Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Uncategorized

  • Genesis 6:1-4: Sons of God and Human Beings

    These four verses provide a rather unusual interlude, coming between the genealogy of the patriarchal line in chapter five, and the story of the flood that truly begins in verse 5. I’m attributing them to the redactor who combined the J and P sources of the flood, though I think they work better with the P source. This is not the standard interpretation. The reason I suggest it is that:

    1. The style is neither that of J or P, despite the use of YHWH as the divine name.
    2. The instance of YHWH could well be the work of the redactor.
    3. The J source has explained the presence of evil in the world through the fall of chapter 3 and Cain’s sin of chapter 4.

    I could easily be wrong about all that, but it’s just a quick suggestion. Now to the interpretation.

    Wherever it started, this passage fits quite well into the final form of the story, giving us a reason for God’s action in sending the flood.

    1Now when human beings began to get numerous all over the land, and they gave birth to daughters, 2the sons of God {or “sons of the gods” or “divine beings} saw the daughters of the human beings. They saw that they were good looking, and they took wives for themselves from whomever they chose.

    There are three major suggestions for the meaning of “sons of God.” Before I list those, let me note that the translation could be “sons of the gods” as well, and that this would present the option of “divine beings.” The three major options are:

    1. The sons of the gods are divine beings such as angels. (The New Bible Commentary)
    2. The sons of God are the descendants of Seth and followers of God (Matthew Henry)
    3. The sons of God are human beings who are possessed by or under the control of demonic powers (The Bible Knowledge Commentary)

    (Commentary listings are just examples. There may be many more commentators who hold the same position.

    If the “sons of the gods” are divine beings, then the “sons of men” should be translated “human beings” or something similar, as I have done. If they are the descendants of Seth, then the “sons of men” would be the Kenites or descendants of Cain. If you take the third option, that they are human beings controlled by demonic forces, you would reverse the situation in option three, and in terms of physical form, at least, the sons of God would be the Kenites, while the sons of man would be the descendants of Seth.

    I think that the best parallel to the use of the term in this passage is Job 1:6, in which it is clear that supernatural beings are intended. In this case, the marriages between these supernatural beings and the human women result in ancient heroes and the “nephilim.” At the same time, wickedness increases, with very little in the way of limitations, because people live for so long. The long lives, as noted in chapter 5, help with passing on the patriarchal tradition, but this long life also allows some pretty incredible planning for evil.

    3Then YHWH said, “My spirit will not always work among human beings, considering that they are flesh. Their lifespan will be 120 years.” 4There were giants {Nephilim} on the earth in those days, and also after the sons of God went to the daughters of the human beings and bore children by them. These were heroes, the famous men of ancient times.

    God quickly reminds everyone that he is the one that is in charge. There’s to be a reduction in the lifespan, but don’t miss the way it happens. God withdraws his spirit, his breath of life.

    (29) You hide your face, and they are disturbed;
    You bring their breath to an end,
    And they return to their dust.

    (30) You send forth your breath, and they are created;
    So you renew the face of the ground.

    — Psalm 104:29-30 (from my paper Psalm 104: God, Creator and Sustainer

    It’s easy to forget as we rebel against God that all life, and even all existence depends on him. So rebellion against God, while it may seem to be a liberated way to live, is actually simply the way to death. As we look at the flood, we will want to consider this option of God withdrawing himself, and at the same time withdrawing his protection.

  • The Two Flood Stories Updated

    I’ve just reposted my essay The Two Flood Stories, correcting some links, improving the notes a bit, making some verse numbering a little bit clearer, and adding a section concluding the flood story. This editing was in preparation for continuing my Genesis series here by discussing the flood story. Thus far, I’ve discussed through Genesis 5. Probably later today, I’ll make a general post on Genesis 6.

  • Hebrews 2:10-18: Like His Brothers and Sisters

    While chapter 2 is not the core or torso of the argument of the book of Hebrews, it is at least one of the legs on which it stands. To prepare yourself to look at these last few verses, re-read the entire chapter, and then consider looking again at my posts:

    I believe that many of us have trouble with the humanity of Jesus. It’s easier to present Jesus as totally divine; that doesn’t risk his holiness, his sinlessness, and his otherness. And all of those elements are important, as I have discussed before. In the atonement, Jesus brought infinite, holy, omniscient, omnipotent God into contact with a humanity that was anything but those things. It’s really hard to imagine. I believe seeing Jesus as truly human is much harder than it is to see him as the divine coming king.

    There are three key reasons for this, I believe. First, we have convinced ourselves that despite much scripture to the contrary, human beings are truly wretched creatures without a shred of value. The atonement should, at a minimum, make one think about that proposition. Value is determined by what buyers are willing to pay, and look just what our buyer was willing to pay. (Note that I’m not saying, “self-sufficient” or “capable of saving ourselves.”) Second, we have become afraid that the human side of Jesus will defame his majesty. Third, however, I think that the human Jesus challenges us more directly in a moral and ethical sense, as exemplified by the words of verses 1-4 or chapter 2. If Jesus was less that truly human, then we have a ready-made excuse for our own failures.

    Hebrews is a book that is not strong in the excuse department; it’s strong in the challenge department, and that’s where we’re getting here in chapter 2. Jesus is like us. He suffered (v. 10), he’s our brother (v. 11), he shares flesch and blood (v. 14), he even shared death with us (v.15), all this was not for angels, but was rather for human beings (v. 16). Because he is one of us, he can sympathize with us (v. 17). He has suffered like us, and so he can sympathize with those who are being tested (v. 18). All this relates closely to Hebrews 4:14-16 as well, which we will study more later.

    Comments

    10For it was appropriate for him {God}, because of whom everything exists and by means of whom everything exists, in bringing many sons into glory, to perfect the pioneer of their deliverance through suffering.

    Note that this does not refer exclusively to the suffering of the cross, but rather to the suffering that is involved in being human. Jesus was made perfect or complete as a priest and as a sacrifice by sharing suffering with us as human beings. Thus he became the pioneer of our deliverance.

    11Indeed, the one who is making holy and those being made holy are of one essence. For this reason he {Jesus} is not ashamed to call them brethren. 12For he says:

    “I will proclaim your fame among your brethren,
    In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise songs to you.”
    [Psalm 22:22]

    13
    “I will continue to put my trust in him.”
    [Isaiah 8:17 LXX]

    Again, the humanity of Jesus is affirmed. In the next few verses we will see a little bit more about this. We can truly use the pronoun “we” when we refer to Jesus and the rest of us.

    . . . and again 14Since then the children share blood and flesh, he himself likewise shares the same things. In this way, by means of death he can do away with the one who has the power of death, namely the devil.

    It’s interesting that we usually talk about the lies the Devil has told about God, and indeed he has lied about God, but we don’t always see the lies that he has told about human beings. One of those unsuccessful lies was telling us that we would not die. But the first parents, and every one of us know that we will die, and for us that is a frightening prospect. No matter how much intellectual evidence a person has, there seems to still be some fear of death. That’s because this body, this person cannot experience what is beyond. As Christians we have a great hope.

    Jesus is the pioneer. How does Satan hold us down here? It’s largely through fear. Before my son had cancer, from which he eventually died, I did not really understand this aspect of fear. In the oncologist’s office, on the hospital ward, amongst our friends, even in church, the essence of being ill with cancer was fear. That was really the greatest enemy. James conquered that fear. No, I don’t mean that he was no longer afraid at all, but he didn’t let it stop him. He was able to live those last months of his life. Why? Because Jesus gave him that power. The pioneer had gone before. When he died there was sorrow, but there was also peace.

    15So he can release those who were subject to servitude all their lives by fear of death.

    The problem here is that the fear of death prevents us from living. Our lives are stolen away from us not by death, though that terminates this life, but by the constant fear of death along the way. The resurrection gives us another option.

    16For clearly he is not concerned with angels, but rather with the seed of Abraham.

    We are further reminded that all of this discussion is truly of human beings and not of angels. There are twin dangers. On the one hand we can decide we’re good enough on our own, and not seek salvation. On the other we can decide we’re not good enough even for God to rescue.

    17For this reason it was necessary for him to be like his brethren in all ways, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest concerning divine matters {matters dealing with God} in order to cleanse the sins of the people. 18Because he was tested by the things he suffered, he is able to sympathize with those who are tested.

    Notice this “like his brethren in all ways.” I think that Jesus left behind the powers of divinity, but not the character of God. He lived as human beings must live. He grew (Luke 2:52) and he agonized in prayer even in Gethsemane. I think he had to learn of God’s plan as we do, listening to the Holy Spirit. This was not because he was, in fact, less than God, but rather because, though he was God, he chose not to exercise those extra powers of divinity and to depend on the Father for that guidance and that power.

    Thus he becomes not only capable of being our pioneer, he becomes a challenge to everyone. Can we depend on the Father in the way that Jesus did? Can we submit so totally to God’s will that nothing will take us aside? That’s the challenge of this chapter.

  • Hebrews 2:5-9: Lower than the Angels

    I’m finally getting back to my series on Hebrews. I apologize for the delay. I will also be posting new entries soon in the series on Isaiah 24-27 and Genesis, where we will be going to chapter 6. In the meantime . . .

    I’m taking a very short piece of a passage for this entry to try to keep things at a workable length. I will tie this into the larger message of chapter 2, which deals with Jesus as an appropriate savior because he is like us as humans. We’ve already looked at part of this in discussing the human and divine aspects of the priesthood of Jesus.

    5Now it was not to angels that he {God} subjected the world to come, which we are discussing. 6Rather, somewhere it is affirmed:

    “What is man that you remember him,
    or the son of man that you are concerned with him?
    7You made him lower than the angels for a little while;
    You crowned him with glory and honor.
    8You placed everything in subjection under his feet.”
    [Psalm 8:5-7 LXX]

    Now in subjecting everything to him, he leaves nothing that is not subject. Yet now we do not yet see everything subject to him. 9But in the phrase “a little while less than the angels” we see Jesus, through the suffering of death, “crowned with glory and honor,” in order that by the grace of God he might taste death on behalf of everyone. — Hebrews 2:5-9 (TFBV)

    Let me outline the message first, and then discuss a couple of interesting problems. Having established in chapter 1 that Jesus is greater than the angels, our author is about to tell us that Jesus is (or was) lower than the angels. You could do worse than to take as your outline Philippians 2:5-11. Jesus is first greater than the angels, then God made him lower “for a little while” and then after that he is crowned with glory and honor. While the sequence is not established here, in both cases “crowned with glory and honor” is inextricably linked with being temporarily made lower than the angels, i.e. a human in all ways.

    Our author gets the words for this from Psalm 8. Now if you have a couple of different translations, or if you know both Greek and Hebrew, you may encounter an interesting problem. The NASB, for example, reads “a little lower than God” in Psalm 8:5. Obviously this wording is not in agreement with our author’s use of the passage. While the NIV uses “heavenly beings,” which will work with “angels” as quoted in our passage, but they still translate “a little lower.”

    In order to make his point, our author needs the reading of the LXX, which is the Bible he’s using. There the Greek word bracu, which can mean “for a little while.” Only in the particular translation that he is using is does this passage mean what he needs it to mean. Indeed, though there may be an alternate reading in some undiscovered Hebrew manuscript, this is not a probable translation of the Hebrew text as we have it.

    There are two elements of difference. First, does the verse mean “a little” or “for a little while.” Does this speak of someone who, for a period of time, became lower than the angels, or does it speak of someone who is, by nature, a little bit lower. Second, is it “angels” or “God”?

    The Hebrew word here is “elohim” which is plural in form, but may be singular of plural in meaning. I think that it is rarely correct to translate this as “divine beings” or angels. It refers to the gods of various nations in many cases, and one could use “divine beings” in that case, but that is to conceal the normal intent of the authors which is to specify that they were thought of as gods by their worshippers, but were not so regarded by the Israelites. Thus I prefer the NASB and NRSV translation of this passage.

    As for “a little while” as opposed to “a little bit” the only evidence in favor of this reading for the Hebrew passage is the translation from the LXX. This does not mean that it is impossible, simply that we seem to have no good evidence for it. In addition, in the context of Psalm 8, time does not seem to be in view. The subject is humanity and its place in creation. God made human beings a little bit lower than himself, and crowned them with glory and honor, subjecting all of creation (on earth) to them.

    For translators, this presents a problem. Do you harmonize the passages? Do you present a footnote informing people in the two places? Some people do call for harmonization, but most translators would not consider that ethical. It would be a lie–concealing the actual statements of scripture in order to protect people from knowledge of a scriptural difficulty.

    Personally, I don’t regard the author of Hebrews as presenting us with an exegesis of Psalm 8, but is rather using the wording and epanding it into his own point. It’s a different look at the words. If the passage depends on an exegesis of the Psalm, then we would truly be in trouble, but the wording itself works wonderfully with his subject.

    But is there a further theological connection? I think that there is. Human beings were originally created a little lower than God, and in becoming our redeemer Jesus became our representative. This is one of the aspects of our extended discussion of the priesthood. As such we see a tie here between the creation and the incarnation. God emptied himself into his own creation, making himself in some sense subject to the laws of the physical universe, and even to the choices made by the creatures he created. As I go back to Genesis 6, we will see that God can be grieved by his creation.

    In the same way that he created humanity in the first place, God placed himself in the same state as humanity, with the final result that both Jesus, our priest, and all of humanity might be crowned with glory and honor.

  • Devotionals on Mark

    Recently I have been writing a number of devotionals for my wife Jody to use on her devotional list. Since one of my devotional readings right now is working through the book of Mark, I thought some readers of this blog might be interested. You can find these entries starting at: Monday Morning Devotion 7/31/06. There may be others interspersed. I’ll be reading in Mark 6 this morning and writing, though those devotionals may not appear on the list for some time.

    These are devotional thoughts and not exegetical notes. The purpose of the devotional list is quite different from this blog.

  • Christ’s Restraining Love

    12We’re not recommending ourselves to you again, but we’re giving you an excuse to boast about us again, so that you may have a response to those who boast in appearance and not in the heart. 13For if we are out of our minds, it’s for God, if we are wise, it’s for you. 14For the love of Christ keeps us on track, because we judge that one has died for all, therefore all have died. 15And one died for everyone, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves, but rather for the one who died and was raised. — 2 Corinthians 5:12-15 (TFBV)

    Look at the CEV as well: 2 Corinthians 5:12-15 (CEV). (I’m going to make a practice of helping people practice what I preach. Due to copyright concerns on the amount of Bible that I quote online, I generally use my own translations for reference, and I post these in my totally free Bible version project. But it is a project not a translation, and is not even intended to replace any existing translations. What the project does is allow me to have all my working translations, going back more than 20 years, in one place, and to use them as placeholders for commentary. So to help people practice what I preach, I’m going to link to a favored translation on Bible Gateway as I’ve done above.)

    Over on my Threads from Henry’s Web blog I’ve been discussing essentials of the Christian faith. In addition, in a discussion sparked for me, at least, by Peter Kirk (latest post and by lingamish (Is charismatic a slur?), we’ve been discussing “charismatics” and the gifts of the Spirit.

    In looking at this short passage I’d like to tie these together just a bit. To me the gospel has a simple core, which is God’s presence in the world through Jesus Christ for the purpose of redeeming the world. That core can be expanded and discussed until the universe comes to an end and beyond, but the center remains simple. A good Christianity, then, is Christ centered, and a Christianity that is off-target is one that is no longer Christ-centered.

    That’s Paul’s message here. I translated it, “The love of Christ keeps us on track.” The CEV has “We are ruled by Christ’s love for us.” In either case, Christ’s love is defining. Now go back one verse, where I translate “If we are out of our minds, it’s for God.” The CEV adds the word “seem” there, and I think there’s some justification. But the relationship is that anything that we do that might seem crazy is done in relationship to God. Christ’s love, which is God’s love manifested in Jesus the Christ, is what puts the restraint on it. That’s why in the second part of the verse Paul’s says that if we seem (or are) in our right minds, it’s for you.

    The controlling factor is the love of Christ, shown to us, that “keeps us on track” or “rules us” and makes us keep our focus on the people we serve or to whom we minister.

    Seemingly good theology, or seemingly good spiritual gifts, or anything “seemingly good” can be destructive. What constrains it (ASV), what “keeps it on track,” what “rules it,” is the love of Christ, specifically incarnational love.

    I was visiting a United Methodist Church that had a history of being very charismatic. I was soon going to teach there, and I simply wanted to get a feel for the congregation. I was asked to talk about spiritual gifts in a Sunday School class. In that class was a couple who would not identify any spiritual gifts that they believed they had received. With very little encouragement others in the class commented on their service, their hospitality, their helping, and so forth. After the class they came to me in tears and said that they had felt like second class citizens because they did not speak in tongues. Nobody was telling them they had to, but there was an atmosphere that suggested that the really spiritual people spoke in tongues.

    Now I don’t want anyone to be less joyful in the gifts that God has given you, but people in that church who were rejoicing in their own gifts were failing in the second half–being wise for the sake of others. The love of Christ keeps our practice of the gifts on track. It’s no accident that we see this command here, and it’s no accident that in 1 Corinthians, chapter 13 is placed between 12 & 14. The love of Christ keeps us on track!

    There is one more point I’d like to make from this passage. Paul doesn’t just refer to the death of Jesus, but also to his resurrection, the power of life that was in him. We can take the fruit of the Spirit as an ethical mandate, but as such it’s always going to seem a bit limp and ineffective. But when we empower the fruit, especially love, with the presence of the Holy Spirit manifested in the gifts of the Spirit, we will have ministry in power. Fruit alone, as a dry ethical mandate will be insufficient. Gifts alone will be powerfully dangerous. Gifts ruled by fruit are just powerfully good.

  • Ben Witherington on Supercessionism and Dispensationalism

    Ben Witherington has an excellent post on Hebrews and supercessionism and dispensationalism. I don’t agree with every point he makes, though I do agree with the bulk of it, and I consider this a good article to read to help clarify the theology of Hebrews.

  • Tongues and Hearing

    Adrian Warnock has quoted a section from Martin Lloyd Jones on the gift of tongues in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12-14. (Thanks for Peter Kirk for linking to earlier parts of this discussion.)

    There are two comments I would like to make on this issue, both of which relate to the Biblical background material.

    First, commenting on the view that Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians refer to two completely different gifts, he says (as quoted by Adrian Warnock):

    But, again speaking for myself, I find it very difficult to accept that view because I find that the terms which are used in Acts and in 1 Corinthians are precisely the same and it seems to me to be unnecessary to postulate two different meanings, if one will account for it all. ‘But,’ someone may say, ‘we are told that on the Day of Pentecost everyone heard the apostles speaking in their own language.’ Of course. That seems to me to be a part of the miracle that took place. In other words, I suggest that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the people who were listening were enabled to hear in their own language though their own language was not being spoken.

    I think there is a bit of a problem here in that the use of the same terms in different contexts need not have precisely the same meaning. Terms generally have a range of meanings, and we might better ask the question of just what range of meaning these terms can have. They are clearly used in different contexts. In Acts there is no mention of any problem with understanding. There are those who say they are drunk, and presumably do not understand the speech, but that is not an example of a problem with the gift in action, but rather with the response. In the Corinthian church we have the gift used in a worship service, not in a purely evangelistic setting. We clearly have some people exercising their tongues (double meaning intentional), while nobody is understanding, and thus nobody is being built up. We have individuals giving the interpretation, indicating that only some were able to understand, at least on a regular basis.

    Dr. Lloyd-Jones has a good point, I think, when he points to a miracle of hearing, rather than one of speaking. But are these differences sufficient to show that this was a different gift? I question whether this is so. I would suggest that the gift of tongues should be given a broader range, as a gift of divine communication, perhaps an impartation of God’s control over language itself. This was applied in Acts through a miracle of hearing, because that fit the situation. It can be applied in prayer individually to a form of spiritual communication, and it can be applied in the worship service with interpretation. All of these instances would refer to the same gift, but in different circumstances.

    I would note here that often in discussing spiritual gifts we take a restrictive sense, determining that only the precise application of a gift that we can find described in scripture is appropriate. I would rather apply an inclusive sense, determining the outer boundaries of the gift of tongues scripturally, and allowing the actual application of the gift to flow within those boundaries.

    A second point I would like to note is this, again quoting Dr. Lloyd-Jones:

    So if you meet people who say they speak in tongues, or if you have been at a meeting where this is claimed, and if there was disorder and confusion, then you are entitled to say, in terms of the scriptural teaching, that whatever else it may have been, it was not the gift of tongues as described in the church at Corinth.

    Adrian Warnock commented earlier on his post on this part of the quote:

    The Doctor is not easily pidgeon-holed and seems to want to, in one sense, go further than most charismatics would go by saying that tongues in Acts AND 1 Corinthians were not, in fact, foreign languages. He is eager to stress the need for decency and order, however, to the point where he believes that tongues not done in order cannot actually be tongues at all – which seems a bit strange since Paul seems to be addressing a situation where disordered tongue-speaking WAS in fact occurring.

    I think I see here possibly the result of another difference in understanding the gifts of the Spirit. I don’t know Dr. Lloyd Jones’s work well enough to know how he approached this, but it’s worth calling attention to the difference anyhow.

    Some interpreters who do belief that the gifts continue, don’t see the gifts as given to the person for that person to exercise, but rather see the gift as given for a specific occasion. One description I have heard is: “I have been given the gift of healing (or some other gift) at some times.” In this view, the gift of the Holy Spirit is given for a specific time and place, and thus if something that appeared to be a gift was exercised out of order, one could not attribute it to the Holy Spirit; that would be accusing the Holy Spirit of disorder.

    I believe it is more in accord with scripture to view the gifts as given to the individual Christian (though distributed according to the will of God for the needs of the church), and that the individual must choose to exercise them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Due to our own imperfection, we could exercise our gifts improperly. That improper exercise could involve the gift of tongues just as easily as it could involve the gift of teaching. I don’t lose my ability to teach just because I’ve taught error. I’m given the responsibility to exercise my gift properly.

    As an illustration, the first time I encountered a word from the Lord given in a tongue followed by an interpretation, the individual with the word spoke first, and then the pastor called for the interpretation. In the end, we had both the tongue and the interpretation together and thus order. But I happen to know that the interpreter didn’t really want to give that word; she was obedient and spoke, but she could have chosen to be silent. Would the Holy Spirit have been retroactively less present in the original word because the interpreter refused to present the hard message she would rather not have presented?

    I acknowledge that I don’t have a slam dunk on this, but I do think that it is much more in accord with scripture, especially with the stories of God’s servants, to see gifts as given with the one who receives them having the opportunity and responsibility to use those gifts appropriately.

  • Isaiah 24

    I used Isaiah 24-27 over on Threads from Henry’s Web as an illustration for use of the various critical tools. In addition, current events in the middle east have predictably started a great deal of discussion of end time events, and of apocalyptic literature.

    As I discussed in those earlier posts, many see Isaiah 24-27 as a sort of mini-apocalypse. If one looks at related literature, I would suggest it is quite logical to see these chapters as an early form. As we go through them, we will see many elements that are alluded to in later literature. It will be helpful to use these chapters as a starting point for understanding the various Biblical passages related to the end-times.

    Chapter 24 Composition

    I’m going to be brief in discussing the critical issues in each chapter, both because I discussed the critical tools earlier, and because I prefer to get to exposition as quickly as possible. For more information on critical issues, I suggest Isaiah by Brevard Childs as a balanced approach.

    Chapter 24 is in two basic sections: 1-13, which is an oracle of judgment, and 14-23, which is a prophetic disputation. In this, I’m accepting both the traditional division of the chapter, and the particular analysis of Seitz as cited by Childs (op cit). These identifications should suggest something about how we understand the passage. Grabbing any single verse, for example, could be dangerous. In the judgment oracle, we are getting only one part of the picture. We will have promises of blessing in later pictures. No single element gives the complete picture. In 14-23, we have a dispute, so we have two views. The question that is asked poetically is this: Is God really going to do this?

    Draft Translation

    So here is my draft translation with some commentary. Note that this is a draft translation. I use it to hang comments. You should always study from a translation produced by a committee to avoid theological biases–even or especially my theological biases–or simple errors.

    Isaiah 24

    1Take note! YHWH is devastating the land,
    and laying it waste.
    He twists it,
    and scatters those who live there.

    Note carefully that the starting point here is a clear statement that God is the one who is bringing judgment. We will discuss why God is bringing judgment as this section of Isaiah (24-27) goes forward, but there is no attempt to pretend that there is any other cause for the destruction. God’s sovereignty is strongly affirmed in apocalyptic literature, as in prophetic literature generally. At the end of the chapter we’ll see this again, as our author or redactor regards “God is going to judge” as a sufficient answer to the question of whether anything good can really come out of the destruction.

    I’m translating Hebrew ‘erets as “land” throughout. While I think there is a broader focus, the starting point of the imagery is the destruction of Judah. Other lands are brought in, but we are not talking cosmic destruction of earth as a planet here, but the devastation of inhabited countries.

    I will use color coding to indicate allusions to this passage in other apocalyptic literature, with red text indicating an allusion as indicated in the UBS IV Greek New Testament, and blue text indicating concepts that I believe appear in later literature.

    2Here’s how it’s going to be:
    As with the people, so with the priests;
    As with the servant, so with his master;
    As with the maid, so with her mistress;
    As with the buyer, so with the seller;
    As with the creditor, so with the debtor;
    As with the one who receives interest, so with the one who pays.
    3The land will be completely deserted,
    Totally plundered!
    For YHWH has given his word.

    The destruction is nationwide and indiscriminate. One of the regular questions about God’s judgment was asked by Abraham with reference to Sodom and Gommohra: Will you truly sweep away the righteous with the wicked (Genesis 18:23)?

    The answer in this case is yes, and at the end of verse three we have the reaffirmation that YHWH is the one who is doing all of this.

    4The land decays mournfully!
    The land dries and dwindles!
    Those who were important diminish.
    5The land is defiled under the rule of those who live there.
    Because they have violated the covenant,
    Altered the statutes,
    Put aside the eternal covenant.
    6That’s why a curse has consumed the land,
    Those who live there have felt their guilt,
    That’s why those who live in the land are burned up,
    And those remaining are few.

    Note the beginning of verse 6: “That’s why a curse has consumed the land.” The author doesn’t have a problem with regarding judgment as an act of God and at the same time the result of the actions of the people that bring an inevitable curse upon them.

    7The new wine is crying,
    The grapevine is withered,
    Even joyful people are sighing.
    8The joyful sound of timbrels stops.
    The sound of those who shout for joy ceases.
    The harp’s joyful sound cuts off.     [Revelation 18:22]
    9No one sings as they drink wine.
    The beer is bitter to those who drink it.
    10The deserted city is shattered,
    All the doors are and windows are barred.
    11In the streets people mourn over their wine.
    All joy becomes dark,
    The land’s mirth is gone.
    12What remains in the city is desolation,
    Destruction has smitten the gate.
    13For this is the way it will be
    in the midst of the land,
    among the people:
    Like shaking an olive tree, [Revelation 6:13, though the allusion is weak]
    Like the gleanings when the grape-harvest is over.
    [The “time of trouble” or tribulation.]

    The oracle of judgment is unrelievedly bitter, and does not make any promise of restoration or blessing. The start of this scenario is dark.

    Now we come to the prophetic dispute. To clarify what’s going on, I’m going to put one side of the dispute in normal text, and the other in italics.

    14These will raise their voice!
    They will shout!
    At YHWH’s majesty they will cry out from the sea!
    15So glorify YHWH in the east,
    Among the islands of the sea the name of YHWH.
    16From the farthest parts of the earth we hear songs.
    Splendour to the righteous!
    But I said, I’m vanishing! I’m vanishing! Woe!
    The treacherous have dealt treacherously;
    Indeed, the treacherous have dealt very treacherously.
    17Terror! The pit! The Snare!
    They’re all after you!
    18Here’s what’s going to happen:
    One who flees from the fearful sound will fall into the pit.
    And the one who comes up out of the pit will be caught in the same.
    For the windows in the heights are open,
    and the foundations of the earth tremble.
    [Looks back to the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven in the flood, Genesis 7:11]
    19The land is completely shattered.
    It’s totally wiped out!
    It has been shaken vigorouoshly.
    20The land will stagger like a drunkard.
    It will sway back and forth like a temporary shelter.
    Its trangression will lie heavy on it.
    It will fall, and won’t rise again.

    21This is what will happen that day:
    YHWH will punish the high host in heaven,
    And also the kings on the land.
    22And they will be gathered together
    as prisoners are gathered together in the pit.
    They will be locked up in prison.
    [Devil bound for the thousand years, Revelation 20:1-3]
    And they will be punished many days later.
    [End of the millenium, Revelation 20:7-10]
    23Then the moon shall be abashed,
    and the sun ashamed,
    for YWHW of hosts will rule in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem,
    And glory will be before his elders. [Revelation 4:4]

    As we move forward through chapters 24-27 we will see more types of literature, but already we have at least two concepts that are common in apocalyptic. These are the starting point of divine judgment and the expectation of ultimate resolution by God. The final verses of chapter 24 serve to emphasize the inevitability of God’s final victory by framing it as part of a dispute.

  • 1 Corinthians 14

    (Note:  Restored post 8/28/2010.  I’m not sure when part of it was lost, but presumably during a database upgrade.)

    1Pursue love. Be zealous about spiritual things, but even more that you might prophesy.

    Greek pneumatika (pneumatika) = spiritual things.

    Again I suggest “spiritual things”? or “spirituality.”? A thought by thought translation would be:

    “Pursue love, strive for spirituality, but especially that you may prophesy.”?

    One may object that “prophesy”? moves from the general (spiritual gifts) to the specific and thus completes a sequence, but since “love”? begins the sequence I don’t think that is Paul’s point at all. He has just said that love is the greatest gift and he has pointed out that the presence of spiritual gifts do not successfully distinguish the spiritual person (13:1-3). He has proceeded to point out visible characteristics which distinguish love (13:4-7). He then points out the limitations of gifts and knowledge in showing true maturity and places love at the top of the list. I believe it is at the top of the list in helping to discern who is the spiritually mature person.

    Then in chapter 14, he illustrates using spiritual gifts. You need to pursue spirituality, he is saying, but spirituality in itself will show nothing. What one needs to do is pursue the gifts that build, and he uses prophecy as the key example gift in his point. Note that he doesn’t compare it to other gifts in general; he compares it to another “speaking”? gift in order to show how one discerns the spiritually mature person. The spiritually mature person is the one who uses the gifts to build the church because that is the way that love (which we are to pursue) would behave.

    2For the person who speaks in a tongue doesn’t speak to people, but to God, because nobody can understand. Rather, he speaks mysteries in the Spirit. 3But the person who prophesies speaks words that build, encourage, and console.

    Verses 2 & 3 establish the contrast between tongues and prophecy, but Paul is not solely intent on comparing these gifts, but on applying the love principles of chapter 13 to discerning spirituality. Tongues is personal and does not build up the church as a whole. Prophecy builds, encourages and consoles.

    Since he has established already that love is not just above prophecy, but is actually of a completely different order, he will now show how prophecy (or any other gift properly used) can be used in such a way as to conform to and produce love, and thus be a “greater”? (12:31) gift.

    4The person who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but the one who prophesies builds the church.

    Verse 4 now makes this explicit. Tongues build up the individual; prophecy builds the church. The body metaphor in 12:12-26 has shown that building the whole body is the better plan.

    5I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you could prophesy, because the one who prophesies is greater than the one speaking in tongues, unless there is someone to interpret, so that the church can receive a constructive (building) message.

    6But now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what good is it to you unless I speak some revelation, or knowledge, or prophecy, or teaching? 7Similarly, when musical instruments are played, whether a flute or a harp, how can one distinguish what is being played unless the notes are played distinctly? 8For if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will prepare for war? 9Thus also in your case, when you speak in a tongue that is not intelligible, how can anyone understand what is said? You’re speaking to the air!
    10There are many different sounds in the world, and none of them are without some intent.

    Greek afwnon (aphonon) = without sound

    There is some controversy over translation of verse 10. I suggest the REB: “There are any number of different languages in the world; nowhere is without language.”? Or the CEV: “There are many different languages in the world, and all of them make sense.”? I think the CEV translation can be justified if you compare it to 12:2, and see it as a link between the introduction to chapter 12 and the discussion in chapter 14.

    11So if I don’t understand the intent of the sound, I will be a barbarian to the one speaking and the one speaking will be like a barbarian to me. 12It’s the same way in your case, since you are zealous for spiritual things, aim to grow in a way that builds up the church.

    Greek zhlwtai (zelotai) = those who strive, cf 12:31.
    “You are, I know, eager for gifts of the Spirit; then aspire above all to excel in those which build up the church”? (REB)
    “If you really want spiritual gifts, choose the ones that will be most helpful to the church.”? (CEV)

    13So let the one who speaks in tongues pray that he might interpret. 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is not fruitful. 15So what shall I do? I will pray in the (my) spirit, but I will also pray in my mind. I will sing in the (my) spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. 16Because if you praising in the spirit, how will the one who doesn’t know what’s going on be able to say, “Amen!” to the praise, since he doesn’t know what you’ve said? 17You may have been praising quite well, but the other person is not built up. 18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

    Compare the CEV translation for 16 & 17: “Suppose some strangers are in your worship service, when you are praising God with your spirit. If they don’t understand you, how will they know to say, ‘Amen’? (17) You may be worshiping God in a wonderful way, but no one else will be helped.”?

    This translation catches the strong contrast Paul is making between spirituality which is for yourself and that which is designed to build the body.

    Paul acknowledges the gift of tongues and some value in personal spiritual life, but subordinates it to the building activities which are the theme of chapter 14. The building activities are the manifestation of love through the characteristics given in 13:4-7. In particular love does not seek its own way, so how could it be zealously seeking greater gifts? How could it tell what were the greater gifts except in terms of how they build others?

    19But in the church I would rather say five words with my mind, so that others could lean, than 10,000 words in a tongue.

    20Brothers and sisters, Don’t be children in your thinking, but be babes in terms of evil; with your minds be mature.

    Greek paidia ginesqe (paidia ginesthe) = become childish
    Greek nhpiazete (nepiazete) = act like children

    21It is written in the law:

    In other tongues
    and with other sounds
    I will speak to this people
    And thus they will not listen to me,
    says the Lord. 22Thus tongues are a sign not to those who believe, but to those who do not believe, but prophecy is a sign not to the unbelievers, but to the believers. 23If then the whole congregation comes together, and all of you speak in tongues, and someone unacquainted with you, or an unbeliever comes in, won’t he say that you are crazy? 24But if you are all prophesying, and an unbeliever or a person unacquainted with you comes in, he’ll be rebuked by all and examined by all, 25the hidden things of his heart will become open, and thus he will fall on his face and worship God, proclaiming, “Surely God is among you!”

    Isaiah 28:11 & 12. In order to follow Paul’s logic I think it is necessary to follow Isaiah’s logic. Isaiah says that God will speak in nonsense syllables to those who are unwilling to obey. These nonsense syllables will lead the people to “go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.”? This is followed by the admonition to hear the word of the Lord. Isaiah is presenting this speaking in a foreign or incomprehensible language as something done to the disobedient or unfaithful, not to the faithful.

    In fact, to make sense of Paul’s use of this passage, we need to see a bit of a play on words in the Greek.

    “So tongues are a sign not to those who are believing (pisteuousin) but to the faithless (apistois) and prophecy not to the faithless, but to those who are believing.”? The present participle here should be taken with a strong continuous element, to include “those who are coming to believe.”?

    Compare, however, the more detailed discussion by Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT) on this passage.

    (Verse 24) Greek apistoi (apistoi) = faithless or unbelievers

    Here Paul switches on us the focus of apistoi from those who are faithless in receiving the message to those who simply lack belief, or the seeker. I consider this shift of focus to be the weakest point in my exegesis of verses 21-23, but it seems to me still the best explanation of a very difficult passage which has caused commentators to spill barrels of ink. I think the logic is no more difficult than Isaiah’s “God’s going to talk to you in foreign languages so you can’t understand, so listen!”?

    Words which apply will confirm to the listener that God is present. This will lead to conviction and change.

    Paul now distinguishes between different ways of using even those gifts he has already identified as positive and building.

    26So what then, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, something in a tongue, an interpretation. Let everything be done for building!

    Greek: oikodomhn (oikodomen) = building, a key word in Paul’s argument in chapter 14.

    Some may have been wondering what to do about interpretation of tongues. If tongues are only for private use as Paul seems to be indicating above, then what is interpretation for? I believe this reinforces my hypothesis that Paul is not just talking about tongues and prophecy in this chapter; rather, he is taking prophecy as an example of a building gift, and tongues (without interpretation) as a personal gift. When one uses the gift of tongues (without interpretation) in a public place (where it doesn’t belong) that is simply pride and not building. Starting with verse 27 Paul apparently includes tongues with interpretation as a building gift.

    We also find an occasion when prophecy is not a building gift, i.e. when it is self-seeking prophecy. To be building, any gift must be used in a way such that the gifted person “insist on its own way.”?

    I find an additional point of interest in verse 26. In the modern church we use this chapter as a corrective to disorderly conduct in the church congregation. But this verse shows that we aren’t dealing with the same problem in most modern churches as they were in Corinth. Most Sunday mornings we don’t have people showing up at church bubbling over with what they have heard from the Lord during the week. Generally we come not with psalms, songs, or messages from the Lord but with a desire to relax in a comfortable seat and let someone else do all the work. We should wish we could have the problems of Corinth!!

    27If someone speaks in a tongue, let them do it by turn, two or at the most three, and let one interpret. 28But if there is no interpreter, let that person keep silent in the congregation, and let him speak to God by himself.

    This principle of building is illustrated in verses 27 and 28. If there is interpretation, there will be building, and it’s alright to use it. If not, keep silent. This basic principle is the touchstone. Paul says to “pursue love”? in 14:1, and then establishes the visible test of whether one is pursuing love as the “building”? test. Those pursuing love build.

    29As for prophets, let two or three speak, and let the others discern. 30But if something is revealed to another who is sitting down, the first one needs to stop speaking.

    Again, prophecy can be abused just as tongues can. If prophecy is presented in such a way that it doesn’t build up the church, then it too is not in accordance with love.

    31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that everyone can learn and be encouraged. 32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33For there is no rebellion with God, but rather peace.

    Verse 31 challenges the common view that when the prophet has a message from God he or she cannot hold back, but must speak it out immediately. There are those who hold that this verse means that prophecies should be judged by other prophets. Some carry this further to suggest that those who are not prophets cannot “discern”? prophecy. In fact what Paul is saying is that each prophet has control of how he or she uses that gift. You are not forced to do disorderly things by the Holy Spirit. Again, the building test is used to discern love in action.

    As in all the churches of the saints, 34Let the women be silent in the congregation. For it is not appropriate for them to speak, but rather to be in submission, just as the law says. 35And if women want to learn, let each ask her own husband at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the congregation. 36 (Or did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it’s gotten to?)

    The issue here is order again. This is a case when wives ask questions of husbands while the church service is going on and not a matter of whether or not a woman could speak in the normal order of service. I suspect that women were also not a normal part of the Corinthian church service, but that only establishes the situation of the Corinthian church. The principle involved, as demonstrated in verse 35, is one of order leading to building.

    Gordon Fee (op cit), on the other hand, believes that this passage is an interpolation, and he has some fairly substantive arguments in favor of his position.

    37If anyone claims to be a prophet or a spiritual person, he should acknowledge the things I am writing, because they are a command of the Lord. 38And if anyone ignores it, let him be ignored! 39So, my brothers and sisters, be zealous to prophesy, and don’t forbid speaking in tongues. 40Let everything be done properly and in good order.

    Since Paul is speaking under the guidance of the Spirit it is natural that he would expect others speaking under the Spirit’s guidance to agree with him.