancient literature the subject is usually the king or some national hero.

2. The events are often embellished for propaganda purposes.

3. Usually nothing negative is recorded.

4. The purpose was to support current status quo institutions or explain the rise of new regimes.

5. The historical distortions involve

a. embellished claims of great victories,

b. earlier achievements presented as current achievements,

c. only positive aspects recorded

6. The literature served not only a propagandistic function, but was also a didactic function

 

Egyptian sources

1. They support a very static view of life, which was not affected by time.

2. The king and his family are the object of much of the literature.

3. It, like Mesopotamian literature, is very propagandistic

a. no negative aspects

b. embellished aspects

Rabbinical sources (later)

1. Attempt to make Scripture relevant by Midrash, which moves from the faith of the interpreter to text and does not focus on authorial intent nor historical setting of the text

a. Halakha deals with truths or rules for life

b. Haggada deals with application and encouragement for life

2. Pesher - later development seen in Dead Sea Scrolls. It used a typological approach to see the prophetic fulfillment of past events in the current setting. The current setting was the prophesied eschaton (coming new age)

It is obvious that ancient Near Eastern genres and later Jewish literature are different from Old Testament Scripture. In many ways the genres of the OT, though often sharing characteristics of contemporary literature, are unique, especially in their depiction of historical events. The closest to Hebrew historiography is the Hittite literature.

 

It must be acknowledged how different ancient historiography is from modern, western historiography. Herein lies the problem for interpretation. Modern historiography attempts to be objective (non-propaganda, if this is possible) and to document and record in chronological sequence what “really happened!” It attempts to document “cause and effect” of historical events. It is characterized by details!

 

Just because Near Eastern histories are not like modern histories does not make them wrong, inferior, or untrustworthy. Western modern histories reflect the biases (presuppositions) of their writers. Biblical history is by its very nature (inspiration) different. There is a sense in which biblical history is seen through the eyes of the faith of the inspired author and for the purposes of theology, but it is still a valid historical account.

 

This historicity of the Old Testament is important to me as a way of advocating my faith to others. If the Bible can be demonstrated to be historical then its faith claims have stronger appeal to non-believers. My faith does not rest on the historical confirmation of archaeology and anthropology, but these help to introduce the message of the Bible, and to give it a credibility that otherwise it would not have.

 

To summarize then, historicity does not function in the area of inspiration, but in the area of apologetics and evangelism.

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: GENRE AND INTERPRETATION: OLD TESTAMENT NARRATIVE

I. OPENING STATEMENTS

A. The relationship between the OT and other ways of the chronicling of events

1. Other ancient Near Eastern literature is mythological

a. polytheistic (usually humanistic gods reflecting the powers of nature but using interpersonal conflict motifs)

b. Based on the cycles of nature (dying and rising gods)

2. Greco-Roman is for entertainment and encouragement rather than the recording of historical events per se (Homer in many ways reflects Mesopotamian motifs)

B. Possibly the use of three German terms illustrates the difference in types or definitions of history

1. “Historie,” the recording of events (bare facts)

2. “Geschichte,” the interpretation of events showing their significance to mankind

3. “Heilsgeschichte” refers uniquely to God’s redemptive plan and activity within the historical process

C. The OT and NT narratives are “Geschichte” which leads to an understanding of Heilgeschichte They are selected theologically oriented historical events

1. selected events only

2. chronology not as significant as theology

3. events shared to reveal truth

D. Narrative is the most common genre in the OT. It has been estimated that 40% of the OT is narrative. Therefore, this genre is useful to the Spirit in communicating God’s message and character to fallen mankind. But, it is done, not propositionally (like the NT Epistles), but by implication, summation or selected dialog/monolog. One must continue to ask why this is recorded. What is it trying to emphasize? What is its theological purpose?

This in no way is meant to depreciate the history. But, it is history as the servant and channel of revelation.

II. Biblical Narratives

A. God is active in His world. Inspired Bible authors chose certain events to reveal God. God is the major character of the OT.

B. Every narrative functions in several ways:

1. who is God and what is He doing in His world

2. mankind is revealed through God’s dealing with individuals and national entities

3. as an example specifically notice Joshua’s military victory linked to covenant performance (cf. 1:7-8; 8:30-35).

C. Often narratives are strung together to make a larger literary unit which reveals a single theological truth.

III. Interpretive principles of OT narratives

A. The best discussion I have seen about interpreting OT narratives is by Douglas Stuart in How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth, pp. 83-84

1. An OT narrative usually does not directly teach a doctrine.

2. An OT narrative usually illustrates a doctrine or doctrines taught propositionally elsewhere.

3. Narratives record what happened—not necessarily what should have happened or what ought to happen every time. Therefore, not every narrative has an individual identifiable moral of the story.

4. What people do in narratives is not necessarily a good example for us. Frequently, it is just the opposite.

5. Most of the characters in OT narratives are far from perfect, and their actions also

6. We are not always told at the end of a narrative whether what happened was good or bad. We are expected to be able to judge that on the basis of what God has taught us directly and categorically elsewhere in the Scripture.

7. All narratives are selective and incomplete. Not all the relevant details are always given (cf. John 21:25). What does appear in the narrative is everything that the inspired author thought important for us to know.

8. Narratives are not written to answer all our theological questions. They have particular, specific, limited purposes and deal with certain issues, leaving others to be dealt with elsewhere, in other ways.

9. Narratives may teach either explicitly (by clearly stating something) or implicitly (by clearly implying something without actually stating it).

10. In the final analysis, God is the hero of all biblical narratives.

B. Another good discussion on interpreting narratives is in Walter Kaiser’s Toward Exegetical Theology:

“The unique aspect of the narrative portions of Scripture is that the writer usually allows the words and actions of the people in his narrative to convey the main thrust of his message. Thus, instead of addressing us through direct statements, such as are found in doctrinal or teaching portions of Scripture, the writer tends to remain instead somewhat in the background as far as direct teaching or evaluative statements are concerned. Consequently, it becomes critically important to recognize the larger context in which the narrative fits and to ask why the writer used the specific selection of events in the precise

sequence in which he placed them. The twin clues to meaning now will be arrangement of episodes and selection of detail from a welter of possible speeches, persons, or episodes. Furthermore, the divine reaction to and estimate of these people and events must often be determined from the way the author allows one person or a group of people to respond at the climax of the selected sequence of events; that is, if he has not interrupted the narration to give his own (in this instance, God’s) estimate of what has taken place” (p. 205).

C. In narratives the truth is found in the whole literary unit and not the details. Beware of proof-texting or using OT narratives as a precedent for your life.

IV. Two levels of interpretation:

A. YHWH’s redemptive, revelatory acts for Abraham’s seed

B. YHWH’s will for every believer’s life (in every age)

C.The first focuses on “knowing God (salvation); the second on serving Him (the Christian life of faith, cf. Rom. 15:4; I Cor. 10:6,11).

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: OT PREDICTIONS OF THE FUTURE VS. NT PREDICTIONS

(This is taken from my commentary on Revelation, “Crucial Introductory Article”)

 

FIRST TENSION (OT racial, national, and geographical categories vs. all believers over all the world)

 

The OT prophets predict a restoration of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine centered in Jerusalem where all the nations of the earth gather to praise and serve a Davidic ruler, but Jesus nor the NT Apostles ever focus on this agenda. Is not the OT inspired (cf. Matt. 5:17-19)? Have the NT authors omitted crucial end-time events?

There are several sources of information about the end of the world:

1. OT prophets (Isaiah, Micah, Malachi)

2. OT apocalyptic writers (cf. Ezekiel 37-39; Daniel 7-12; Zechariah)

3. intertestamental, non-canonical Jewish apocalyptic writers (like I Enoch, which is alluded to in Jude)

4. Jesus Himself (cf. Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21)

5. the writings of Paul (cf. I Corinthians 15; II Corinthians 5; I Thessalonians 4-5; II Thessalonians 2)

6. the writings of John (I John and Revelation).

Do these all clearly teach an end-time agenda (events, chronology, persons)? If not, why? Are they not all inspired (except the Jewish intertestamental writings)?

 

The Spirit revealed truths to the OT writers in terms and categories they could understand. However, through progressive revelation the Spirit has expanded these OT eschatological concepts to a universal scope (“the mystery of Christ,” cf. Eph. 2:11-3:13. See Special topic at 10:7). Here are some relevant examples:

1. The city of Jerusalem in the OT is used as a metaphor of the people of God (Zion), but is projected into the NT as a term expressing God’s acceptance of all repentant, believing humans (the new Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22). The theological expansion of a literal, physical city into the new people of God (believing Jews and Gentiles) is foreshadowed in God’s promise to redeem fallen

mankind in Gen. 3:15 before there even were any Jews or a Jewish capital city. Even Abraham’s call (cf. Gen. 12:1-3) involved the Gentiles (cf. Gen. 12:3; Exod. 19:5).

2. In the OT the enemies of God’s people are the surrounding nations of the ancient Near East, but in the NT they have been expanded to all unbelieving, anti-God, Satanically-inspired people. The battle has moved from a geographical, regional conflict to a worldwide, cosmic conflict (cf. Colossians).

3. The promise of a land which is so integral in the OT (the Patriarchal promises of Genesis, cf. Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 15:7-15; 17:8) has now become the whole earth. New Jerusalem comes down to a recreated earth, not the Near East only or exclusively (cf. Rev. 21-22).

4. Some other examples of OT prophetic concepts being expanded are (1) the seed of Abraham is now the spiritually circumcised (cf. Rom. 2:28-29); (2) the covenant people now include Gentiles (cf. Hos. 1:10; 2:23, quoted in Rom. 9:24-26; also Lev. 26:12; Exod. 29:45,quoted in II Cor. 6:16-18 and Exod. 19:5; Deut. 14:2, quoted in Titus 2:14); (3) the temple is now Jesus (cf. Matt. 26:61; 27:40; John 2:19-21) and through Him the local church (cf. I Cor. 3:16) or the individual believer (cf. I Cor. 6:19); and (4) even Israel and its characteristic descriptive OT phrases now refer to the whole people of God (i.e., “Israel,” cf. Rom. 9:6; Gal. 6:16, i.e., “kingdom of priests,” cf. I Pet. 2:5, 9-10; Rev. 1:6)

The prophetic model has been fulfilled, expanded, and is now more inclusive. Jesus and the apostolic writers do not present the end-time in the same way as the OT prophets (cf. Martin Wyngaarden, The Future of The Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment). Modern interpreters who try to make the OT model literal or

normative twist the Revelation into a very Jewish book and force meaning into atomized, ambiguous phrases of Jesus and Paul! The NT writers do not negate the OT prophets, but show their ultimate universal implication. There is no organized, logical system to Jesus’ or Paul’s eschatology. Their purpose is primarily redemptive or pastoral.

 

However, even within the NT there is tension. There is no clear systemization of eschatological events. In many ways the Revelation surprisingly uses OT allusions in describing the end instead of the teachings of Jesus (cf. Matthew 24; Mark 13)! It follows the literary genre initiated by Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, but developed during the intertestamental period (Jewish apocalyptic literature). This may have been John’s way of linking the Old and New Covenants. It shows the age-old pattern of human rebellion and God’s commitment to redemption! But it must be noted that although Revelation uses OT language, persons, and events, it reinterprets them in light of first century Rome (cf. Rev. 1:7).

 

SECOND TENSION (monotheism vs. an elect people)

 

The biblical emphasis is on one personal, spiritual, creator-redeemer, God (cf. Exod. 8:10; Isa. 44:24; 45:5-7,14,18,21-22; 46:9; Jer. 10:6-7). The OT’s uniqueness in its own day was its monotheism. All of the surrounding nations were polytheists. The oneness of God is the heart of OT revelation (cf. Deut. 6:4). Creation is a stage for the purpose of fellowship between God and mankind, made in His image and likeness (cf. Gen.1:26-27). However, mankind rebelled, sinning against God’s love, leadership, and purpose (cf. Genesis 3). God’s love and purpose were so strong and sure that He promised to redeem fallen humanity (cf. Gen. 3:15)!

 

The tension arises when God chooses to use one man, one family, one nation to reach the rest of mankind. God’s election of Abraham and the Jews as a kingdom of priests (cf. Exod. 19:4-6) caused pride instead of service, exclusion instead of inclusion. God’s call of Abraham involved the intentional blessing of all mankind (cf. Gen. 12:3). It must be remembered and emphasized that OT election was for service, not salvation. All Israel was never right with God, never eternally saved based solely on her birthright (cf. John 8:31-59; Matt. 3:9), but by personal faith and obedience (cf. Gen. 15:6, quoted in Romans 4). Israel lost her mission (the church is now a kingdom of priests, cf. Rev. 1:6; II Pet. 2:59), turned mandate into privilege, service into a special standing! God chose one to choose all!

 

THIRD TENSION (conditional covenants vs. unconditional covenants)

 

There is a theological tension or paradox between conditional and unconditional covenants. It is surely true that God’s redemptive purpose/plan is unconditional (cf. Gen. 15:12-21). However, the mandated human response is always conditional!

 

The “if. . .then” pattern appears in both OT and NT. God is faithful; mankind is unfaithful. This tension has caused much confusion. Interpreters have tended to focus on only one “horn of the dilemma,” God’s faithfulness or human effort, God’s sovereignty or mankind’s free will. Both are biblical and necessary.

 

This relates to eschatology, to God’s OT promises to Israel. If God promises it, that settles it, yes? God is bound to His promises; His reputation is involved (cf. Ezek. 36:22-38). The unconditional and conditional covenants meet in Christ (cf. Isa. 53), not Israel! God’s ultimate faithfulness lies in the redemption of all who will repent and believe, not in who was your father/mother! Christ, not Israel, is the key to all of God’s covenants and promises. If there is a theological parenthesis in the Bible, it is not the Church, but Israel (cf. Acts 7 and Galatians 3).

 

The world mission of gospel proclamation has passed to the Church (cf. Matt. 28:19-20; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8). It is still a conditional covenant! This is not to imply that God has totally rejected the Jews (cf. Romans 9-11). There may be a place and purpose for end-time, believing Israel (cf. Zech. 12:10).

 

FOURTH TENSION (Near Eastern literary models vs. western models).

 

Genre is a critical element in correctly interpreting the Bible. The Church developed in a western (Greek) cultural setting. Eastern literature is much more figurative, metaphorical, and symbolic than modern, western culture’s literary models. It focuses on people, encounters, and events more than societal propositional truths. Christians have been guilty of using their history and literary models to interpret biblical prophecy (both OT and NT). Each generation and geographical entity has used its culture, history, and literalness to interpret Revelation. Every one of them has been wrong! It is arrogant to think that modern western culture is the focus of biblical prophecy!

 

The genre in which the original, inspired author chooses to write is a literary contract with the reader. The book of Revelation is not historical narrative. It is a combination of letter (chapters 1-3), prophecy, and mostly apocalyptic literature. It is as wrong to make the Bible say more than was intended by the original author as it is to make it say less than what he intended! Interpreters’ arrogance and dogmatism are even more inappropriate in a book like Revelation.

 

The Church has never agreed on a proper interpretation. My concern is to hear and deal with the whole Bible, not some selected part(s). The Bible’s eastern mind-set presents truth in tension-filled pairs. Our western trend toward propositional truth is not invalid, but unbalanced! I think it is possible to remove at least some of the impasse in interpreting Revelation by noting its changing purpose to successive generations of believers. It is obvious to most interpreters that Revelation must be interpreted in light of its own day and its genre. An historical approach to Revelation must deal with what the first readers would have, and could have, understood. In many ways modern interpreters have lost the meaning of many of the symbols of the book. Revelation’s initial main thrust was to encourage persecuted believers. It showed God’s control of history (as did the OT prophets); it affirmed that history is moving toward an appointed terminus, judgment or blessing (as did the OT prophets). It affirmed in first century Jewish apocalyptic terms God’s love, presence, power, and sovereignty!

 

It functions in these same theological ways to every generation of believers. It depicts the cosmic struggle of good and evil. The first century details may have been lost to us, but not the powerful, comforting truths. When modern, western interpreters try to force the details of Revelation into their contemporary history, the pattern of false interpretations continues!

 

It is quite possible that the details of the book may become strikingly literal again (as did the OT in relation to the birth, life, and death of Christ) for the last generation of believers as they face the onslaught of an anti-God leader (cf. II Thessalonians2) and culture. No one can know these literal fulfillments of the Revelation until the words of Jesus (cf. Matthew 24; Mark.13; and Luke 21) and Paul (cf. I Corinthians 15; I Thessalonians 4-5; and II Thessalonians 2) also become historically evident. Guessing, speculation, and dogmatism are all inappropriate. Apocalyptic literature allows this flexibility. Thank God for images and symbols that surpass historical narrative! God is in control; He reigns; He comes!

 

Most modern commentaries miss the point of the genre! Modern western interpreters often seek a clear, logical system of theology rather than being fair with an ambiguous, symbolic, dramatic genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature. This truth is expressed well by Ralph P. Martin in his article, “Approaches to New Testament Exegesis,” in the book New Testament Interpretation, edited by I. Howard Marshall:

“Unless we recognize the dramatic quality of this writing and recall the way in which language is being used as a vehicle to express religious truth, we shall grievously err in our understanding of the Apocalypse, and mistakenly try to interpret its visions as though it were a book of literal prose and concerned to describe events of empirical and datable history. To attempt the latter course is to run into all manner of problems of interpretation. More seriously it leads to a distortion of the essential meaning of apocalyptic and so misses the great value of this part of the New Testament as

a dramatic assertion in mythopoetic language of the sovereignty of God in Christ and the paradox of his rule which blends might and love (cf. 5:5,6; the Lion is the Lamb)” (p. 235).

 

W. Randolph Tate in his book Biblical Interpretations said:

“No other genre of the Bible has been so fervently read with such depressing results as apocalypse, especially the books of Daniel and Revelation. This genre had suffered from a disastrous history of misinterpretation due to a fundamental misunderstanding of its literary forms, structure, and purpose. Because of its very claim to reveal what is shortly to happen, apocalypse has been viewed as a road map into and a blueprint of the future. The tragic flaw in this view is the assumption that the books’ frame of reference is the reader’s contemporary age rather than the author’s. This misguided approach to apocalypse (particularly Revelation) treats the work as if it were a cryptogram by which contemporary events can be used to interpret the symbol of the text. . .First, the interpreter must recognize that apocalyptic communicates its messages through symbolism. To interpret a symbol literally when it is metaphoric is simply to misinterpret. The issue is not whether the events in apocalyptic are historical. The events may be historical; they may have really happened, or might happen, but the author presents events and communicates meaning through images and archetypes” (p. 137).

 

From Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, edited by Ryken, Wilhost and Longman III:

“Today’s readers are often puzzled and frustrated by this genre. The unexpected imagery and out-of-this-world experiences seem bizarre and out of sync with most of Scripture. Taking this literature at face value leaves many readers scrambling to determine ‘what will happen when,’ thus missing the intent of the apocalyptic message” (p. 35).

 

(Return to Index)

---

 

SPECIAL TOPIC: OT PROPHECY

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Opening Statements

1. The believing community does not agree on how to interpret prophecy. Other truths have been established as to an orthodox position throughout the centuries, but not this one.

2. There are several well defined stages of OT prophecy:

a. premonarchial:

(1) individuals called prophets

(a) Abraham - Gen. 20:7

(b) Moses - Num. 12:6-8; Deut. 18:15; 34:10

(c) Aaron - Exod. 7:1 (spokesman for Moses)

(d) Miriam - Exod. 15:20

(e) Medad and Eldad - Num. 11:24-30

(f) Deborah - Jdgs. 4:4

(g) unnamed - Jdgs. 6:7-10

(h) Samuel - I Sam. 3:20

(2) references to prophets as a group - Deut. 13:1-5; 18:20-22

(3) prophetic group or guild - I Sam. 10:5-13; 19:20; I Kgs. 20:35,41; 22:6,10-13; II Kgs. 2:3,7; 4:1,38; 5:22; 6:1, etc.

(4) Messiah called prophet - Deut. 18:15-18

b. non-writing monarchial (they address the king):

(1) Gad - I Sam. 22:5; II Sam. 24:11; I Chr. 29:29

(2) Nathan - II Sam. 7:2; 12:25; I Kgs. 1:22

(3) Ahijah - I Kgs. 11:29

(4) Jehu - I Kgs. 16:1,7,12

(5) unnamed - I Kgs. 18:4,13; 20:13,22

(6) Elijah - I Kgs. 18-II Kgs. 2

(7) Milcaiah - I Kgs. 22

(8) Elisha - II Kgs. 2:8,13

c. classical writing prophets (they address the nation as well as the king): Isaiah-Malachi (except Daniel)

B. Biblical Terms

1. Ro’eh = “seer,” I Sam. 9:9. This reference itself shows the transition to the term Nabi. Ro’eh is from the general term “to see.” This person understood God’s ways and plans and was consulted to ascertain God’s will in a matter.

2. Hozeh = “seer,” II Sam. 24:11. It is basically a synonym of Ro’eh. It is from a rarer term “to see.” The participled form is used most often to refer to prophets (i.e., “to behold”).

3. Nabi’ = “prophet,” cognate of Akkadian verb Nabu = “to call” and Arabic Naba’a = “to announce.” This is the most common term in the Old Testament to designate a prophet. It is used over 300 times. The exact etymology is uncertain but “to call” at present seems the best option. Possibly the best understanding comes from YHWH’s description of Moses’

relationship to Pharaoh through Aaron (cf. Exod. 4:10-16; 7:1; Deut. 5:5. A prophet is someone who speaks for God to His people (Amos 3:8; Jer. 1:7,17; Ezek. 3:4.)

4. All three terms are used of the prophet’s office in I Chr. 29:29; Samuel - Ro’eh; Nathan - Nabi’ and Gad - Hozeh.

5. The phrase, ‘ish ha - ‘elohim, “Man of God,” is also a broader designation for a speaker for God. It is used some 76 times in the OT in the sense of “prophet.”

6. The term “prophet” is Greek in origin. It comes from: (1) pro = “before” or “for” and

(2) phemi = “to speak.”

II. DEFINITION OF PROPHECY

A. The term “prophecy” had a wider semantic field in Hebrew than in English. The history books of Joshua through Kings (except Ruth) are labeled by the Jews as “the former prophets.” Both Abraham (Gen. 20:7; Ps. 105:5) and Moses (Deut. 18:18) are designated as prophets (also Miriam, Exod. 15:20). Therefore, beware of an assumed English definition!

B. “Propheticism may legitimately be defined as that understanding of history which accepts meaning only in terms of divine concern, divine purpose, divine participation,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, p. 896.

C. “The prophet is neither a philosopher nor a systematic theologian, but a covenant mediator who delivers the word of God to His people in order to shape their futur