Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Uncategorized

  • 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.

  • 1 Corinthians 12-14

    These three chapters are the most critical chapters in the Bible in reference to spiritual gifts, and they are not actually primarily intended to teach about them. We tend to read the three chapters separately, especially because 1 Corinthians 13 is such a wonderful composition by itself. Chapter 12 is often treated as an essay on gifts, 13 on love, and 14 on order in the church service. But the three are intended to go together as a unit, and that unit fits into the overall theme of the book of 1 Corinthians.

    Paul is dealing with the problems in the church at Corinth. They have become divided, and the main cause is spiritual pride based on various distinctions in the church. In these three chapters Paul talks first about unity, illustrated by the fact that all the gifts are needed, yet they are divided amongst the member of the church. The church needs to work together in order to make all the gifts available. Spirituality is determined not by which gift a member has, but rather by the fact that they work under the control of one spirit, the Holy Spirit.

    The test for the Spirit at work is then covered in 1 Corinthians 13, which tells us about love. The one Spirit works in accordance with love. (I discussed this same test from another perspective in my post Complementarian Translation.) Chapter 14 continues this thought by showing how the gifts would display themselves in public worship in accordance with the principles already described.

    In several posts following this one I’m going to present some notes on 1 Corinthians 12-14 and also on other passages related to the gifts of the Spirit. I won’t provide a directory here. To find all the posts look at category 1 Corinthians.

    (Added May 17, 2018)

    Follow-up notes:

    1 Corinthians 12-14 Greek Terms

    Notes on 1 Corinthians 12

    Notes on 1 Corinthians 13

    1 Corinthians 14

    Background:

    An Alternative Outline for 1 Corinthians

  • Mission and Prosperity

    In God’s economy, there is never prosperity without mission.

    I’ve been thinking about this in the last few days in connection with a number of issues, and I think it is a scriptural principle. I think you can replace “prosperity” with other terms of blessing, such as peace, joy, and fulfilment. This is where, in my opinion, modern prosperity preachers are missing the point. It’s not that they don’t mention mission, it’s that they put prosperity in the first place, and then mission follows after. I believe God puts mission first.

    Is this Biblical? Let’s look at a few examples.

    Many of my friends frequently remind me to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122:6). Now I don’t want to diminish in any way the need to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. But there is some baggage that comes along here. Read the rest of Psalm 122. You will find there a call for worship, a call for obedience, a call to carry out justice, and the call for prayer itself is aimed directly at the house of God and the presence of God. Mission is implicit throughout the passage. This is not an either/or situation. The peace of Jerusalem does not occur in scripture without justice and righteousness in Jerusalem.

    But as gentile Christians, we need to look just a little further out. This Psalm calls upon us to preserve centers of worship, to be glad to go into the presence of God, and to aim our prayers in that direction. Don’t miss the physical Jerusalem over in Israel, but don’t miss the presence of God here and now either.

    A friend once told me that praying for Jerusalem was a way to get a cheap blessing. But I don’t think there is such a thing as cheap blessing. The blessing has to go with commitment. A friend of mine passed a way a couple of years ago. She was a friend of Israel, and definitely prayed for the peace of Jerusalem. One time when she returned from Israel she came back with a new understanding and sympathy for the Palestinians as well. Her love of Israel was undiminished, but God had made a place in her heart for someone more. I could sense the blessing and the anointing that resulted from that growth. Her prayers were not cheap prayers, nor were they a means to an end. She not only prayed for the peace of Jerusalem, she invested heart and soul, time and money in it.

    Some may think the mission in Psalm 122, as clearly as I see it, is not so clear. Let’s look at a couple more passages from the time of the exile. Isaiah announced:

    ?6? I am the Lord, I have called you in righteousness,
    I have taken you by the hand and kept you;
    I have given you as a covenant to the people,?a?
    a light to the nations,
    ?7? to open the eyes that are blind,
    to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
    from the prison those who sit in darkness.
    ?8? I am the Lord, that is my name;
    my glory I give to no other,
    nor my praise to idols.
    ?9? See, the former things have come to pass,
    and new things I now declare;
    before they spring forth,
    I tell you of them.

    Isaiah 42:6 (NRSV)

    Note the call and the covenant are brought in a context of mission. God affirmed the same thing through Ezekiel when he said:

    Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. — Ezekiel 36:22

    I commend all of Ezekiel 36 to you to read.

    But why should this be at all surprising? The concept goes back to Abraham who is told that God will bless him and that he will be a blessing. From that first call, blessing came with mission, and mission was the focus of blessing.

    Jesus expressed the same concept when he said:

    First look for God’s kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. — Matthew 6:33

    Notice the focus! Mission is at the center, and “all these things” follow from mission.

    If you are praying for peace, prosperity, joy, or any blessing, and feel that you are not receiving it, perhaps you need to consider two possibilities. First, God may be working on you, preparing you for mission. With him, the kingdom comes first. But second, it may be possible that you haven’t gotten the mission, you haven’t gotten the vision, and thus the blessings can’t follow. God isn’t going to give you the blessings of a great and powerful mission for you to hoard.

    Get the mission, catch the vision, the blessings follow.

  • A Mighty Man

    My wife used one of my radio broadcasts from Running Toward the Goal (no longer on the air) for her devotional for tomorrow morning. In it, I discuss Gideon as a “mighty man.” We tend to remember Gideon for his great deeds, but his story doesn’t start out so auspiciously. I wanted to call attention to this post because I recently wrote about the honor roll of faith in Hebrews 11.

    Some people are concerned with my approach to Hebrews 11, believing I’m calling the writer of Hebrews a liar. Now I am certainly calling him a preacher, with just a little bit of the politician that is necessary in exhortation. When you are exhorting a group of people to do something, you have to give them the impression that they can do it.

    The particular approach of Hebrews 11 is to tell the faith story of a number of known characters, people who were described in their original histories as people with normal human weaknesses, but who nonetheless were used by God in exceptional ways. Gideon is one such.

    If God can use Gideon, he can use me!

  • Genesis 4: The Two Lines

    While Genesis 1:1-2:3 (or 4a) comes from the Priestly source and continues with Genesis 5, our first dose of the Yahwist begins with Genesis 2:4 and goes through the end of chapter 4. We have plenty of opportunity to see the difference between the two sources. The Yahwistic story will pick up with the description of a world totally overcome by evil in Genesis 6:5 (6:1-4 are added from another source).

    Thus while we often call Genesis 3 the story of the fall, it would perhaps be more proper to call Genesis 3, 4, and then 6:5-8 the full story of the fall, the descent of the earth from “good” to “totally evil.”

    Genesis 4 thus provides the link between the initial separation from God and the resulting fear that is told in chapter three, and the near total corruption of chapter 6. In chapter four we see that there are two types of people, which are presented as two successions. One group is God-pleasing, and the other is in rebellion.

    1Adam had sex with his wife Eve, and she got pregnant and gave birth to Cain, because she said, “I have produced a man with YHWH’s help.” 2Again she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Able was a shepherd, but Cain was a farmer.

    This is the simple introduction. Hebrew narrative is sparse, and you have to pay attention. We have two boys and they follow different professions.

    3After a time Cain brought some of the fruit that the ground produced as a gift to YHWH, 4and Abel brought something as well, from the firstborn of his flock and from their fatty portions. And YHWH favored Abel and his gift, 5but he did not look with favor on Cain or on his gift. So Cain became very angry and his face fell.

    There are a couple of hints here, but no definitive statement of why God favored Abel’s offering, but did not favor Cains. Some would claim that Cain needed to bring a blood sacrifice, and his fault was bringing agricultural products. But there has been no command up to this time about what to sacrifice. Another suggestion is that Abel is said to have brought the firstborn, whereas that is not specified about Cain. But considering the normally sparse nature of Hebrew narrative, I’m not sure that is significant. I think the intent of the story is that each brought an offering from the results of their profession.

    God’s displeasure is not specified, but Cain’s response, I think, suggests the reason. Cain’s heart was not in the right place.

    6And YHWH said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7If you do well, you will be lifted up, but if not, there is sin waiting at the door. It desires you, but you must take it under your rule.”

    I see this as an indication that God was not implacably opposed to Cain, but rather that Cain was opposed to God. The rejection of the sacrifice was a symptom, but the disease was the sin waiting at the door. As we see from the continued story, Cain does indeed let that sin rule over him.

    8Cain spoke to Abel his brother, and when they were in the field, Cain rose up and kill his brother Abel.

    There is only a small distance between the sin lying at the door and death, in this case murder. I like the economy of the Hebrew text. Some translations try to supply what Cain said, but the Hebrew is simpler. I could have translated “Cain had words with Abel” but I’m not sure that even that not an addition to the thought. This may simply be an indication that Cain’s action in murdering Abel was premeditated. He set it up.

    9And YHWH said to Cain, “Where is Abel, your brother?”

    But he said, “I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

    People are famous for different things. Cain is famous for this response to God’s question. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” In this way Cain seeks to deflect God from the real issue–premeditated murder on Cain’s part.

    10Then YHWH said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is calling to me from the ground!” 11Now you are cursed from the ground because it has opened its mouth to receive the blood of your brother from your hand. 12When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer give you its strength. You will be a fugitive and without purpose in the land.”

    13And Cain told YHWH, “My punishment is more than I can stand! 14Look! You’re making me leave the very surface of the ground, and I will be hidden from your face, and I will be a fugitive and without purpose in the land, and anyone who finds me will kill me.”

    15But YHWH said to him, “So let anyone who kills Cain suffer sevenfold revenge!” And YHWH put a mark on Cain, so that he would not be killed by anyone who found him, 16and Cain left the presence of YHWH, and he lived in the land of Nod to the east of Eden.

    God is not deflected from the issue. Since Cain is a farmer, he is sentenced to harder work for less results. Note the relationship between this curse and the curse put on Adam in chapter 3:17-19. But contrary to later practice, Cain does not pay for killing his brother with his own life.

    What happens is a separation. Questions such as where Cain got a wife, and how there was a land of Nod where he could build a city, and who would live there all miss the point of the story. What we are seeing is the early explanation of why there are two lines of people–those who are obedient to God and those who are in rebellion. The myth is powerful even if the story leaves historical holes.

    The mark of Cain, which is sometimes used in popular speech as a curse is actually a protection. It says that Cain, though a murderer, must not be killed because of the vengeance that God has decreed will follow. For Cain, the mark is a blessing, an amelioration of his punishment.

    17Then Cain had sex with his wife, and she got pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain built a city, and named it after his son.

    18Enoch had a son named Irad, and Irad had a sone many Mehujael, and Mehujael had a son named Methusael, and Methusael had a son named Lamek.

    19Lamech married two wives named Adah and Zillah. 20Adah gave birth to Jabal, who was the progenitor of those who live in tents and keep cattle. 21His brother’s name was Jubal, who is the progenitor of those who play the zither and flute. 22And Zillah also gave birth to a son named Tubal-Cain, who was a smith, working bronze and iron. And Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.

    As we have genealogies of the patriarchal line (Genesis 5 & 11), so here we have a genealogy tracing the line of evil back to Cain. The victory of Cain’s line is emphasized in Genesis 6:5ff. For those who believe in a universal flood, it’s interesting how Genesis 4 can specific people of the non-patriarchal lines as the ancestors of those with certain professions, surely something that could not be if their line died out in the flood. I believe this supports my contention elsewhere (The Two Genesis Flood Stories) that the Yahwist source does not tell of a universal flood, and thus there is no perceived contradiction between Genesis 4 and Genesis 6-8.

    23Lamech said to his wives:

    Adah and Zillah, hear my voice,
    Lamech’s wives, pay attention to what I say.
    I have killed a man because he wounded me,
    And a child because he brused me.

    24If Cain will be avenged seven times,
    Lamech will be avenged seventh-seven times!

    The interesting thing here is the way evil multiplies. Lamech, with Cain’s example, continues the pattern of murder, but he expects to get by with it.

    25Adam had sex with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son, and she named him Seth, because she said, “God has given me seed instead of Abel whom Cain killed.”

    26Seth also had a son, and he named him Enos. At that time people began to call on the name YHWH.

    This is the Yahwist’s way of telling us that there is also a patriarchal line, a line dedicated to obedience to God. The priestly source will provide us with more details in chapter 5.

  • Isaiah 24-27: Basics of Criticism

    Now that we’ve looked over the text and found a set of transitions in it, we can start looking at how critical methologies will apply to this material. Will they help us interpret and apply the passage?

    This is a moment to look at some of the reasons I’ve been writing this series. Frequently, Bible students are confronted with the results of critical scholarship, but with very little support, documentation, and reasonsing provided to help them determine whether they should accept a particular critical position or not. On the other hand, they will often see denials of the results of criticism with equally little background provided. One can’t avoid the types of questions that Biblical criticism asks, even though one can have widely varying positions on the answers. Whatever commentary or study Bible you choose, there will be statements about the date of writing, the authorship, and the historical and cultural circumstances of the book.

    What do you do when one set of notes tells you that the gospel of Mark was written around 45 CE, while another says it was written between 70 and 80 CE? In relation to our particular exercise, what do you do when one source tells you that Isaiah was written by a single author in the 7th century BCE, while another says it has at least three authors dating from the 7th century to the 4th century BCE? Again narrowing in on Isaiah 24-27, how do you respond when one source says this is a scattered collection of unrelated sayings that has obviously suffered in editing and transmission, while another tells you that this passage is a coherent whole with a single theme carefully presented?

    You can, as some people do, take the word of the scholar who is most similar to your theological viewpoint, you could throw up your hands and say, “Nobody knows!” or you can dig in and ask a simple question: How do each of these scholars know what they claim to know? That is the purpose of delving into critical methology. How does someone come to any of these conclusions?

    Let’s think briefly about the gospel of Mark. There are two major areas of disagreement that alter the way scholars date Mark. The first is their solution to the synoptic problem. If someone believes that Mark is one of the sources for Matthew and Luke, he will clearly have to date it before Matthew and Luke. The second major issue is found in the relationship of the text to the destruction of Jerusalem. This is not only an issue of whether predictive prophecy is possible, but also whether the text of Mark reflects a situation in which the temple has been destroyed or not. Based on these criteria, you’ll find that more conservative scholars who believe that Mark was written first tend to date Mark very early. More liberal scholars tend to date Mark a bit later, even if they believe Mark was written first. Conservative scholars who believe Matthew wrote first tend to date Mark a bit later, though often still before the destruction of Jerusalem. (This can get tricky depending on how one dates Matthew.) Some scholars who are moderate or liberal believe Matthew was written first, and this results in a very late date for Mark, since in general the same scholars would date Matthew shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem. If you look carefully in each introduction to Mark, you will probably find the reasons even though they may not be clearly set out for you.

    In the case of Isaiah, we don’t have an issue of copying, except in a small number of cases. We have two categories of issues: 1) That some portions of Isaiah are written presuming Assyria to be the main enemy, 2) that some portions are written assuming Babylon to be the main enemy, 3) that Cyrus is specifically named as a deliverer (which even some who like a 7th century date in general find a little hard to accept), and 4) that there are also passages that appear to apply to a time of rebuilding. This is not the time to evaluate all those issues in detail, but you should be aware of them. The deutero- and trito-Isaiah theories are based on an analysis of the text itself, along with a small number of external references. You need to consider the details about the text in order to express a valid and convincing opinion on the topic.

    As we start on Isaiah 24-27, I want to call your attention to a couple of my own experiences in studying other books. I did a full quarter independent study in college on Ezekiel’s call vision (Ezekiel 1). One commentary guts the call vision of repetitions and things that seem not to fit into a coherent description of the vision. As I read this commentary (see the paper for more details), I began to ask myself whether the original report of the call vision would, in fact, have had the characteristics of brevity, organization, and clarity that this commentator supposed it would have? I decided that this was unlikely. A vision, after all, is not an ordinary experience. One might be slightly incoherent in describing the vision. By making the chapter more organized, that commentator was, in fact, losing the feeling of excitement and awe, along with the difficulty of describing a vision of this nature. I encountered the same thing using R. H. Charles’s commentary on Revelation in the ICC series. Charles rearranges the last chapters of Revelation because he thinks they are so horribly disarranged. He even suggests the following:

    . . . John died either as a martyr or by a natural death, when he had completed i.-xx. 3 of his work, and that the materials for its completion, which were for the most part ready in a series of independent documents, were put together by a faithful but unintelligent disciple in the order which he thought right. (Charles, Revelation Vol II, p. 147)

    Again we have to ask whether the order that the modern student thought right is the order that would have appeared right to the original author.

    The assumption behind the interpretation of the passages I cited (Ezekiel 1, Rev. 20:4-22) is simply that a description of an end time vision should be clear, orderly, and in perfect sequence. The problem I have with this assumption is that there don’t seem to be any examples in scripture of such a clean, orderly work that would allow us to conclude that this was the “normal” form for such a vision report. The apocalyptic speeches of Jesus are more orderly, though not much more forthcoming with the data, than these, but it isn’t the report of a vision. A similar assumption has been made about Isaiah 24-27.

    If you did your own outline of these four chapters, showing transition points, take a look at it again. If not, use the one I did earlier in this series, and then read the passage again. What kind of feeling do these chapters give you? Is it necessarily true that in a time of crisis, however resolved, we would feel a clean sequence of events, or would we have a slower transition?

    Each of the “forms” we identified (though I used ad hoc names, rather than those you will find in many commentaries) contributes to the feeling of these chapters. We can use form criticism, identifying a passage as a hymn or a prayer, for example, to help us understand the pieces, but they form a portion of the word picture that the author is painting. They come from different places and situations, but they are combined into one theme.

    In my next entry I’ll look a bit more at the theme and how it is brought together, and we’ll use a little bit of methodology from redaction criticism. While some scholars do try some source criticism on this passage, generally theories that combine some of the elements into sources prior to the final composition generally rely on extremely thin evidence, and I am unconvinced that such sources can be identified. The best picture of authorship, in my view, is that a single author takes elements from worship, devotional life, existing literature, and his own visions and compositions, and combines them into a passage heralding God’s final victory. The elements may look scattered to us, but that is largely because we come with the wrong questions, asking what historical events are in view, what is the sequence of age-ending events pictured, and so forth, when the author is answering the question of what it will be like when YHWH makes his final intervention in human history.

  • Hebrews 1:5-14

    I’m going back now to fill in some of the blanks in my blogging on the book of Hebrews. My series of classes is finished, and I’ll focus just a little bit more narrowly than I did in a series of thematic classes taken from the book.

    Following his introductory long sentence (1:1-4) our author immediately moves back to establishing the details of his broad claim. He wants to show that Jesus is greater than any previous revelation, and from that he will establish the better priesthood, the better sacrifice, the greater salvation, and the greater need to carry on to the end. We have already seen to some extent how he interleaves his goal–faithful endurance–with the reasons supporting it. So first we will hear about how Jesus is greater than the angels, then we will hear a little bit about the nature of the salvation that Jesus brings (2:1-4), and then again we hear about who Jesus is (2:5-18), and so forth through the book.

    In this section we will also see our author’s use of the Old Testament in his teaching. He’s quite willing to slice and dice it, phrase by phrase, and use what would seem to be minor points in their original context to make major points in his context. I’m going to blog later on his use of the Old Testament. For now, I will only make brief remarks as it applies to the way in which the passage is being used.

    5For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son, today I have given birth to you” [Psalm 2:7] or again, “I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me”? [2 Samuel 7:14]

    It’s useful here to read both of these verses in their Old Testament context, not because the author is using them in context–he’s not–but because he is aware of the context, and is drawing meaning into the passage. He can count on his readers having some knowledge of the passages from which he is drawing. The first, Psalm 2, is a royal Psalm and most likely would be used for coronation and/or confirmation of the king. The second, 2 Samuel 7, is God’s words to David about his successor, Solomon, and what his relationship would be to that king. Neither passage, in context, appears to be predictive.

    So what is going on here? First, let me note that New Testament writers are not afraid to make use of Old Testament language in just about any context, borrowing it, paraphrasing it, or alluding to it as it suits them. But second, we should be aware of typology, which understands a present event in the light of past events. As an example, let me cite Matthew 2:15, “out of Egypt I have called my son.” Matthew uses this citation as a prophecy, to be fulfilled in Jesus, specifically that Jesus went to Egypt as an infant, and came back to Judea and then Galilee.

    But if we read the citation, from Hosea 11:1, we will find that not only is this not a prophecy but rather a historical reference, there are a number of elements in the next few verses of Hosea 11 that we would certainly not want to apply to Jesus. But Matthew accomplishes something with this reference that we modern folks often miss. He’s letting us know that he interprets the mission of Jesus in the light of the exodus from Egypt, right down to the sacrifice of the passover lamb. How well that works is another matter. Our modern focus is on whether Hosea was predicting this particular event in the life of Jesus, and we must conclude that he is not, if we’re faithful to the context of Hosea. But while Matthew may think of this single sentence as a prediction, his greater concern with it is to tie the mission of Jesus with the a previous act of salvation history, the exodus from Egypt.

    So back to our text. The greatest point here is to establish that Jesus is greater than the angels. Like the kings of Israel, and especially Solomon, God calls Jesus “Son.” I believe that the royal element in the mission of Jesus is implicit throughout Hebrews even though it is not developed. It is likely that the author assumes an understanding of the royal metaphor for who Jesus is, and simply wants to establish the other elements–priest and sacrifice.

    6But again when he brought the firstborn into the world, he said: “And let all the angels of God worship him.” [Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX; Psalm 97:7]”

    We’re again working with a single phrase, and the worship referenced in context is worship of YHWH as God. For Jewish readers this would have been quite an astounding verse to quote. This verse would work very poorly to convince opponents. But if you combine it with 2:1-4, we get a verse to draw Jesus, already known to be divine in some sense, into the act of worship.

    7Rather he says concerning the angels:

    “He who makes his angels spirits {winds}
    and his servants flames of fire.” [Psalm 104:4 LXX]

    In this case the LXX quote is required. The Hebrew can be read in this way, but it is not the most likely translation. See my notes on Psalm 104.

    8But concerning the Son he says:

    “Your throne, God, is eternal,
    and the Scepter of your kingdom is a righteous one.
    9You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness,
    Therefore God, your God, has anointed you;
    With {olive} oil of rejoicing amongst your companions.” [Psalm 45:6-7]

    If I were translating this myself, I would translate Psalm 45:6 thus:

    “Your throne is a divine one, forever and ever,
    Your royal scepter is one of justice.”

    I suspect that the combination of royalty and divinity is precisely what was desired by our author again. Read Psalm 45 in context to get the flavor there.

    10And:

    “At the beginning you founded the earth;
    The heavens are the work of your hands.
    “11They will pass away, but you remain.
    They all become old like a piece of clothing,
    12and as a canvas you roll them up.

    Now we are dealing with pure divinity, in material written of YHWH himself.

    13To which of the angels has he ever said:

    “Sit at my right hand,
    Until I set your enemies as a footstool for your feet”? [Psalm 110:1]

    And again back to a royal Psalm, but one which we will hear about later. This is the Psalm that mediates the use of the story of Melchizedek, who becomes the type for the eternal priesthood.

    14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out for the sake of those who are about to inherit salvation?

    Essentially, angels are servants, and Jesus was more than that. He has really only hinted at this rather than proven it in these few verses, but he has snuck a rather large amount of typology, especially royal typology, into his argument.

  • Hebrews 11: Honor Roll of Faith

    Hebrews 11 is one of those chapters that tends to get treated apart from its context. Many people who are largely unacquainted with the basic themes of book of Hebrews are nonetheless acquainted with this one chapter. But this chapter fulfills a specific purpose in the argument of the book as a whole. Without any intention of denigrating the independent use of the faith chapter, I’d like to look at it’s place in the overall argument.

    To review the general outline, our author begins by establishing Jesus as a superior source of revelation to the Torah (1:1-4), and moving forward to discussing Jesus as our High Priest (chapters 2-4 passim). Prior to chapter 11 he focusses on the human aspects of the High Priesthood of Jesus (2:16-18), how he is one of our brethren (2:5-15) and able to sympathize with our weaknesses (4:15). He has pioneered our way into the presence of God, before the throne of grace (4:14-16).

    At the same time he has developed a foundation for the idea of something better to come, the “rest” that still waits for the people of God in the future (3:7-4:11). We have not attained it, he tells us, but it is coming. At the same time he notes that people in his audience are in danger of quitting the struggle before they attain the goal. This leads us into chapter 6, in which we have the famous passage about those who fall away, and are told that they can no longer repent (6:4-6). Nonetheless the author resumes his narrative with a statement of confidence that those to whom he is writing will not fall by the wayside (6:9).

    In chapters 7-10 he goes into more detail about the priesthood, developing the divine aspects, and the reasons why the priesthood of Jesus is better than the old priesthood. He ends chapter 10 with more admonitions to endure to the end. This endurance is based on the better promises and the faithful one who promised (10:19-25).

    But then he turns back the clock again and looks at this faith/faithfulness. There is a repetition in Hebrews 11 of the phrase “by faith,” and we need to broaden our conception of the word “faith” here to understand the full meaning. Faith is not merely a loose assent to a proposition; it is putting one’s confidence in that. Thus, “do not throw away your confidence (or boldness)” (10:35), this confidence being a result of putting one’s full trust in the way that has been provided. So we go all the way back to Abel (11:4), and we see that he worked also “by faith.” In the view of our author, Abel did not have what his readers have; he didn’t have any of the intervening revelation. He didn’t have the ultimate revelation that came through Jesus Christ. But he put his trust in God and was able to please him.

    This formula is repeated throughout the chapter. This is the cheerleader’s approach of pointing out all the prior victories and all the other people who have done what the readers are being called upon to do and saying, “Yes! You can do it! Just keep your confidence!” All these men and women of faith succeeded in pleasing God, even though they were much further from the reward and didn’t see even as much as the readers have seen themselves.

    But there is an additional element. Try looking at the stories of many of these individuals in their Old Testament context. Many of these folks do not look nearly so good in the first telling as they do on the honor roll. What’s going on? Is our author lying about them for effect?

    Let’s just take one example. If you compare the story of Moses in Exodus (Exodus 2:11-15), and then the report of the same incidents in Hebrews 11:24-27, the tone is completely different. In Exodus, Moses kind of falls into the situation, commits murder, thinks he has been caught, is in terror, and finally flees for his life. In Hebrews, he has a plan. He makes a choice: the right choice. He isn’t afraid of the king, but rather goes where he has to go and chooses who he’s going to be.

    I don’t know if that’s lying, but it’s certainly a different perspective. I would like to suggest it’s the “faith” perspective. The author of Hebrews looks back on Moses, and because Moses endured, completed his task, and died faithful to God, he is the person of decisive faith described in Hebrews 11. He may have done some stumbling along the way, but that’s not in the picture now. Moses endured. That’s really the point the author is trying to make. His point is strengthened by the fact that some of the people on the honor roll were not always perfect, were not always absolutely faithful at every moment of their life, but the testimony that can be given over their whole life when it was complete, is that they were faithful. They did it by faith.

    One can’t hope to have a better testimony than that. When I’m feeling that I’ve gone too far off the track to be regarded as a person of faith, I remember Hebrews 11. By faith all kinds of people made it to God’s honor roll. All they had to do was keep right on moving forward.

  • Jesus as Human and Divine Priest

    There are three passages in Hebrews that are critical to the concept of Jesus as a priest who combines divine and human attributes.

    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. — Hebrews 2:17-18 (TFBV project)

    14Since we have such a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the son of God, let us grasp our confession. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, since he has been tested in all things in the same way we have, but without sin. 16Let us approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we might receive mercy and we might find grace in time of need. — Hebrews 4:14-16 (TFBV project)

    These two talk mostly about the human attributes, though they hint also at the divine. The next one purely describes the divine attributes:

    26We now have just such a suitable high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners and come to the highest places of the heavens. 27He has no need to offer sacrifices each day first for his own sins, like the other high priests and then for those of the people, because he has offered himself once and for all. 28For the law appointed high priests who had weaknesses, but the word confirmed with an oath, which came after the law, appointed a Son, perfected forever. — Hebrews 7:26-28 (TFBV project)

    Recall that this is all being written well before the formulation of the doctrinal creeds in which the Christian community declared Jesus fully God and yet fully human. Without such a doctrinal explanation, however, we have here both elements of that doctrine. In the first passage, Jesus is our brother, one of us, having suffered temptation and faced death as we must do so, but always with the emphasis on the fact that he did not sin. Our second passage (Hebrews 4:14-16) introduces the heavenly side of the priest, but is still primarily concerned with sympathy for our weaknesses. The emphasis is on what he shares with us.

    In Hebrews 7:26-28, the emphasis has shifted completely. Jesus is able to sacrifice properly for us because he does not need to sacrifice for himself, being without sin. He is set apart from us, holy, so he can approach God. But then there is that other aspect; because he is our brother, he can also invite us to approach God with equal boldness. The approach to the throne of grace is made possible by the divine-human combination in the new high priest.

    Let’s tie this in as well to the interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6. There we have a dire warning of destruction for anyone who falls away. But that warning can only be heard in the light of this encouragement. God, presented to us in the person of Jesus, is able to sympathize with our weaknesses, because he has seen them in action and suffered their testing. The intended message is one of great hope but yet serious warning. The author of Hebrews believes we will never get a better invitation than this.