tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71859907316708386532024-02-20T05:01:03.726-05:00Exegetical NotesNotes on various biblical passages, emphasizing particularly how they fit into a coherent whole.Gary Holthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04963527816905774899noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7185990731670838653.post-49428517744372581432014-04-04T00:57:00.000-04:002014-04-10T11:41:41.006-04:00Did Matthew misquote Isaiah? "A virgin shall conceive"Some years ago, I was working my way through Isaiah when I came to the famous passage about "a virgin shall conceive and bare a son." Great, I thought, that just proves Christianity, the Old Testament really did predict the virgin birth. Everybody should believe.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But then I did something really dangerous. I tried to figure out what the rest of Isaiah 7 was all about. You know, all that useless verbiage that surrounds the one important verse that we love to spout off as an example of fulfilled prophecy.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I discovered years ago that Christians seem to have two basic responses to Isaiah 7. Either we read it, and say, "Huh, I have no idea what that is all about, but it's cool that it predicts the virgin birth. I think I'll go back to Matthew." Or, we look at Isaiah, look back at Matthew, and say, "Clearly Matthew made a mistake. What an idiot. The Jews must be laughing at the idiocy of the fumbling apologetic attempts in the gospel of Matthew."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In fact, I found out, they are laughing--go read any of those books with titles like "How to refute Christian missionaries." (Yes, such books and web pages do exist. They should be required reading for Christians.) I was embarrassed, frankly. They really point out how inadequately we Christians have interpreted both Isaiah 7 and Matthew 1--especially when we try to use them to argue for the truth of Christianity.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Like most prophetic passages, to understand Isaiah 7 you must understand the historical background. We glean some of the background from the passage itself (not just from the introduction, but also from what Isaiah says to the king). 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chronicles 28 also fill in other extremely important details from the reign of King Ahaz.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Israel (the northern kingdom) and Aram (Syria) had formed an alliance against Judah. Either of these nations alone was probably more powerful than Judah at the time. The alliance had inflicted several crushing defeats on Judah (2 Chron. 28:5 says they killed 120,000 of his army and captured many more). And now they conspired together to remove King Ahaz from the throne of David, and replace him with a puppet monarch. Not only that, Edom in the south had attacked and had already taken some territory (Elat, Judah's only port on the Red Sea). Judah was surrounded and was losing. "The heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So what does Ahaz do? Well, he knows he cannot hold back the armies much longer. He does not have many options. He does what any ruler would have done under the circumstances--any ordinary ruler, anyway. First, he prepares for a siege. When the story opens in v. 3, he is out inspecting the water supply of Jerusalem ("the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the fuller's field"). This is where Isaiah is told to meet him.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Isaiah comes to him with a message from God: "Don't panic! Cease your preparations!" (There are some issues on how to translate the words he says.) Why would Isaiah say that? Because Ahaz is not an ordinary ruler, even though he is acting like one. Ahaz is a king in David's line.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Because Aram and Ephraim have plotted against you, saying, let us... conquer it and make the son of Tabeel king over it, <b>therefore</b> the Lord Yahweh says, </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'It shall not stand,<br />
it shall not come to pass. <br />
For the head of Aram is Damascus,<br />
and the head of Damascus is Rezin...<br />
The head of Ephraim [the northern kingdom] is Samaria,<br />
and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah [Pekah].<br />
If you do not stand firm in your faith,<br />
You shall not stand at all.'"</blockquote>
<div>
The hearer is supposed to ask the question, "Who is the head of Judah?" The son of David, ruling in Yahweh's chosen city under Yahweh himself, that's who. What is King Rezin and King Pekah compared to that? And has not Yahweh promised David that his son will always reign over Judah? What does Yahweh think about an attempt to place a non-Davidic puppet monarch on the throne? That shall not stand. In fact, he adds that within sixty five years, the northern kingdom that Ahaz fears so much will not even be a kingdom or have a recognizable people and national identity. It will be totally gone.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But so will Ahaz, if he does not have faith. If he continues to act like Yahweh is absent, he will not stand at all. (The end of vs. 9 is a strong wordplay in Hebrew, which the NIV quoted above has tried to reproduce in English.)<br />
<br />
Isaiah's message to Ahaz to stop striving, or cease preparations, or however you translate it, is asking Ahaz not to do the other thing he has in mind to do (see below). God wants Ahaz to trust him, rather than trusting in his own strength to manipulate things. Stop trying to save the kingdom and trust Yahweh to work a miracle? It seems so irresponsible. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So what does Ahaz do? Unfortunately, he does not stand firm in his faith. He continues to act like an ordinary ruler, and he does what must have seemed like the only thing he could do. He sent messengers to the enemy of Aram and Israel to make an alliance with them. 2 Kings 16 tells us how he sent messengers and tribute money to the king of Assyria and asks him to help. He says, "I am your servant and your son. Come rescue me."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is a fairly typical sovereign-vassal treaty in the ancient near east. One nation folds itself under the protection of another and agrees to pay tribute. Sometimes, as here, this is expressed as father and son. It seemed like that was all Ahaz could do. Isn't he just acting like a responsible monarch?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The problem is that Ahaz already has a sovereign-vassal treaty with a different sovereign--with King Yahweh. The Mosaic covenant is expressed in similar terms: "Israel is my firstborn son," Yahweh says in Exodus 4:22. The Mosaic covenant in fact precisely follows the usual forms of sovereign-vassal treaties, as we came to realize through the work of Mendenhall and others in the last century as these treaties were unearthed. Yahweh, the Great King, the sovereign king demands obedience and loyalty, i.e., no independent foreign policy (do not make treaties with them, he says). He demands that Israel "love" him (this word is actually used in Hittite sovereign-vassal treaties). Like other sovereign kings, he drafts a treaty (covenant) and requires that copies of the treaty be stored in the temple (that's why the ten commandments are in the ark) and read regularly. In return, Yahweh promises protection. The treaty, like many such treaties, is followed by a pronouncement of the blessings that will come if the treaty is followed, and the curses if it is not.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So Ahaz, by becoming a vassal of Assyria, is rebelling against his own sovereign, breaking the treaty he already has with God, and bringing on himself the covenant curses. Furthermore, we read in 1 Kings 16, he also worships the Assyrian gods (this would commonly follow from a treaty). What is King Yahweh going to do about this rebellion?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He gives Ahaz one more chance. "Ask a sign of Yahweh your God; let it be as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven." Yahweh is willing to work to bolster Ahaz's faith and his faithfulness. He knows there is no way Ahaz can stop his political maneuvering and trust God unless he really believes. It would take a lot of faith to trust in God and stop this foreign policy when you see the clouds of dust from the invading armies getting closer and closer.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This seems like a very good deal for Ahaz--ask anything you want? Why wouldn't you give it a try? Make it something big! But Ahaz responds, "I will not ask, and I will not put Yahweh to the test." This is a pious-sounding excuse for a direct refusal to believe. Ahaz does not want Yahweh to prove himself; he is too attached to his scheming, apparently. Apparently he would rather be in control.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is the last straw for Yahweh. "You try the patience of men, will you try the patience of God too? You don't want a sign? Well, I'll give you one anyway. That sign will be the destruction of your own land in just a few years, by the very king you are making an alliance with."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That is what Isaiah's words to Ahaz boil down to, but there is this matter of the child Immanuel wrapped up in it. It says, "That young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and will call him Immanuel; and... before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted--and Yahweh will bring on you terrible days." In the context, then, some specific but unnamed woman will bear a son and call him Immanuel, and before the child reaches some level of maturity (it is not clear whether he means 12 years old, or maybe 2 or 3 years old, or some other age), the other lands will be destroyed. And this is a sign to King Ahaz, in something like 730 BC.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now it is true that by the time Jesus was born, Aram and Israel were laid waste and rebuilt, several times over. But that hardly would be a sign to Ahaz more than 700 years before. It seems fairly obvious that the passage is talking about the invasion of Israel and Aram by Assyria, just a few years later, and the fact that Assyria did not stop there but also invaded Judah as well.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Who is this woman and this child? We do not know, but there are several clues. In this chapter, Isaiah has one of his own sons with him, a son whose name is a sign ("Shear-Jashub" means "a remnant will return"). In the next chapter, as the situation becomes even more dire, Isaiah has another son who also has a prophetic name ("Maher-Shalal-Hashbaz" means "the spoil speeds, the prey hastens"), to make the point that the Assyrians really are going to invade--before the child learns how to speak. So some commentators suggest that this child, whose name is also a prophetic message, is another son of Isaiah. "God is with us" is certainly Isaiah's message here and in the next chapter. (The name Immanuel can just as well mean "God <b>is</b> with us" as "God with us"; in Hebrew names, the "is" is optional. So, for example, Elijah can mean "Yahweh my God" or "Yahweh <b>is</b> my God"; obviously, everyone understood the latter. Thus the name Immanuel does not necessarily imply that the child is divine in any way.) If God is with us, can these nations really attack us? Isaiah is so bold that he even issues a challenge to the other nations to do their worst. It won't matter--for God is with us (8:10). Isaiah and his sons together are magnificent signs of the faithfulness of God (8:18).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another possibility is that the child is not one of Isaiah's, but rather perhaps Ahaz's own. Immanuel could be another name for Hezekiah, Ahaz's successor. In 8:8, it talks about the land of Judah as "Immanuel's land", which is perhaps more appropriate for a royal person than for some child even of a nobleman like Isaiah.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He goes on to say that the child will "eat curds and honey" when all this destruction happens. This is country food, not civilized city food--he will not be eating bread and drinking wine. The rest of the passage talks about how the country will be devastated--all the vineyards and cultivated fields will turn into weeds where people hunt animals or graze their flocks. But those few who are still alive will have plenty of good pastoral food.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first half of the book of Isaiah has a stark contrast between two rulers, Ahaz the faithless, and Hezekiah the (eventually) faithful. Ahaz did not stand; he cowered before Assyria. His son Hezekiah started off the same way (perhaps during his coregency with his father Ahaz), trying to make alliances with surrounding countries including Assyria, but it failed. As prophesied, Assyria invaded anyway. They captured all the fortified towns of Judah--every last one of them, except Jerusalem. Probably hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives. The invincible, enormous Assyrian army was at the very gates of Jerusalem, about to break through.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Hezekiah finally did trust God, instead of trying to manipulate alliances. He prayed, and God sent Isaiah to him just as he sent him to Ahaz, with the same message: "Do not be afraid!" (Is. 37:6). Eventually, God miraculously destroyed much of the proud Assyrian army, sending the remainder home with their tail between their legs. God was faithful to the covenant to David: "I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David" (Is. 37:35). "From Jerusalem, a remnant shall go out" (remember the name Shear-Jashub) and repopulate Judah. Hezekiah did stand firm in his faith.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So the Immanuel passage is a magnificent passage about God's loyalty to his covenant, and about faith and faithfulness in a very dark time in the 8th century BC. What does this have to do with Jesus? And why does Matthew quote it?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(Here I must insert a disclaimer. I am not denying the virgin birth, by any means. No matter how you interpret the Isaiah 7 passage, the rest of Matthew's story, and Luke's as well, is totally clear; it was a virgin birth. For historical reasons, evangelical Christians are extremely touchy about the Isaiah 7 passage. The virgin birth was one of the Fundamentals that gave rise to fundamentalism, and Evangelicalism has defined itself by opposing to the death anything that even sounds like it might attack one of those Fundamentals. It is hard to have a rational discussion about them within American Christianity. And yet, it seems clear that the view that most Christians have about Matthew's quotation from Isaiah really does need serious discussion. So please read on without getting your hackles up, at least until the end.)<br />
<br />
A great deal of ink has been spilled pointing out that while the Hebrew word for "young woman" in this passage does not necessarily imply a virgin, the Septuagint translation uses a totally unambiguous word that cannot mean anything else. Matthew quotes the Septuagint version. I think that whole discussion is completely a red herring, of no consequence at all. If someone says to you, "That virgin standing over there will conceive and bear a son," do you really think it implies a virgin birth? She might be a virgin now, but the implication is pretty clear: not for long. This would certainly be the understanding of Isaiah's original audience, and it causes no difficulty to interpret the text that way. So no matter what the word actually means in Isaiah, it does not <i>necessarily</i> predict a virgin birth or even a miraculous conception.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think we have to rid ourselves of the mistaken notion that Matthew is trying to claim that the prophecy in Isaiah 7 finds its exclusive fulfillment in Jesus. If that is what Matthew is doing, he has laughably misinterpreted the passage he quotes. But note that this is just as much true of the other scriptures that Matthew cites nearby. In Matt. 2:17, he quotes a passage from Jeremiah that quite clearly in Jeremiah refers to the disaster of the exile, 600 years before Christ; no one would ever have thought that passage predicted a slaughter of babies six hundred years later. And again in Matt. 2:15, he applies a passage from Hosea, "Out of Egypt I drew my son", to Jesus. But the passage in Hosea is not even a prophecy of the future--it recalls the fact that God drew his son, Israel, out of Egypt, hundreds of years before Hosea's time.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Is Matthew just an idiot? Was he letting his concordance run amok? "Let me see if I can find some passage talking about the Son of God... got it, this thing in Hosea sounds good. Let me see if I can scrounge up something about a virgin--hmm, this one in Isaiah might fit the bill." This is the way he is often portrayed by skeptical scholars.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think that it is not Matthew who is mistaken; it is we who have been mistaken about what Matthew is doing. Matthew knows, as well as any reader of those passages, that they do not make a convincing case that Jesus is the one true fulfillment. He is <i>not</i> using this as an apologetic argument--see, you should believe in Jesus, because the Old Testament prophecies point to him. Let me repeat. Matthew is <b>not making an apologetic argument here.</b> Matthew did not intend that these quotes should form a proof of the messiahship of Jesus, or anything of the sort. Nobody who has ever read them would be convinced by that argument. (So we should stop making it.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What Matthew is saying is more about Jesus than about the prophecies. He is saying that what happened to Israel as a nation must also happen to the Messiah, Israel's representative and champion. Jesus bears the destiny of Israel, he is the true Israelite, the culmination of Israel's long history. So he must go through the same experiences as the whole nation. He goes down to Egypt, just like Israel did. The slaughter of the children in Bethlehem was like the slaughter of the people when the Babylonians came. It continues on: like Israel, Jesus is tempted in the wilderness, he crosses the Jordan. Jesus had to be made like his people in every way. Israel's history is fulfilled in the Messiah; hence, these prophecies are replicated in some way in the Messiah's life.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This may seem like an odd way to think, but the New Testament writers consistently do it all over. The psalms that are quoted about Jesus on the cross (e.g., Ps. 69) are, in their own context, quite clearly about David, and no Jew would have ever thought beforehand that they <i>must</i> apply to the Messiah. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But there is something interesting happening here. One of the things that is remarkable about passages like Psalm 69 is that it is figuratively true of David, but <i>literally</i> true of the Messiah. Parts of Ps. 69 (not the whole thing) are a strikingly appropriate description of someone dying on a cross, yet they were written before anybody had ever thought of that gruesome method of execution. So the cross is not something anybody expected before it happened, but looking back, we wonder--it seems that when God was looking at David and helping him describe his own sufferings, God actually had in his mind a picture of David's greater son. God loves his son, and always has him in view even when he is talking about other things. (It is almost like a divine freudian slip, except it's not a slip at all.) These lesser things ultimately derive their significance not from themselves, but because they are like Jesus in some way.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To put it another way, David is a like a shadow of the true King cast back into history. The reality is Jesus, the shadow is David. So just as when a real object moves, its shadow moves too, the things that happen to the real King also happen in some way to the shadow, though they happen in a different place and different context. (And, for those who happen to remember Plato's allegory of the cave, here I am using the word "shadow" in the same sense as Plato did. The author of Hebrews uses the word the same way when he said the things in the tabernacle were a copy and a shadow of the true temple in heaven.) This understanding of prophecy is called "typology", from the word tupos, which means a cast or a stamp. Jesus is the mold that David was made in; David is a type of Christ.<br />
<br />
(And while I said you cannot make an apologetic argument from these quotes of the Old Testament, that is perhaps not quite true. After all, when you put all of them together, it really is remarkable that the life of Jesus lines up so well with so many fragments of the Old Testament, especially the ones quoted about the cross, even if they are obviously not the primary meaning of the passages. The literal match of the words, at least when you take them all together, seems too striking to be entirely a coincidence. This is a weaker apologetic argument than saying that Isaiah clearly predicted something and look! it happened to Jesus, and only to Jesus. But it is an argument nonetheless.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So what does this mean for the Immanuel passage? Matthew has told us, quite clearly, how Jesus was born of a virgin, in a completely miraculous way. The words of Isaiah 7, though they do not in any ordinary sense <i>predict</i> Jesus' virgin birth seven hundred years after King Ahaz, are nevertheless strikingly appropriate to it. Jesus' own birth was presumably in God's mind when he described Immanuel. God was faithful to his covenant with David then, and embodied this in the person of the boy Immanuel ("God is with us") at the time. God's faithfulness to his covenant with David is absolutely embodied in Jesus himself, the one who is truly "God with us". When Matthew says, "All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet," he is saying that Jesus' life had to be an even greater sign of God's faithfulness than the 8th century fulfillment. Immanuel was a type or a shadow of the true Immanuel who came later.</div>
Gary Holthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04963527816905774899noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7185990731670838653.post-45070070677911163062011-10-16T23:53:00.002-04:002011-10-17T00:02:15.522-04:00"Render to Caesar...."I used to think I understood the famous passage where Jesus says, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:15-22 | Mk 12:13-17 | Lk 20:19-26). Then I had to explain it to third graders.<br />
<br />
As most of you know, Jesus' enemies sought to put him on the horns of a dilemma. By asking him, "Are we allowed to pay taxes to Caesar?" they thought he would have two choices. He could say, "No!" and promptly be arrested by the Herodians who had come along with the Pharisees for just this purpose. Or, he could say, "Yes, you must pay taxes to the hated, ungodly Roman government," and be understood by his people as a traitor. In their view, he would be not merely a traitor to his people, but to God, because any kingdom that sets itself up against God's anointed must be an enemy of God. How could one who hopes in Yahweh's promise ever think that there could be peace with the Romans?<br />
<br />
This part is easy to understand. What is not so easy to understand is how Jesus got out of the dilemma.<br />
<br />
The usual way of understanding this passage (which dates back to Justin Martyr, one of the very earliest church Fathers) is that when Jesus said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars," he meant, "Yes, you must pay taxes." But if this is the correct understanding of the passage, didn't Jesus do exactly what they were hoping he would do? Didn't he fall into their trap? Why did they walk away amazed?<br />
<br />
<br />
For this reason, there is actually considerable confusion in the interpretation of this passage. Some (e.g., <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2000/04/What-Belongs-To-God.aspx">Marcus Borg</a>) have said that Jesus' answer was really no answer at all--it was a deliberately confusing answer which confounded his opponents by its obscurity. Jesus, after all, never defined by "what belongs to Caesar" and "what belongs to God". The reason they went away amazed had nothing to do with Jesus' answer, but with a clever <i>ad hominem</i> argument that he made along the way (see below). <br />
<br />
Similarly, some have argued that although Jesus never defined "what belongs to God," it ought to be obvious. <b>Everything</b> belongs to God--there is nothing left over for Caesar. Hence, some have taken this passage as justification for <b>not</b> paying taxes under some circumstances. (A carefully reasoned and nuanced discussion of this viewpoint, which also combines elements of the "Jesus wiggles out by being obscure" viewpoint as well, is <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html">here</a>.) This sort of answer is particularly popular with pacifists who seek justification for not paying taxes that go toward the military machinery (just do a google search on "render to Caesar" to see what is out there).<br />
<br />
So, if either of these is correct, why then did they walk away amazed? If Jesus answer was deliberately obscure, why wouldn't they just force him to clarify? And if Jesus' answer is that you need not pay taxes, why didn't they arrest him? One reason may have been Jesus' clever request for the coin. The coin itself was a Roman denarius, presumably with a picture of the then-current emperor Tiberius on it. And the inscription, when translated, reads, "Tiberius Caesar, worshipful son of the god Augustus." It is tantamount to a claim to divinity. Before Nero, the emperors did not make overt claims to divinity during their lifetimes, but as this coin shows, Augustus was deified when he died, and Tiberius is claiming some right of worship.<br />
<br />
<br />
This coin, therefore, is brazenly against Jewish claims of the one true God, and deeply offensive to sincere Jews. Yet Jesus' questioners seem to have one handy, even right there in the temple, while Jesus has to ask for one. Some have therefore argued that Jesus' request to see the coin was basically a cheap debaters trick, essentially an <i>ad hominem</i> argument. It shows that his opponents are merely masquerading as champions of Jewish orthodoxy, but have no problem in practice collaborating with Rome. And they stupidly fell into his trap.<br />
<br />
I find this a little unsatisfying. It is not the fact that this is basically an <i>ad hominem</i> argument that bothers me. In fact, the whole tenor of the discussion in the temple during the last week before the crucifixion is very personal and bitter, and Jesus takes his opponents' character to task in no uncertain terms. The issue really is character: are the Jewish leaders of that time worthy, or are they the sort of bad shepherds that God is about to remove? Hence, an <i>ad hominem</i> argument is in fact appropriate.<br />
<br />
But is the ability to produce a Roman coin really so damning? We know that only the most extreme of the zealots refused to handle Roman money. Furthermore, the Herodians accompanied the Pharisees, and they would have no qualms about producing a denarius. No one had any doubt where their loyalties lay. The text does not say that it was the Pharisees who produced the idolatrous coin; if it was the Herodians, then the whole argument about the character of the leaders being revealed by their production of the coin falls flat on its face. Surely, if the gospel writers meant the argument to hinge on this sudden revelation of the cravenness of the Jewish leaders, they would have made it clear that it was some unsuspecting Pharisee who pulled it out of his pocket before he realized what he was doing. Nowhere else are they shy about pointing out the faults of the Pharisees.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the idea that Jesus is triumphing over his opponents by dodging the issue is unlikely in this literary context. Imagine the gospel writers, ardent admirers of Jesus, writing pro-Jesus propaganda, telling the story of when Jesus is asked a deep and important question. All eyes are focussed on him, and then he says, "Mumble mumble mumble." Here we see the great wise man, most skilled sage in all Israel, triumphantly dodging a dangerous question. It just seems out of character. The gospels are largely composed of short narratives (called "pericopes") with a short concluding word from Jesus that is the main point, and that short concluding word is always climactic and pithy, full of meaning. Hence, I think they were not astounded by his ability to evade the question, and thus these interpretations are misguided. We have to understand the episode of the coin differently.<br />
<br />
So why does he ask to see the coin, instead of simply giving an answer? "Whose image and inscription are on it?" The natural way of reading this, and the traditional reading in the church, is that Caesar's picture and writing on it shows that it belongs to Caesar, and therefore taxes ought to be payed to Caesar. The image and inscription are a sign of ownership of the money, and therefore Caesar can do what he wants with it.<br />
<br />
Now if all that Jesus wanted to do was to say you must pay your taxes, I think he would not make some dodgy, almost poetic argument about the picture on the coin. I mean, I have never in my life heard or read anyone saying that you must pay taxes in the U.S. because George Washington's picture is on our currency. Yes, I know that the fact that Caesar's image is on the coin shows that Caesar minted it, and therefore Caesar is in control of the money supply, and therefore Caesar has the right to control the economy, and so on. But if you really want to make that argument solid, you would not start with the picture on the coin. There are many other reasons for paying taxes; Paul and Peter discuss them in the epistles, and they do <b>not</b> use the argument from the picture on the coin. Neither does anyone else, in ancient literature or modern, as far as I know. After all, does Caesar's picture on the coin mean that we give to Caesar <b>every</b> coin in our pockets? Jesus must be leaving out big parts of the argument about taxes. He wants to direct our attention to something else more important than taxes, and he is using a not-entirely-logical argument about taxes to make a very logical argument about something else.<br />
<br />
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, <b>and to God the things that are God's.</b>" If we know that the coin is Caesar's because his image and inscription are on it, then how do we know what is God's? Well, what has God's image and inscription? You do, of course, and so do I; so does everyone listening to Jesus. This understanding of the passage is at least as old as Tertullian. Contra the viewpoints expressed above, Jesus does define what belongs to God--that is the whole point of the question about the coin. "Render to God the things that are God's" is a call for those in the image of God to submit themselves to God.<br />
<br />
(In this statement, Jesus also repudiates the emperor's claim to quasi-divine status. Worship is to be rendered to God, not the emperor. Jesus clearly does not accept the Roman propaganda on the coins, and no listener could possibly conclude that Jesus has abandoned Jewish monotheism, even if he does advocate paying Roman taxes with idolatrous Roman money. But this seems to be a side issue.)<br />
<br />
Jesus' response, then, leads us away from money back to loyalty to God. This story is not primarily about taxes, and we miss the point entirely if we are looking only for an answer to that question. This is a typical move by Jesus: he takes a practical question, reformulates in in terms of love for God, and turns it back on the questioner, who is supposed to realize he was asking a trivial question when a more fundamental issue is at stake. Give to Caesar these worthless bits of metal he wants, and give the truly valuable things to God.<br />
<br />
Remember that the Jews saw only two possible options in dealing with the Romans. You could be loyal to Judaism and to God's kingdom here on earth by opposing the Romans; or you could support the Romans and be a traitor to Judaism, to the covenant, and to God. What Jesus has done with this answer is to advocate a third option: you can pay taxes to Caesar and <b>still</b> be loyal to God. He never advocates disobedience to the Romans, but he unquestionably is devoted to God as well. This is consistent with the kind of kingdom Jesus has been advocating throughout his whole ministry (see my <a href="http://exegeticalnotes.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-jesus-made-everyone-mad-first.html">previous post</a>), but decidedly inconsistent with the understanding of the kingdom that first century Jews shared. This is how he escapes being a traitor to God while still arguing for paying taxes.<br />
<br />
It is not only his argument for a new kind of kingdom that saves Jesus from the dilemma they tried to force him onto. Jesus is now standing in the very temple which only few days earlier he had cleaned of sacrilegious buying and selling, sanctioned by other Jewish leaders who had most decidedly not been rendering to God what belonged to him. Furthermore, he had just accused all of the Jewish leaders, the Pharisees included, of not rendering to God the things that are God when he told the parable of the tenant farmers earlier that day. God wanted the fruit from his vineyard (Israel; see Isaiah 5), but these tenants refused to yield a reasonable rent to the landowner when asked, and in fact killed the landlord's son so that ownership of the fields would revert to the tenants (as prescribed by Jewish law). Everyone understood that he told this outrageous, shocking story about the Jewish leaders who refused to render to God the things that belonged to God--specifically, they were unwilling to give up Israel to her lord when he showed up, because they wanted it for themselves.<br />
<br />
As with every other narrative in this section, Jesus has taken their accusatory question, and turned it into an accusation against his enemies. But as with the other encounters, he takes a dated, pedantic question, and turns it into a life-giving answer about the core of life. Jesus' response about Roman taxes in the first century still forces us to examine today whether we are rendering to God the things that are God's.Gary Holthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04963527816905774899noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7185990731670838653.post-24122188299538041422011-03-20T22:02:00.000-04:002011-03-20T22:02:36.368-04:00How Jesus made everyone mad: inaugural address in NazarethHow, within the space of a few minutes, did the opinion of the people of Nazareth about Jesus turn from apparent approval to murderous rage? Kenneth Bailey (in <i><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=XatbAAAACAAJ&dq=bailey,+kenneth&hl=en&ei=LPSCTILsA8LflgetnpCNDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBQ">Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes</a>, </i>in a chapter called "The Inauguration of Jesus' ministry") discusses this question in a fresh way.<br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">There are few extra-biblical references to Nazareth, but we do know that after the failed Bar Kochba revolt in AD 135, Nazareth had become one of the towns inhabited by the 24 courses of priests. This suggests that it was an overwhelmingly Jewish town, devoted to Jewish ideals--a priestly course would not have chosen it if it were a mixed Jewish-Gentile town. It appears that Nazareth was a town which had originally been settled as part of a plan to take over Galilee and turn it into Jewish territory, much like modern day Jewish settlers in debated areas in Israel. By settling in Galilee, they hoped to change it from Gentile territory to Jewish territory. (One theory for the origin of the name "Nazareth" is that it comes from a Hebrew word meaning "watch, guard, keep": such a name might be appropriate for an advance outpost in the war between Jewish and Gentile culture.)</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin: 0px;">For this reason, everyone in the town would have grown up with the Jewish hope of conquering the godless Gentiles and ultimately bringing in the glorious kingdom. This hope is expressed in many places, including Isaiah 61 (note particularly verses 7-11):</div><blockquote><div style="margin: 0px;"><sup>1</sup>The Spirit of Yahweh God is upon me,</div><div style="margin: 0px;">because Yahweh has anointed me</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><sup>2</sup>to bring good tidings to the poor;</div><div style="margin: 0px;">he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><sup>3</sup>to proclaim liberty to the captives,</div><div style="margin: 0px;">and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><sup>4</sup>to proclaim the year of Yahweh's favor,</div><div style="margin: 0px;">and the day of vengeance of our God;</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><sup>5</sup>to comfort all who mourn;</div><div style="margin: 0px;">to grant to those who mourn in Zion--</div><div style="margin: 0px;">to give them a garland instead of ashes,</div><div style="margin: 0px;">the oil of gladness instead of mourning,</div><div style="margin: 0px;">the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit;</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><sup>6</sup>that they may be called oaks of righteousness,</div><div style="margin: 0px;">the planting of Yahweh,</div><div style="margin: 0px;">that he may be glorified.</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><sup>7</sup>They shall build up the ancient ruins,</div><div style="margin: 0px;">they shall raise up the former devastations;</div><div style="margin: 0px;">they shall repair the ruined cities,</div><div style="margin: 0px;">the devastations of many generations.</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><sup>8</sup>Aliens shall stand and feed your flocks,</div><div style="margin: 0px;">foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers;</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><sup>9</sup>but you shall be called the priests of Yahweh,</div><div style="margin: 0px;">men shall speak of you as the ministers of our God;</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><sup>10</sup>you shall eat the wealth of the Gentiles,</div><div style="margin: 0px;">and in their riches you shall glory.</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><sup>11</sup>Instead of shame you shall have a double portion,</div><div style="margin: 0px;">instead of dishonor you shall rejoice in your lot;</div><div style="margin: 0px;">therefore in your land you shall possess a double portion;</div><div style="margin: 0px;">yours shall be everlasting joy.</div></blockquote><div style="margin: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin: 0px;">This sort of passage is the whole reason for existence of towns like Nazareth, and undoubtedly they knew it well. So when Jesus, a son of the town, comes to talk in their synagogue and begins reading this passage, they know what to expect: in their understanding, God will ultimately turn the tables and allow them to treat the Gentiles as slaves, or worse (they will do to the Gentiles what the Gentiles have done to them).</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin: 0px;">But much to their surprise, he stops reading in the middle of verse 4. Everyone knew that the next phrase was "the day of vengeance of our God," the day they are all hoping for, when God takes vengeance on their enemies. In the original passage, "the day of vengeance of our God" is parallel to "the year of Yahweh's favor", so where Jesus stopped is very unnatural: he deliberately broke the poetic parallelism of the passage. To those who know the passage well, it is as jarring as if someone were singing the Star Spangled Banner to a United States audience and stopped after "and the rockets' red glare" and didn't include "and the bombs bursting in air." Why did he stop here, just before he got to the good part about God killing lots of Gentiles and making the rest our menial servants?</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin: 0px;">He also makes several other minor changes, the most important of which is that he inserted a phrase from Isaiah 58: "to let the oppressed go free." (Synagogue readers were allowed to insert other passages or perform minor edits that were consistent with the sense of the passage. The reader would read in Hebrew, and someone translated into Aramaic. So after the reader read a phrase, he had a few seconds while the translation was occurring. The custom was that a reader was allowed to insert a passage from a nearby source, as long as the passage was near enough that he could turn the scroll to it without creating a delay.) Isaiah 58 is a passage calling people to show compassion to the oppressed; fasting and the sabbath are not so much markers of holiness and devotion to God, as a chance to show kindness to the homeless on the street, and the migrant farm workers (what Is. 61 says the Gentiles will become). You are wondering why God does not bless you, but you have not been a blessing to others, you have oppressed them.</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin: 0px;">The addition of this phrase, and stopping before "the day of vengeance of our God," makes this passage go against the hopes of a town like Nazareth. They naturally emphasized the promise of how they would be able to enslave or abuse their enemies; Jesus deliberately ignores the promise of the day of vengeance, and instead reminds them that God's blessing is for those "who let the oppressed go free," not those who wish to oppress.</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin: 0px;">Well, this certainly got everyone's attention. "He rolled up the scroll and handed it back to the attendant. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were on him." Suddenly no one was sleepy. He then says, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing," and goes on to preach some unrecorded words, apparently about God's mercy and grace to those whom they thought God had rejected, using as evidence the healings that he had done earlier in Capernaum. (Apparently these healings were unrecorded, or else Luke has reported things out of chronological sequence; either is possible.)</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin: 0px;">Since people of that day often considered sickness and infirmity as a punishment of sin, Jesus' healings were understood as offering forgiveness, and indeed at times Jesus explicitly makes this connection himself. But forgiveness to those who had violated the covenant is not the sort of thing that the Nazerenes wanted to hear: their whole religion was bound up in hopes of the messianic age being a golden age for them and a time of vengeance for everyone else, whether Gentile or traitor to the covenant. It would be somewhat like announcing in the middle of a anti-gay Christian political rally that God will heal the homosexual AIDS victims. In the minds of the most rabid partisans (who are unfortunately the most vocal), these people should not be healed. But God freely gives healing to the unworthy, whether we like it or not.<br />
<br />
"And they all <i>witnessed about </i>him, and were amazed at the words of grace that came out of his mouth, and they said, 'Is this not Joseph's son?'" Here there is a translation question: "witnessed about him" in Greek is fundamentally ambiguous, and usually in English versions it is translated "spoke well of him", implying some sort of positive feeling toward him which later turned into murderous rage. But it could equally well be translated "murmured against him", which would not be surprising given how he just deliberately cut what they hoped for most out of one of their favorite passages. How dare he turn a message about our dominance into a message of God's grace to those we hate! This translation makes more sense of the passage: they were amazed and angry that he preached a message of grace.</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin: 0px;">He then makes them even more angry by citing two examples of those hated Gentiles. The widow of Zaraphath is a Gentile woman, a Sidonian, from the same country as Jezebel, the evil queen of Elijah's time who did more than anyone else to destroy the worship of Yahweh in Israel. Nevertheless (and starkly contrasting to Jezebel) the Sidonian widow showed more faith than any widow in Israel by giving her very last meal to an Israelite prophet. Naaman the Syrian was a general from an oppressive foreign power (a power acting very much like their current enemy Rome), and God healed him. The implication is very clear: even in the Old Testament, God showed grace and mercy to those whom the first century Nazarenes hated and wanted to oppress if they could. God never has endorsed their hope.</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin: 0px;">They respond by rising up and trying to throw him over the cliff. This is not a random act of impulsive violence. Throwing someone off a cliff was the first part of the official punishment for blasphemy recorded in the Mishnah: if the person survives the fall, they were to rain heavy stones upon him until he died. They regard Jesus as a blasphemer because he has just trampled on their hope, and they regard that as blasphemy against God. This episode in Luke is a foreshadowing of what will happen to Jesus, and why. This time they didn't get him, but in three years they will.<br />
<br />
Why does Jesus deliberately antagonize them in this way? Why doesn't he try to win them over first, and then slowly try to change the things that are wrong about their belief in God? If nothing else, this seems like a terrible strategic mistake in his ministry. He apparently never was able to go back to Nazareth, making his home in Capernaum.<br />
<br />
Jesus' goal is to prepare his own people for the kingdom. Jesus consistently saw the real enemy as sinfulness within the people of God, not sinfulness of others outside. Instead of emphasizing the evil of the Romans and God's certain vengeance on them, Jesus instead called the Jews themselves to repent. (Jesus certainly did not think that what the Romans were doing was ok, by any means; after all, he calls them "evil", even here in the sermon on the mount. But he in his ministry did not attempt to call the Romans to repentance.) Anyone who calls an oppressed people to repent for their sins, instead of calling the oppressor to repent, is going to be unpopular. Imagine what would have happened if Martin Luther King Jr. stopped speaking against white oppression of blacks in the United States and instead called black people to repent for the things they had done wrong, or if Bishop Desmond Tutu had done the same thing in South Africa. (See Kenneth Bailey's book, cited above, for further discussion on this.) <br />
<br />
It is not just that Jesus called the oppressed Jews to repent. He called them to repent of wanting vengeance on their enemies. He does this here, and perhaps more explicitly in the sermon on the mount (see my <a href="http://exegeticalnotes.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-jesus-made-everyone-mad-first.html">earlier blog post on this</a>).<br />
<br />
The sinful attitudes of racism and Jewish superiority had become central to the first century Jewish identity and world view. Jesus knew his people could never be the true kingdom of God unless they repented of those attitudes, and so he consistently spoke against them every chance he had. When an attitude forms the core of our identity, any attack will necessarily produce anger. It is not possible to convince someone to change everything they think about the world and themselves without stirring up deep emotions, so any attempt to get on their good side first before talking about these issues would be doomed to fail anyway. Furthermore, my experience has been that it is simply impossible for me even to understand that someone wants me to change such a deep-held belief unless they confront it openly and forcefully. Otherwise, since it is part of the lens through which I view the world, I will not even understand that they are saying it is wrong. For these reasons, I think, Jesus did not bother to be subtle about it. It was more important, and probably more effective in the long run, for him to anger them--at least then they understood what he stood for, and what he was talking about.</div>Gary Holthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04963527816905774899noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7185990731670838653.post-46640808797733946012011-03-20T21:24:00.000-04:002011-03-20T21:24:11.130-04:00The wedding theme in the gospel of JohnThe ideal marriage gives a new, richer life brimming over with joy. John uses this as a metaphor for eternal life, the new kind of life that comes through relationship with Jesus. I think this metaphor is much more tightly woven into the tapestry of the gospel of John than most people have realized. This attempts to lay out some of the connections. Probably not everyone will agree with everything in here.<br />
<br />
The first place where the wedding theme crops up is in John 2, when Jesus is invited to a wedding. The wine has run out. It was the responsibility of the groom to provide the wine (we know this from external evidence, and also from 2:10). Providing the wine was a large responsibility, because a wedding feast could go on for days and involve the whole town. His mother, who is probably there in some semi-official capacity, perhaps because she is a relation, asks him to help solve the problem. It is not clear from the text exactly what she was expecting, but I think it is unlikely that she was asking him to perform a miracle (though many interpreters have thought she was). More likely, she was assuming he would go somewhere to fetch more wine and would need the servants' help to bring it back.<br />
<br />
What is particularly interesting is Jesus reply to her: "My hour is not yet come." If it were not for the use of that phrase in the rest of the gospel of John (see below on this), we would probably assume that he was saying, "This isn't my wedding--it's not my time to provide the wine." It is the bridegroom whose hour has come. Despite this, however, he does provide the wine, of surpassingly good quality. What are we to make of this?<br />
<br />
The point of the story is not just that he performed a miracle. Note that the miraculous nature of it is de-emphasized--the miracle is buried in a dependent clause in 2:9, and apparently it is not at all dramatic; it reveals Jesus' glory only through later reflection. John calls it a "sign", and signs in the gospel of John are never merely demonstrations of power. In every case, they point to something beyond the act itself, and the kind of power exerted reveals something about who Jesus is. (For example, he makes physical bread and then says, "I am the bread of life"--the miraculous physical bread is intended to be a picture of the spiritual bread that he is always giving.) Here, I think that the sign is that by providing the wine, he is acting in the role of the bridegroom. Jesus is the true bridegroom, the one who will provide the best possible wine and the most satisfying relationship. This is how he reveals his glory.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br />
</span></span><br />
In case the allusions in the story of the wedding at Cana are too subtle and a reader misses it, in 3:29 John tells us flat out that Jesus is the bridegroom of the people of Israel. (Note that this happens in the context of a discussion about water for baptism and purification, probably intended as a link to the water for purification that Jesus turned into wine.) In the Old Testament, Yahweh himself is the husband of his people (Is. 49-50, 54, various other passages; Jer. 2; Ezek. 16; Hos. 1-3). The relationship went tragically wrong through Israel's infidelity, and Yahweh distanced himself. But those same prophets promised a time when he would no longer be distant. For over six hundred years the faithful among his people waited. Then Jesus walked on the earth, and the people flocked to him. 3:29 explains this as the bride following the bridegroom. Finally the time has come.<br />
<br />
The image of the bridegroom takes an unexpected twist, however, in the next chapter. An important Old Testament image, deeply ingrained into Jewish thinking, is the picture of a man meeting his future wife at a well in the heat of the day and drawing water. Abraham's servant meets Rebecca; Jacob meets Rachel; Moses meets Zipporah. This boy-meets-girl-at-well picture probably had a strong grasp on the imagination because water from a well in an arid land is like the refreshment that the marriage relationship brings. (See Prov. 5:15-20 as an example of this imagery.) Like these Old Testament characters, Jesus also meets a woman at a well at noon, and as in those stories, there is an exchange of water. Primed by this Old Testament motif, and by John's statements about the bridegroom in the previous chapter, we are thinking of a marriage. But the woman here is a shockingly unsuitable bride for a Jewish rabbi: she is a Samaritan, married five times, living currently in adultery. And that is the point: the bride of Christ, the bride of Yahweh, will consist not only of the people who were thought to be suitable, but all the people who come. Jesus offers her living water (probably the same symbolic idea as the better wine at the wedding of Cana), which is what she has really been seeking all along through her failed attempts at marriage relationships. Just like the people of Israel who John says are flocking to the bridegroom (3:26), all the Samaritans came out to him (4:30). He is happy to stay with the Samaritans (4:40) as he did with his disciples after the earlier wedding (2:12). The story concludes with the Samaritans saying that Jesus truly is the savior of the world (not just Israel).<br />
<br />
The picture of the wedding is probably also behind Jesus' words in John 14, "I go to prepare a place for you. In my Father's house are many rooms.... and I will come again to take you back to myself." A young man would often add an additional room on to his father's house when he was about to be married, and only when the place was prepared would he come and get his bride. The upper room discourse goes on to talk about how the disciples will bear fruit only so long as they remain in relationship with him--probably an allusion to fruitfulness in marriage, an idea that Paul uses more explicitly in Romans 7.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">The wedding and the hour</span><br />
<br />
Later that night, Jesus prays, "Father, the hour has come! Glorify your son, that your son may glorify you." (John 17:1) These words echo key phrases from the story of the wedding at Cana (2:4 and 2:11). Given how carefully the gospel of John is constructed, this is unlikely to be a coincidence. Everywhere else in the gospel of John, "the hour" refers unambiguously to his death; why does he use that phrase in talking to his mother at the wedding? <br />
<br />
Jesus left his Father to become one with his bride, as it says in Genesis, "A man shall leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." A man starts out as one flesh with his parents, and becomes one flesh with his wife. This is what he is praying for in chapter 17: that he and his disciples may be one, as he and the father are one. His "hour" is the time when the union with his people is accomplished. It is both his wedding (which ch. 2 suggests) and his death, because his death accomplishes the union.<br />
<br />
It seems rather grisly to connect the crucifixion to a marriage, but I think that is precisely what John is doing with a number of ironic symbols. He says, "I am thirsty," just as he said to the Samaritan woman. He drinks sour wine, not the good wine that he provided at the wedding. He is wearing a crown, which the bridegroom would do at a Jewish wedding--but it is not a garland, it is a crown of thorns.<br />
<br />
At his death, blood and water flow out of his side. Commentators stumble over what to do with this emphatic assertion; sometimes it is taken to mean that he clearly died, a form of medical evidence. (Though it is by no means clear--just what precisely does it mean that the blood had separated into two parts? And would most readers in the first century have understood that?) But it would be out of character for John, in his highly symbolic and theological gospel, at the very high point of the narrative, to suddenly forsake his theological mind and emphasize purely medical facts. The medical facts are there, perhaps, but are unlikely to exhaust the significance.<br />
<br />
I think the blood and water flowing out of his side is a symbolic, pictorial fulfillment of the better wine and the living water that Jesus promised. The argument here is a bit technical, so bear with me or just skip ahead. I think we are supposed to link together most of the references to water, wine, and blood in the gospel of John; the author is careful about his symbolic references, and is not throwing out symbols willy-nilly. These all refer to the new quality of life that comes through relationship with him--more specifically, through the Spirit that he gives, as 7:37 makes clear. There is an interesting translation issue in 7:37, having to do with where punctuation is placed in the sentence (there was no punctuation at all in the original manuscripts, so where punctuation is placed is a translator's decision). Most English translations of 7:37 follow the eastern fathers: "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." Here the water flows from the believers. But by changing the location of the period, we have the western Fathers' understanding of the verse: "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me. And whoever believes in me, let him drink. As the scripture has said, 'Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.'" In this case, water flows from Jesus, which I think is a much more natural way of understanding the passage. 7:38 clarifies that this water is referring to the Spirit that was going to come when Jesus was glorified--which in John's gospel happens on the cross, the ultimate glorification of Jesus. Only with this interpretation of 7:37 is John's emphatic insistence on the water that flowed from Jesus' side understandable (19:35--he repeats it three times). It is a physical sign of the spiritual reality that because of his death, the Spirit is now available to believers. This is the time, at least in a picture, when he provides the better wine that he promised back at the wedding of Cana, and the living water that he promised to the Samaritan woman.<br />
<br />
In our lives, marriage is the only thing that can change a person's family after he is born. John makes it clear in several places that after the cross, the disciples are part of Jesus' family in a way that they were not before. Interestingly, Jesus mother appears in only two places in the gospel: at the wedding, and at the cross. In both places, he addresses her with the same title ("Woman", a not-entirely-common way of talking to a mother, something which commentators stumble over). At the cross, he makes a point of bringing the disciple Jesus loved (despite all the arguments over this, I still think this is John himself) and his mother together into the same family. Perhaps the most common view of Jesus' words here is that they show the extent of Jesus' love: even in his extremity, he could still think about his mother's well-being. This may be true, but I am fairly certain it does not exhaust the meaning. John is primarily thinking theologically rather than psychologically. I think what we are supposed to gather from this is that the disciple whom Jesus loves is now part of his family--just as the woman a man loves becomes a part of his family. John uses this concrete picture of changed family relations to show what is happening spiritually.<br />
<br />
There is probably another allusion to marriage in the scene with Mary Magdalene in the garden. Once again, a garden scene with a man and a woman is a rich picture for a Jewish audience, with overtones of the original garden. Mary goes so far as to grab him and hug him (20:17), definitely overstepping the bounds of propriety. This does not mean that they had some kind of physical relationship, contra the silly speculations that have recently become popular; but the text really does have hints of something romantic. I think that John is using the suggestive image to point out that Jesus and Mary now have a kind of relationship which in some ways is a marriage (though not a physical marriage), a relationship which they did not have before the cross. In the next verse, he calls his disciples "my brothers" and he calls God "your father"; never before had he done either of these in the gospel of John. It is only after the cross that they are his brothers, and they have a common father in this sense--they have been brought into Jesus' family.<br />
<br />
Finally, the gospel concludes with Jesus asking Peter if he loves him. This is the only suitable attitude if we are the bride of Christ.Gary Holthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04963527816905774899noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7185990731670838653.post-82723766277131691392010-09-06T22:56:00.000-04:002010-09-06T22:56:39.664-04:00How Jesus made everyone mad: first century politics and the sermon on the mountWhat Jesus' first hearers probably most remembered from the sermon on the mount was Jesus' unambiguous repudiation of the political ideals of virtually all of his contemporaries. His references to first century politics probably provoked the same sort of emotional responses as Vietnam war protesters caused in conservative Americans.<br />
<br />
Politics, theology, and moral issues have always been tightly intertwined in the middle east, and political opinions were determined by theology. Most of us are aware that Jews of that day believed that God would achieve his purposes by reestablishing a kingdom very much like David's. Most of the first century Jews probably thought that this had almost happened with the Maccabees in the second century BC. After the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV attempted to exterminate the Israelite religion, there was a revolt in which the Jews repeatedly defeated apparently superior Greek forces, and eventually created an independent kingdom and restored worship in the temple. However, within a generation or two, it became clear that the Hasmonean rulers (the successors of the Maccabees) were not reestablishing God's kingdom, despite God's evident blessing on the Maccabees' military operations; they were just as corrupt as any non-Jewish rulers. (Besides, they never even pretended to be from the line of David.) A century after the creation of the Jewish state, it was ended when the Roman general Pompey intervened in a Jewish civil war between the Saducees and the Pharisees (each favored a different Hasmonean brother; the Pharisees were fighting against blatant Hasmonean corruption).<br />
<br />
But of course the dream of the kingdom lived on, because God's promises could not be false. If the Maccabees were not God's kingdom builders, then someone like them would come and do the job right. In first century Judaism in Palestine, you could either (1) compromise with the Romans and abandon the Jewish hope of the kingdom, or (2) you could live in expectation of the time when God would call his people to fight against the Romans. Option 1 (abandoning the kingdom) was chosen by those Jews who abandoned the covenant entirely (some even tried to remove the marks of circumcision). Others like Herod and his followers did not go so far as to embrace paganism fully, but lived as if God had no plan that had any bearing on the present. Others perverted the Jewish hope into something more acceptable to the pagan world; for example, the renegade Jew Josephus in his later years argued that God had decided that his kingdom would be brought about through Roman rule. All of these were considered traitors to the people and the covenant. Option 2 (living in expectation of the kingdom) also had many variations (Essenes, Pharisees, hard-core Zealots); there was much disagreement about how the kingdom would come and who would lead it, but there was no disagreement that the eventual solution would be military. Some of these groups were already preparing for war, while others were just praying and waiting expectantly. At that point in history, there was no third option--until Jesus.<br />
<br />
The sermon on the mount is Jesus' kingdom agenda, where he announces in systematic form what his plan for the kingdom is. Jesus gives the sermon "on the mountain", which is a clear reference to Moses receiving the law on the mountain. What we have here is a new giving of the law. The old law started with the "ten words", which are nine commandments; there are nine statements of blessing in the sermon on the mount. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">(Why nine, you may ask, when everyone always is talking about 10 commandments? In Hebrew, the decalogue is never called the "ten commandments", it is called the "ten words". It is really one introductory word--"I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt"--and 9 commandments. Christians have misunderstood this, and attempted to divide them so that there are 10 commandments; but </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Division_of_the_commandments_according_to_different_religions"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">we don't even agree on the divisions</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. Catholics and some Lutherans treat "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" (Deut. 5:21a) as a different commandment from "You shall not covet your neighbor's house, or field, or ..." (Deut. 5:21b), which feels like an arbitrary distinction. Also it is not supported by the text; the account in Exodus 20 does not permit this division since the order of things we are not to covet is different. Non-catholics treat "You shall have no other gods before me" as a separate commandment from "You shall not make for yourself an idol," which in the ancient world would have been indistinguishable.) </span> Jesus says, "You have heard that it was said to them of old... but I say to you...". The old law concluded with blessings and curses (Deuteronomy 27-28); the new law also concludes with blessings and curses (7:24-27). At the end, the people are amazed because Jesus speaks as one with authority, unlike the other Jewish teachers of his day (7:28-29), who were always citing earlier sages, trying to be faithful to the oral tradition which they believed came from Moses. Jesus does not respect the oral tradition (and in fact in other places in the gospels he plainly says that pieces of it are wrong); he is the new lawgiver, and does not need to appeal to Moses' authority filtered down through the stream of tradition.<br />
<br />
In the rest of the sermon, Jesus emphatically affirms the Jewish hope in the promises to Abraham, but just as emphatically he rejects the plan of the Zealots, too. Using the words of Psalm 37:11, Jesus reaffirms God's promise to give the land to his people--but not to the Zealots who were fighting for it: "<b>Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.</b>" (Note that in the New Testament, the "land" has turned into the whole earth--see for example Romans 4:13. This is not inconsistent with the Old Testament, since the giving of the land and Israel's authority over the nations was understood even then as a beginning of the restoration of the entire creation, which is to be ruled by a descendant of Adam who would faithfully carry out the commission to Adam to rule.) Jesus reaffirms God's mercy on the Jews--but not on those whose ambition was to kill the Romans: "<b>Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.</b>" Jesus reaffirms God's special relationship with Israel ("Israel is my firstborn son," Exodus 4:22-23; speaking of Israel's king, he says, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son," 2 Samuel 7:14)--but not with those who are for waging war against the Romans: "<b>Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.</b>" This is again in line with Old Testament teaching. In discussing the promise of sonship for David's descendants, 1 Chronicles 22:8-10 says that David was not allowed to build the temple because he was a man of blood, but his son Solomon, whose name means "man of peace", would build it.<br />
<br />
Other parts of the sermon touch on the same theme. "Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.... And if anyone forces you to go with him one mile, go with him two miles." This is a clear reference to the Roman rule that soldiers could compel natives to help them carry their pack (which could weigh 70 lbs) for one mile. "Judge not, that you be not judged." "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun to shine on the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust." This does not sound like what the heroic Maccabees did, or what most Jews in the first century were hoping to do. Jesus has a different conception of God than they had. He tells us that we can infer from God's actions that God must be patient and kind to his enemies, so we ought to be the same way. No one else before him seems to have drawn this conclusion from God's behavior, though it is hinted by some Old Testament passages such as the book of Jonah.<br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">Throughout the rest of his career, Jesus consistently poured cold water on the dreams of the zealots. This can be seen in many places in his teachings and parables, if we look for it. (The best discussion of this I have seen is scattered through N.T. Wright's series of books beginning with <i>The New Testament and the People of God</i>.) Several short examples of this:<br />
<ul><li>In his debates with the Pharisees, he says, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." This passage has a number of subtleties, but no one could possibly miss the message that he endorsed paying taxes to Rome.</li>
<li>When they tell him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices (Lk. 13:1-5), he tells them, "You must repent, or you will likewise perish." By "likewise", he presumably means by falling masonry (like those on whom the tower of Siloam fell) and Roman swords (the ones whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices)--which is what happened. Here Jesus calls his countrymen to repent of their sinful attitudes which would lead to the disastrous revolution.</li>
<li>In his discourse on the destruction of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives (Matt. 24 and parallels), he warns his followers not to follow the false messiahs in revolt against Rome. Instead, he says, when you see the armies coming, run, don't stay and fight.</li>
<li>In Gethsemane, when Peter starts attacking the soldiers, Jesus renounces this kind of violence to further his kingdom, and tells Peter, "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." In other words, if you act like the Zealots, you will die like them.</li>
</ul></div>If I had imbibed from early childhood the Jewish hope of finally being free from Roman rule, restoring self rule, and reestablishing the kingdom promised to David, I would think that Jesus was being a traitor to the Jewish cause. He was advocating compromise with the Romans! He was unpatriotic! He was undermining Jewish resistance! He proclaimed God's forgiveness to the traitors! He said that God would destroy the temple, the most important symbol of God being with his people!<br />
<br />
Jesus demanded that they choose between his concept of the kingdom, and theirs; and they did choose. They chose the way of the insurrectionist Barabbas rather than Jesus' way. So, ironically, they worked together with the evil Roman oppressors to eliminate him. They were hoping that crucifying him would completely discredit him as Messiah (that's why they did not just lynch him, as they did to Stephen).<br />
<br />
What was ultimately discredited, however, was the first century Jewish concept of the kingdom. Within forty years of Jesus' death, God confirmed Jesus' judgment of the Jewish revolutionary movements, when the Romans crushed the Jewish revolution by A.D. 70. Even if you did not believe Jesus, you could not possibly argue that God supported the revolutionary movement which had ended in such a fiasco. Still the Jews clung to the hope of a physical kingdom that dominated the Gentiles, so God apparently showed the same thing again, more emphatically, in A.D. 135. In A.D. 132, Simon bar Kokhba led a full scale revolt, triggered by Emperor Hadrian's plans to rebuild Jerusalem as a Roman (pagan) city. It took the Romans 3 years of very difficult fighting, but they eventually crushed the Jews even more brutally than in A.D. 70. The majority of the Jewish population in Judea was killed, enslaved, or deported. Hadrian prohibited the Torah and the calendar and attempted to execute Jewish scholars, and Jews were not permitted even to enter Jerusalem until 438 AD. He changed the name of the province from "Judea" to "Palestine" (Latin for "Philistia", after the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Jews). The center of Jewish learning and culture was no longer in Judea; it was in Galilee for a while, and, ironically, it later shifted back to Babylon, where there was still a thriving Jewish community. Given the history of the covenant, it was hard not to see the destruction of the temple and the ejection from the land as a second exile, caused by the revolutionaries. Thus until modern Zionism, Judaism abandoned the concept of literal possession of the land, and turned instead to other markers of the covenant (keeping the law).<br />
<br />
Jesus said as the conclusion to the sermon on the mount, "Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand. The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed." They attempted to build a kingdom on something other than Jesus' words, and so the house they were trying to build did come down with a great crash.<br />
<br />
So what exactly was wrong with the first century Jewish view of the kingdom? Wasn't it written in the scriptures that the Jews were to have the land, and to dominate the nations? What could be wrong with wanting that to be fulfilled? Isn't that exactly what Joshua did in the conquest? And why does Jesus choose to antagonize his hearers by speaking so directly about this? I hope to deal with these questions in a subsequent post.Gary Holthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04963527816905774899noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7185990731670838653.post-8744618095687949822010-05-05T20:22:00.000-04:002010-05-05T20:22:44.305-04:00Isaiah 40:12-31: Who can measure the Spirit of the LORD?In my <a href="http://exegeticalnotes.blogspot.com/2010/05/comfort-my-people-isaiah-401-11.html">previous post</a> on the first few verses of Isaiah 40, I suggested that in the exile, Jews in Babylon would be severely tempted to lose their faith in the promises of Yahweh. After all, everything that he promised was taken away. They were gone from the land, they were not numerous, there was no king, God did not live with them in any obvious way.<br />
<br />
Maybe the Babylonian gods had won. Maybe Yahweh did not have the power to do what he said he would do. It looked like the Babylonian armies had triumphed through the superior power of their gods, and there was no end of their power in sight.<br />
<br />
Or maybe Yahweh had just given up on the Jews. His plan to bless the nations through them had failed; perhaps he would find another people, or maybe he had just given up entirely. The descendants of Abraham were harassed, hopeless, powerless, worn down, and sinful; nothing good would ever come from them again, certainly not blessing to all nations.<br />
<br />
Isaiah 40-55 is God's word to this situation. Nowhere here is there an exhortation to try harder, nor even to repent. The answer is Yahweh himself: his character, his power, and his plan.<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">Who can measure Yahweh?</span></div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>12</sup>Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and marked off the heavens with the span</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">enclosed the dust of earth in a measure,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and weighed the mountains in a scale,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and the hills in a balance?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>13</sup><b>Who has measured the spirit of Yahweh,</b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">or as his counselor has taught him?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>14</sup>Whom did he consult for enlightenment,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and who taught him the path of justice,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and taught him knowledge,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and showed him the way of understanding?</div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The key idea here is contained in v. 13a: "Who has measured the spirit of Yahweh?" In English versions, v. 13a is unfortunately often translated in a way that obscures its connection with v. 12. E.g., KJV, RSV: "Who has directed the spirit of the LORD?" NIV has "Who has understood the mind of the LORD?" which is somewhat better. The Hebrew verb here is exactly the same as the word in 12b, "Who has marked off the heavens with a span?" (Translations in other languages, such as German, say the equivalent of, "Who has measured the Spirit of Yahweh?") <br />
<br />
No one can measure the spirit of Yahweh--he is beyond anything that humans can measure. I suppose that the reason English translators have not drawn attention to the repeated word is because 13a should be parallel to 13b, and at first glimpse the immeasurability of God seems not to be parallel with his wisdom. But I think it is (see below).</div><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">All the rhetorical questions in both v. 12 and v. 13 have the same answer. The assumed answer to the rhetorical questions in v. 12 is therefore not "God," as it might initially appear, but "no one." No one can measure the ocean by taking up one palmful, then another, then another; the ocean is too vast to be measured that way. No one can measure the sky by the spreading out his hand (a "span" is the distance between the tip of the thumb and the tip of the little finger when the hand is stretched out). No one can measure the earth by filling up a basket again and again--the amount of dirt that can be measured that way does not compare to the size of the earth. Such quantities are beyond the reach of our measuring tools. Similarly, Yahweh cannot be measured or limited by any standard we have. In every way, he is on a completely different scale from anything we might compare him to.</div><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The limitlessness of God is summarized by the word <i>holiness</i>, one of the most important words in the book of Isaiah (used here in 40:25, the "Holy One"). Sometimes we treat "holiness" as synonymous with "righteousness", but that is a secondary meaning of the word, and is not normally the way it is used in the Old Testament when referring to God. "Holy" means literally "set apart", i.e., "different", on a different plane of existence--meaning primarily that the holy God does not have human limits. The pagans called their gods holy (e.g., Daniel 5:11) and meant that their gods were a different order of being. For this reason, "holy" is often a synonym for "powerful" (e.g., Ex. 15:11), and this is normally the case in Isaiah. But God is also unlimited in other ways, too. He has unlimited wisdom to formulate his plans. He is also without limits in his moral attributes (unlike the pagan gods), and for this reason "holy" for a Hebrew also means "perfectly righteous".</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">v.14 introduces another important theme in this section of Isaiah, the plan and counsel of Yahweh. The author does not elaborate much on Yahweh's plan in this chapter, but it is the central theme of some of the chapters to come. No human would have thought to do the things Yahweh is about to do to bring about justice in the earth, especially the work of the Servant in chapter 52:11-53:12. Yahweh does not do what we expect (see below on chapter 55). It is Yahweh's plan that drives history, a plan he began <a href="http://exegeticalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/08/genesis-1-gods-plan.html">long ago in creation</a>, without any advice from us. His plan was<a href="http://exegeticalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/07/babel-abraham-and-pentecost.html"> partially revealed it to his people through the covenants</a>, which were made at his initiative and not ours: he will bless the world through the descendants of Abraham.<br />
<br />
Yahweh's plan and his wisdom are called into question by the exiles, since it looks like Yahweh has failed. The next chapters go on to demonstrate that this is not the case. Here we only have a glimpse at his plan, but its importance is suggested by the fact that in the two halves of v. 13, the measurelessness of Yahweh is put in parallel not with his unlimited power but his plan which had no human advice. </div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>15</sup>Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and are accounted as the dust on the scales.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">behold, he takes up the isles like fine dust.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>16</sup>Lebanon would not suffice for fuel,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">nor are its beasts enough for a burnt offering.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>17</sup>All the nations are as nothing before him,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">They are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.</div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">"The nations" here summarizes all of the enemies of Israel: Babylon and its clients, Egypt, Moab, Edom, etc. Those of us from a large country like the United States do not have a gut-level appreciation of what it must have been like to be a citizen of a small country surrounded by many aggressive neighbors with large countries lurking in the distance. And in the exile, there were only a few thousand Jews scattered throughout the huge empire, a truly insignificant minority with absolutely no power, at least early in the exile. It would be hard not to fear the nations; but they are nothing compared to Yahweh. The nations which seemed so large in human estimation are so insignificant they are like the dust on the scales that no one bothers to brush off--it has no measurable influence on the outcome.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Lebanon used to be famous for its forests, though that is certainly not what we think first of it today. The forests were eliminated by centuries of wars (where trees were cut down for sieges or as a punitive measure) and bad government policies (the Turks had a tax on trees).</div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>18</sup>To whom then will you liken God,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">or what likeness compare with him?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>19</sup>The idol! A workman casts it,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and a goldsmith overlays it with gold,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and casts for it silver chains.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>20</sup>He who is impoverished chooses for an offering</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">wood that will not rot;</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">he seeks out a skillful craftsman</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">to set up an image that will not topple.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>21</sup>Have you not known?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Have you not heard?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Has it not been told you from the beginning?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>22</sup>It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in;</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>23</sup>who brings princes to nought,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and makes the inhabitants of the earth as nothing.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>24</sup>Scarcely are they planted,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">scarcely sown,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">scarcely has their stem taken root in the earth,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">when he blows on them</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and they wither,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and the tempest carries them off like stubble.</div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">There is no need to fear the idols, no matter how impressive they are. The best that idol makers can do is to make something that does not fall flat on its face ("does not topple"); the idol is lucky if it stays upright. In contrast, God is above the heavens.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The exiles of Israel might fear the princes, the rulers of Babylon; but these too are nothing before God. As he has blown on Israel and made it wither (40:7-8), so he will blow on them and they too will wither.</div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>25</sup>To whom then will you compare me,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">that I should be like him? says the Holy One.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>26</sup>Lift up your eyes on high and see:</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">who created these?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">He who brings out their host by number,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">calling them all by name;</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">by the greatness of his might,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and because he is strong in power,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">not one is missing.</div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">One of the things the Babylonians were most proud of was their astrology. (Modern astrology comes from the Babylonians through the Greeks.) They were famous throughout the ancient world for their knowledge of the stars, and their supposed ability to predict the future from them. The planets and stars were thought to be deities; their regularity was evidence of their divine power (nothing on earth is so precise and unblemished). It would be natural in that environment to fear the power of the star-gods.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The text here turns that on its head. The stars are not in control of the future; Yahweh is in control of the stars, and Yahweh's plan controls the future. The stars only come up every night because he calls them. And he never accidentally drops one of them. Their very regularity is evidence not of their own power but of Yahweh's perfect sustaining power, which will sustain you too.</div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>27</sup>Why do you say, O Jacob,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and speak, O Israel,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">"My way is hid from Yahweh,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and my right is disregarded by my God"?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>28</sup>Have you not known?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Have you not heard?</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Yahweh is the everlasting God,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">the Creator of the ends of the earth.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">He does not faint or grow weary;</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">his understanding is unsearchable.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>29</sup>He gives power to the faint,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and to him who has no might he increases strength.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>30</sup>Even the youths shall faint and be weary,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and young men shall fall exhausted;</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>31</sup>but they who wait for Yahweh will renew their strength,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">they shall mount up with wings like eagles,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">they shall run and not be weary,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">they shall walk and not faint.</div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The questions in v. 27 use the singular "you", in contrast to the similar questions in v. 21 which use a plural. In this context, the contrast makes the question to Israel more emphatic: "Have you not known?" Perhaps the nations might not know, but you certainly should.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The tired, defeated, worn out people in the exile will be given new strength by trusting in Yahweh God. This is made emphatic by the structure of vv. 30-31:</div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">faint</div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">be weary</div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">fall exhausted</div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">those who wait for Yahweh will renew strength</div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">mount up with wings</div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">not be weary</div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">not faint</div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">This kind of structure, where the first element corresponds to the last element, and the second element to the second-to-last, and so on, is often called a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus">chiasm</a> because it looks like the left half of the Greek letter chi (which looks like our X). The main point is usually in the center (those who wait for Yahweh will renew their strength), not at the end where modern readers would expect it. What comes before the middle is often transformed into what comes after by reflecting through this main point (here, "waiting on Yahweh" tranforms "falling exhausted" into "mounting up with wings like eagles", and so on). This is a fairly common structure in both the Old and the New Testaments. In this case, it explains why this passage seems to end in something of an anticlimax: any modern western writer would have put "mounting up with wings like eagles" at the end as a grand finale, instead of "walking and not fainting". But ancient readers were trained to look for the point at the center of the chiasm instead of at the end.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Yahweh carried his people on eagles' wings through the Exodus (Ex. 19:4); now he will do the same in a second exodus, the return from Babylon.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">What comes next</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Isaiah 40 is merely the introduction to one of the grandest sections of the Bible, sometimes called "The Consolation of Israel". The next chapters continue to address the same issues, resoundingly affirming Yahweh's incomparable superiority to anything that might be compared to him, and his unfailing care for his people and his plan to save the whole world through them. As in the exodus, the gods of the nations will be judged and Yahweh will vindicate his people, and all the nations will know that salvation is only in Yahweh. The people will return from exile and will once again, as in the time of David, be by far the greatest of the nations. This is accomplished by the strange work of the Servant of Yahweh, who accomplishes forgiveness for Israel and establishes justice in the earth.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">This section of Isaiah concludes with a final statement about the limitlessness of Yahweh in ch. 55:</div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>6</sup>Seek Yahweh while he may be found,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">call upon him while he is near;</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>7</sup>let the wicked forsake his way,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and the unrighteous man his thoughts;</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">let him return to Yahweh, that he may have mercy on him,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>8</sup><b>For my thoughts are not your thoughts,</b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><b>neither are your ways my ways, says Yahweh.</b></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>9</sup>For as the heavens are higher than the earth,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">so are my ways higher that your ways</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and my thoughts than your thoughts.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>10</sup>For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and return not thither but water the earth,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">making it bring forth and sprout,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>11</sup><b>so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth</b>;</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">it shall not return to me empty,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><sup>12</sup>For you shall go out [from Babylon] in joy,</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">and be led forth in peace....</div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">vv. 8-10 are often cited in discussions of the incomprehensibility of God; but in context, they are about his incomprehensible forgiveness that is totally foreign to humans. No one can measure the Spirit of Yahweh; no one would have expected such forgiveness. No one would have expected it of God, based on what we know of people; but his ways are far higher than ours, and therefore his forgiveness is too.</div><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">This forgiveness is summarized in the words of promise (v. 11). God's promise to forgive and reestablish will not be empty words, nor are his previous promises in ancient times somehow void. They will accomplish what he always intended to accomplish, to redeem the whole world through the descendants of Abraham, despite their sinfulness. Israel's hope, and indeed the hope of the whole world, is in the word of Yahweh.<br />
<br />
The book of Isaiah, and especially chapters 40-55, is a dramatic summons to renewed faith in Yahweh and hope in his purpose. The historical situation may not have looked promising, but Yahweh has not given up on his people, and he never will. Yahweh has not been defeated; he has been in control of history all along. Yahweh's plan for the redemption of the world is unchanged.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">References</span><br />
<br />
See my previous post.<br />
<br />
</div>Gary Holthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04963527816905774899noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7185990731670838653.post-50765920137456087522010-05-03T22:45:00.000-04:002010-05-03T22:45:46.628-04:00"Comfort my people": Isaiah 40:1-11What does God say to people who are defeated and discouraged, who have given up hope?<br />
<br />
The latter half of the book of Isaiah, starting with chapter 40, was written for Jews in the exile, who lived in Babylon. This is very clear from passages like chapter 48, where the Jews are told to leave Babylon; there are no more threats of exile, only promises of return.<br />
<br />
Before the exile, the nation of Israel was given its charter by the promises that God made:<br />
<ul><li>They would live in the land. </li>
<li>They would be numerous (as many as the sands by the sea, or the stars in the sky).</li>
<li>They would prosper economically (they would be blessed). </li>
<li>Those who cursed them would be cursed. </li>
<li>They would "rule over the gates of their enemies", i.e., they would be militarily dominant. A king from the line of David would rule over them. </li>
<li>They, or especially their king, would be honored and have a great name, "like the great ones of the earth," i.e., like the greatest of the kings of the nations. </li>
<li>They would be a blessing for all peoples. In fact, <a href="http://exegeticalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-adam-and-new-humanity.html">they would be the vehicle that brings God's intended blessing in creation to all the world</a>. </li>
<li>God would live with them. This was symbolized by the tabernacle and later the temple, the palace of the great king. </li>
</ul>These covenant promises were given in rough outline to the patriarchs and then elaborated and expanded through Moses and David. They are summarized in the often repeated words, "I will be their God and they shall be my people."<br />
<br />
<b>Every single thing God promised was systematically taken away in the exile.</b> No visible sign of God's promises remained. They were no longer in the promised land. They were not numerous; only a few thousand Israelites were actually taken to Babylon, and we know from archaeology and from various passages in the Bible that the land of Israel was greatly depopulated at that time, so that much formerly cultivated land was left wild. Apparently most people died during the Babylonian invasions. There was certainly no evidence of curse on the Babylonians who had cursed and mocked them. The Israelites were not a great people; apart from some notable exceptions in the Babylonian court, they were mocked and looked down on (and there are numerous predictions of this in the pre-exilic prophets). There was no king. The city that God chose for his name lay in ruins.<br />
<br />
Perhaps most importantly, God no longer lived with them. Ezekiel had the vision of the glory cloud departing from the temple; and anyway, it was obvious to anyone who looked at the ruins of Solomon's temple that there was no glory there any longer. God had left his people.<br />
<br />
The people themselves were living in Babylon. Inside an impregnable wall that was fifty feet thick (as wide as a freeway in Los Angeles), enormous palaces and temples were everywhere. Even now these ruins are impressive; in their own day, before skyscrapers and modern earth moving equipment, they must have been awesome. Everything about this city was designed to impress with the glory of Babylon and its king and its gods. It looked like nothing could ever challenge Babylon and its gods.<br />
<br />
It is not hard to imagine how the Jews in Babylon must have felt about this. Some, no doubt, thought that God had been defeated by the Babylonian gods; that, after all, was the normal ancient way to understand defeat in war. (Even the Bible takes this viewpoint, especially when it was Yahweh who was victorious; for example, the Exodus is described as punishing the gods of Egypt.)<br />
<br />
Others would remember the promises that God gave to Abraham and David, and would conclude that God had simply been unfaithful. Still others, knowing that Yahweh had after all been warning about this disaster for several centuries before it happened, probably concluded that God had given up on the Jews for good, and that he had no more plan for them. He was still ruling but their place in his plan had been forfeited by their stubborn refusal to obey him. No longer would the descendants of Abraham play any role in God's plan to bless the world. There was no more hope for Israel. Maybe he would find some other people and redeem the world through them; or maybe he would just abandon the world to its fate.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">The word of Yahweh</span></span><br />
<br />
Into this bleak situation, Yahweh speaks again.<br />
<blockquote><sup>1</sup><b>Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.</b><br />
<sup>2</sup>Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,<br />
and cry to her<br />
that her hard service is ended,<br />
that her iniquity is pardoned,<br />
that she has received from Yahweh's hand<br />
double for all her sins.</blockquote>The first words bring to mind the ancient summary of the covenant, "I will be your God, and you shall be my people." God still regards them as his people! These words are also a sharp contrast with the opening words of the book of Isaiah, where in chapter 1 Yahweh calls together his witnesses and accuses Israel in a courtroom scene of violating her covenant with him. The verdict from the first half of the book has been carried out. Now she has paid the penalty ("double" is probably meant to be understood as a standard fine for wrongdoing that a court would assess).<br />
<br />
The phrase "Comfort my people" is actually a plural command; Yahweh gives an order, and then three voices carry it out with messages of comfort in vv. 3, 6, and 9. The scene is something like the divine council in ch. 6, where the terrified Isaiah sees Yahweh in his glory giving his messengers a charge to proclaim Israel's destruction for her sinfulness. Here, however, the decree of Yahweh is for forgiveness and consolation and rebuilding.<br />
<blockquote><sup>3</sup>A voice cries:<br />
"In the wilderness prepare the way of Yahweh,<br />
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.<br />
<sup>4</sup>Every valley shall be exalted,<br />
and every mountain and hill be made low;<br />
the uneven ground shall become level,<br />
and the rough places a plain.<br />
<sup>5</sup>And the glory of Yahweh will be revealed,<br />
and all flesh shall see it together.<br />
<b>For the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.</b>"</blockquote>When a king comes to visit, it was customary to fix up all the roads for him. When Yahweh comes back, this must be done on a grand scale; even the mountains will be leveled to make a road. The mountains and valleys are to be understood metaphorically, like the similar reference to "threshing the mountains" in ch. 41.<br />
<br />
Some commentators have understood the wilderness and desert as the terrain that must be traversed by the exiles, with Yahweh at their head, on their return journey from Babylon as a second exodus. The image of a second exodus is indeed prominent in this section of Isaiah, but here I think it is better to see the wilderness and desert as the land of Israel itself. We know that the land was greatly depopulated and much formerly cultivated area became wild, and this is repeatedly discussed in various passages in this book (see for example the end of Isaiah 7). One of the great promises of this book is that the devastated land will once again become habitable.<br />
<br />
In any case, the glory of Yahweh will be revealed to all people (not just to Israel). The glory cloud had left the temple, but God's glory was coming back! Yahweh's glory is an important theme in this book. The glory that Isaiah saw in the temple will become visible to all, in a way yet to be described. (Later we find that the glory will be revealed through his saving actions, through the return from exile under Cyrus, and culminating in the work of the Servant.)<br />
<br />
"For the mouth of Yahweh has spoken" means that the proclamation of comfort to his people is an official pronouncement, a final decree of Yahweh that no one can reverse. Yahweh has said it; he will do it, no matter what.<br />
<blockquote><sup>6</sup>A voice says, "Cry out!"<br />
And I said, "What shall I cry out?<br />
All flesh is grass,<br />
and the goodliness thereof is like the flower of the field.<br />
<sup>7</sup>The grass withers,<br />
the flower fades,<br />
when the breath of Yahweh blows on it;<br />
surely the people is grass."<br />
<sup>8</sup>"The grass withers, the flower fades;<br />
but the word of our God will stand forever."</blockquote>I have put the quote marks in different places than most English translations, following the suggestion of Westermann, because to me the end of verse 6 and v. 7 sound more like the prophet's complaint than the response of the voice that is speaking for God. (The quote marks are not in the original Hebrew, so anyone is free to put them wherever seems best.) v.8 is Yahweh's answer to the complaint. Wherever you put the quote marks, the comparison is clear: the breath of Yahweh has blown on Israel and withered it, but from the mouth of Yahweh also comes the word which rebuilds it eternally. The hope of frail humans in the face of the judgment of God is the promise of God himself.<br />
<blockquote><sup>9</sup>Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion<br />
lift up your voice with strength,<br />
O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings;<br />
lift it up, fear not;<br />
say to the cities of Judah, "Behold your God!"<br />
<sup>10</sup>Behold, the Lord Yahweh comes with might,<br />
and his arm rules for him;<br />
behold, his reward is with him,<br />
and his recompense before him.<br />
<sup>11</sup>He will feed his flock like a shepherd,<br />
he will gather the lambs in his arms,<br />
he will carry them in his bosom,<br />
and gently lead those that are with young.</blockquote>The Lord is returning to Jerusalem and that city is to give the exciting news to all the other cities that God once again is visibly with them. "Fear not" means that Zion need not fear being wrong about this and raising false hopes. The proclamation should be bold and audible to everyone, because there is no chance that it will not happen.<br />
<br />
Yahweh's reward is what he gives to his people, and his recompense is what he gives to his enemies for the way they treated his people. (Part of the promise to Abraham was to bless those who bless him, and curse those who curse him.) In the period before the exile, God's own people became his enemies and he destroyed them. Now they are no longer his enemies; he will be their shepherd and will care gently for them again.<br />
<br />
Yahweh, the shepherd of Israel, will once again pasture his flock in their land. How exactly this happens is the subject of the rest of Isaiah 40-55.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">New Testament uses of Isaiah 40</span></span><br />
<br />
This part of Isaiah, and other prophets as well, predict a glorious return from the exile and the establishment of eternal peace and prosperity for Israel. The actual return from exile was, in comparison with the prophecies, quite a disappointment. The Jews were back in the promised land, true, but nothing else that had been promised had come to pass. They were poor, not prosperous. There was no king in the line of David. They were an insignificant part of a vast empire, called merely "the province beyond the River [Euphrates]," far from where anything important was happening. Large numbers of gentiles were not bringing their wealth in to worship Yawheh. The temple was disappointingly small, and more importantly, God's glory had not come back. (Rabbinic sources talk about this: one of the things that was missing from the second temple was the glory cloud.) The primary problem the post-exilic prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had to address was discouragement and doubt at the disparity between the situation then and the earlier promises of God. These prophets affirmed that God was still in control, that the glory would return someday to the temple, and that Israel would again be vindicated and significant.<br />
<br />
The faithful Jews concluded that the exile was not truly over yet. Any other way of looking at it would mean that the earlier prophets were simply wrong, and God had no intention of keeping his word (or maybe Yahweh was not really the true God). So in the first century, even Jews living in the land of Israel were still hoping for return from exile, that Yahweh's gracious words of forgiveness and restoration would come in their time. Apparently God had not yet forgiven the sins of the nation, because he had not restored the people, and the two are inseparable in the prophets.<br />
<br />
When John the Baptizer used the words of Isaiah 40 to describe his own ministry, everyone knew what he was talking about. (All four gospels use the words from Isaiah 40--Mk. 1:2-3, Matt. 3:3, Lk. 3:4-6, John 1:23--so evidently that is important.) John was proclaiming that the long wait was over, that what Isaiah had predicted was finally here. John offered "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins," and he proclaimed that one was coming who would restore Israel. The time of national forgiveness was here!<br />
<br />
Jesus and the writers of the New Testament continually draw our attention to prophecies of return from exile and claim that they are fulfilled or are being fulfilled in Jesus. The glory of God returned in the person of Jesus. The temple was rebuilt in the form of the church, with the Spirit living in it. The nations were gathered into the people of God through the missionary work of the church. The glory of Yahweh was revealed; all flesh saw it together in Jesus on the cross and will see it in the glorified Christ.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">References</span></span><br />
<br />
In my opinion, <i>Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary</i> by Klaus Westermann (in the Old Testament Library series) conveys more effectively than any other the drama of the text and the significance of the historical context, though he fails to connect many of the passages together because of his source-critical approach. <i>The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66</i> by Oswalt (in the NIV Application Commentary series) is also extremely good and makes a better attempt to connect the pieces of the text together into a systematic whole.<br />
<br />
N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, has an excellent section on the New Testament appropriation of Isaiah 40.Gary Holthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04963527816905774899noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7185990731670838653.post-62891025069535093212010-03-19T10:22:00.005-04:002010-03-23T09:38:59.014-04:00Is God proud?What does it mean to be God? What is the most important aspect of deity that sets it apart from non-deity? What does God think about himself?<br />
<br />
What is the defining characteristic of God? Most people throughout history would have answered immediately, "Power." God is set apart from us because he can do things that we cannot do. The Bible certainly agrees that God has power, but this is not the definition of what it means to be God. Orthodox Christian theology teaches that Jesus did not cease to be God even though he surrendered the independent exercise of his power, and was weak as we are. While we may shy away from the implications, the incarnation showed us something remarkable and unexpected about God that we never would have understood any other way: that power is not the essence of divinity. Of course, this statement is derived from later trinitarian formulas, not the New Testament; what does the Scripture itself say?<br />
<br />
Probably the clearest answer comes from Philippians 2:5-11 (a passage which figured prominently in the formation of trinitarian theology). Here is this short poem in its entirety (NRSV translation):<br />
<br />
<blockquote><sup>3</sup>Do nothing from selfish ambition of conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. <sup>4</sup>Let each one of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. <sup>5</sup>Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,<br />
<sup>6</sup>who, though he was in the form of God,<br />
did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,<br />
<sup>7</sup>but emptied himself,<br />
taking the form of a slave,<br />
being born in human likeness.<br />
And being found in human form,<br />
<sup>8</sup>he humbled himself<br />
and became obedient to the point of death--<br />
even death on a cross.<br />
<sup>9</sup>Therefore God also highly exalted him<br />
and gave him the name that is above every name,<br />
<sup>10</sup>so that at the name of Jesus<br />
every knee should bend<br />
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,<br />
<sup>11</sup>and every tongue confess<br />
that Jesus Christ is Lord,<br />
to the glory of God the Father.</blockquote>Paul says that Jesus was "in the form of God" (v. 6) and it is hard not to take this in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms">same sense that Plato used the word "form"</a>, meaning that Jesus is the eternal, perfect ideal of God. (There is some debate about whether we can attribute a Platonic sense to "form" here, but Paul says pretty much exactly that Jesus is the ideal of God later in this passage, so I see no reason not to interpret the phrase that way here.)<br />
<br />
Perhaps the key phrase here is what is translated by the NRSV "did not consider equality with God something to be exploited" in v. 6. Most older translations have something slightly different (KJV "thought it not robbery to be equal with God"; NIV, NAS "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped"). The reason for the diversity is that a key Greek word, <i>harpagmon</i>, occurs only here in the New Testament, and in the writings of the church fathers only when discussing this passage, so its meaning was not clear. More recent philological research (see references in the article by Wright cited below) indicates than <i>harpagmon</i> means something to be exploited rather than something to be grasped or seized or held on to. "Something to be exploited" makes much better sense of the passage. Jesus possessed equality with God (he did not have to grasp for it)--but he did not exploit that for selfish ends.<br />
<br />
Instead, Jesus did nothing from selfish ambition or conceit and regarded others as better than himself--that is the implication of v. 3, since we are to be that way in imitation of him. The whole Roman world was devoted to doing things to gain honor, more so than our culture; it is hard for us to understand the extravagant lengths people in a <a href="http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/shame_guilt.htm">shame-based culture</a> go to gain honor for themselves. Honor in such a society tends to be like a currency: if you gain it, someone else loses it, and that's how politics and just about everything else was played out in all the cultures around the Mediterranean world. Striving for honor in that culture, perhaps more than in our own, meant putting down other people, the opposite of "being in full accord and of one mind". The ultimate honor, of course, was payed to the gods, who were as jealous of their praise as any human would be.<br />
<br />
But Jesus was not like that: Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be exploited to gain honor and praise, unlike, for example, the Roman emperors who even at this time were beginning to be worshiped in the eastern parts of the empire as gods. What did Jesus consider equality with God to mean? Jesus thought equality with God meant emptying himself for us.<br />
<br />
Instead of demanding reverence and homage as God, he humbled himself and took on the form of a human. More than that, he humbled himself further to the point of death on a cross. Crucifixion was not only a painful way to die; it was the most humiliating death possible, designed to take every last vestige of honor from the victim; and that's why the Romans did it. (Remember that taking honor from someone else, it was thought, would bring you honor; in our culture, which has lived in the shadow of the cross for a millenium and a half, such actions might discredit you rather than bring you honor, but people did not think that way in the ancient world, or even in some cultures in the modern world.) Victims were nailed to a cross naked, in full view of everyone. This was usually done at the gates to cities, where as many people as possible would pass by, to show their absolute powerlessness to avoid even the most agonizing of suffering, and thereby to glorify the conqueror. <br />
<br />
The poem says several times that Jesus took on the form of a slave, or servant. On its own, the Greek is probably better translated "slave", but "servant" correctly alludes to the Old Testament figure called the "Servant of Yahweh". The Servant of Yahweh endures humiliation, and everyone around him thinks that it is for his own sins (Isaiah 52:12-53); but this is not so. He suffers out of obedience to Yahweh, because it was necessary for redemption of the people. Following the outline of Isaiah's climactic poem on the work of the Servant (Is. 53), the text in Phillipians also shows how God highly honored the Servant for his obedience.<br />
<br />
God did not have the same opinion as people. "Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave him the <b>name above every name</b>...." To a Jew like Paul, there is only one "name above every name": the tetragrammaton YHWH, "Yahweh", "I am who I am". Because of his obedience as a servant, and his humility for our sake, God points to Jesus and says, "This is who Yahweh is. This is what it means to be Yahweh."<br />
<br />
Lest we miss the idea that Jesus in his humiliation for us is the truest possible vision of Yahweh, he goes on to quote unmistakably from one of the most monotheistic passages in the Old Testament about Yahweh (Isaiah 45:23). In its context, it is part of a challenge to the Babylonian gods to present evidence, any evidence at all, that they can save:<br />
<blockquote><sup>21</sup>Who told this [that Cyrus the Great would conquer] long ago?<br />
Who declared it of old?<br />
Was it not I, Yahweh?<br />
There is no other god besides me,<br />
a righteous God and Savior;<br />
there is no one besides me.<br />
<sup>22</sup>Turn to me and be saved,<br />
all the ends of the earth!<br />
For I am God, and there is no other.<br />
<sup>23</sup>By myself I have sworn,<br />
from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness<br />
a word that shall not return [void]:<br />
"<b>To me every knee shall bow,</b><br />
<b>every tongue shall swear.</b>"<br />
<sup>24</sup>Only in Yahweh, it shall be said of me,<br />
are righteousness and strength;<br />
all who were incensed against him<br />
shall come to him and be ashamed.</blockquote><br />
Referring to this passage, Paul says, "At the name of Jesus, <b>every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess</b> that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." The passage from Isaiah was speaking of men confessing Yahweh to be the true God; Paul has taken this and changed in into a confession that "Jesus is Lord." "Lord" is an ambiguous word in Greek. It can mean a polite "Sir"; it can mean "Master" or "Caesar"; or it can mean Yahweh (it is the translation into Greek of "Yahweh" in the Old Testament). Given the context, it seems clear here that "Jesus is Lord" means here that "Jesus is Yahweh." Everyone will eventually confess that Jesus in his humility is exactly what Yahweh God is like.<br />
<br />
This confession is "to the glory of God the Father." How does the greatness of Jesus glorify God the Father? Because understanding that Jesus is Yahweh shows us what God the Father is really like: he is just like Jesus, not proud, willing to endure anything for the redemption of those he loves. The greatest glory of God is not primarily in his power, it is in the love that he shows, and Jesus is the ultimate proof of that.<br />
<br />
This is not an entirely new idea in the Bible. Moses had seen the incredible power of God in the exodus, but then he prayed to see the glory of God. What did God show him? "Yahweh passed before him and proclaimed, 'Yahweh, Yahweh, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness....'" (Exodus 34:6) The power of God is glorious; but the greatest glory of God is in redemption, in his love and forgiveness.<br />
<br />
Other places in the New Testament affirm that the glory of God is found in his love and humility, not primarily in his power. This is particularly evident in the writings of John, where perhaps the most frequently emphasized idea in the gospel is that Jesus reveals the Father by his actions. This is first developed explicitly in John 5:19-20: "The Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. The Father loves the Son, and shows him everything that he himself is doing...." In the context there, Jesus sees that the Father is raising the dead, so he raises a dead man (metaphorically at that point, literally later); in the next chapter, Jesus sees that the Father is providing spiritual bread, so Jesus provides physical bread; later Jesus sees that the Father is opening the eyes of the blind, so he does it too. Everything Jesus does is an imitation of his Father.<br />
<br />
Jesus' imitation of his Father does not stop after his last sign. "Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, got up from the table, took off his outer robe, and tied a towel around himself. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel that was tied around him." (John 13:3-5) Washing feet was about the lowest of jobs that could be given to a slave. A Rabbi's disciples would do many menial tasks for him, but they were explicitly not required to wash his feet. Here the Rabbi, knowing his divine origin and destiny, washes his disciples' feet.<br />
<br />
What does this say about God? God the Father acts as a servant, just like the best of human parents. After all, Paul says, all fatherhood derives its name from its archetype, God the true Father, Eph. 3:15. A good human parent humbles himself to clean the baby's diapers, and God the Father will do no less for his children. We need that kind of humble service from God, and God is not averse to providing it.<br />
<br />
This was not very easily visible before the incarnation, though the Old Testament hints in that direction. For example, Hosea shows God to be suffering and humble (only a humble person can forgive the insult of adultery and accept his erring wife back). But the incarnation has shown much more clearly what God is really like.<br />
<br />
<br />
In John's first epistle, he twice makes a remarkable statement about the nature of God: "God is love." (1 John 4:8,16) The one thing that we have to understand about God, before anything else, is that the essence of God's nature is love. Pride, arrogance, vengefulness--anything that conflicts with this fundamental part of God's nature is excluded. John says that if you do not understand that about God, you do not know God--you have missed the most important fact about the being of God.<br />
<br />
Now the point of the passage in Phillipians, as well as the footwashing passage in the gospel of John and the "God is love" statement in his epistle, is that we are to think the same way: we are to have the same mind in us as was in Christ, and we are to wash each other's feet. We, who are made in the image of God, ought to behave as God did. Unlike Adam and Eve, who sought to be like God to enhance themselves, we are to seek to be like God in that we empty ourselves for others. Jesus, the one who was not only God but also fully human, has showed us the way of true humanity; we are "being renewed in knowledge according to the image of our creator" (Col. 3:10).<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">References</span><br />
<br />
A detailed relatively recent discussion of the philology and the theological significance of the Phillipians passage is "Jesus Christ is Lord: Philippians 2.5-11" in <i>The Climax of the Covenant</i> by N.T. Wright.<br />
<br />
I first understood this from a really excellent sermon by Darrell Johnson, then at Glendale Presbyterian church a number of years ago, but I have been unable to find any links to anything he has written or spoken on this.Gary Holthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04963527816905774899noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7185990731670838653.post-60839496982249783712010-01-14T10:13:00.000-05:002010-01-14T10:13:41.515-05:00Babel, Abraham, and PentecostIn the Genesis account, the call of Abraham (Genesis 12) occurs shortly after the story of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11), and has some interesting links to it. The tower builders are trying to "make a name for themselves," but God promises Abram that "I will make your name great." The tower builders want to build a city and a tower so that they will not be scattered; Abram leaves the city life not far from Babylon for the life of a nomad. The nations were formed in the chaos after the tower building ceased; the nations will be blessed through Abraham. Yahweh comments that nothing will be impossible for the people of Babel, but Abram must learn that "nothing is impossible for Yahweh."<br />
<br />
God's call of Abraham is his answer to the problem created by the tower builders. The tower is an expression of human determination to do what we want regardless of what God intends. God told Noah to fill the earth (Genesis 9:1); the justification for building the tower is to avoid doing that. The tower depends on human initiative and ability and ingenuity (figuring out how to make bricks in a land that has no stone for building--that is why the text makes a point of their discovery that they could fire mud bricks). The builders are proud of their abilities (they are making a tower whose top reaches heaven), but God does not agree with their self-assessment: He has to come down to inspect the tower, it is so small. So God removes the source of whatever strength they have, their common language and unity (11:6), and scatters them all over the earth, to be forever frustrated in their self-serving efforts to make a permanent name for themselves. Humanity's effort to achieve its goals results in curse and futility rather than blessing--the scattered nations will never achieve anything permanent. Rebellious humanity cannot accomplish the work of God, and God cannot let it accomplish what it wants.<br />
<br />
But God has not given up on his plan to bring blessing, so he calls Abram to form a new people. This new people will not make themselves great; God will make their names great. (Furthermore, Genesis 12:3 says more literally that "the one who thinks lightly of you will be cursed"--whoever does not agree that Abraham's descendants are critical to God's plan will not obtain God's blessing.) Abraham's family, unlike the tower builders, will not depend on their own strength; one of the lessons that the patriarchs must repeatedly learn is that manipulation and human cleverness does not accomplish the purpose of God. Through them, the blessing God intended in creation will go out to the entire world ("in you all the families of the earth will be blessed").<br />
<br />
But Abraham's family is just one family among many; how is this going to happen? There are some hints in the Old Testament. For example, we see Abraham blessing Sodom by his rescue operation and later by intercession. Deuteronomy talks about how the nations will learn from the Law if it is faithfully carried out. The Queen of Sheba, among others, is blessed by Solomon. Elijah and Elishah miraculously save Sidonians and Arameans. But for the most part, the kingdom of Israel could not be said to be a blessing to much of anyone. The prophets talk about a great day when blessings will flow out from Israel, but that did not happen in Old Testament times.<br />
<br />
At Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came (Acts 2), there was another miracle involving languages. This time, instead of confusing the the languages, God made them intelligible. The old humanity breathed out self-willed arrogance; the new humanity speaks from the Spirit in praise of Jesus. (Note also the close connection the act of speaking and the word "spirit", which in both Hebrew and Greek is indistinguishable from "breath".) The old humanity was unified by its common speech, and derived its power from that unity (Genesis 11:6); the church is unified by sharing in the one Spirit, and derives its power from that unity.<br />
<br />
The miracle of the languages at Pentecost is the beginning of the undoing of the tower of Babel, the time when the blessing that God promised to all nations through Abraham will start having a very visible effect. The blessing is, of course, primarily Jesus and the proclamation about him (Acts 3:25-26); this is what will accomplish God's goal in creation. Instead of collecting humanity together in a city dominated by a tower, God collects all nations into a single coherent people in Christ (see Paul's extensive discussion in Ephesians 2). The promise to Abraham that his name will be great has been fulfilled. God's people have a great name because what they accomplish has lasting significance; Jesus, the seed of Abraham, has the greatest possible name (Phil. 2). God's kingdom endures forever, while the tower builders are only significant today as a foil for the story of Abraham.Gary Holthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04963527816905774899noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7185990731670838653.post-19955790631884960002009-08-08T14:00:00.008-04:002010-01-09T15:45:34.018-05:00Genesis 1: God's plan (updated)<p>In a <a href="http://exegeticalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/07/genesis-1-and-pagan-cosmologies.html">previous post</a>, I argued that Genesis 1 teaches important truths that are foundational for living by faith simply by how it differs from pagan cosmologies. Now I want to look at the Genesis 1 account itself.<br />
<br />
Structure and emphasis communicate the author's intent. As usual for any Bible passage, the key question to ask is: <b>Why is he telling us this? </b> This question is particularly relevant for Genesis 1, where the account is highly structured and obviously very carefully organized with a minimum of words. Why does he enumerate the days? Why does he mention days at all? And why does he number them? Why does God create in stages, rather than all at once? Why does he tell these things, when so many other details are omitted?<br />
<br />
For several generations now, scholars have pointed out the following interesting structure:<br />
<br />
<table><tbody>
<tr><td width="50%"><b>Forming</b></td><td width="50%"><b>Filling</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>Day 1: God made light, and separated light from darkness (making day and night, i.e., time).<br />
</td><td>Day 4: God made the great light (to preside over the day) and the lesser light and the stars (to preside over the night), in order to mark time.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Day 2: God made the firmament (separating sky and sea).<br />
</td><td>Day 5: God fills the sea with creatures, and the sky with birds.<br />
</td></tr>
<tr><td>Day 3:</td><td>Day 6:</td></tr>
<tr><td><br />
<div style="margin-left: 40px; ">Part 1: God made the dry land (separating the waters from the waters).</div></td><td><div style="margin-left: 40px; ">Part 1: God fills the dry land with creatures.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td><div style="margin-left: 40px; ">Part 2: God put vegetation on it (to provide for the animals he was going to make, v. 30).</div></td><td><div style="margin-left: 40px; ">Part 2: God makes man to rule over the creatures and care for them.<br />
</div></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<p>So day 4-6 fills the spaces created by days 1-3. The two phases of creation correspond exactly to the description of the original state of earth, "formless and empty" (Genesis 1:2). This narrative is carefully constructed to bring out this structure. (In fact, he keeps to this structure even when it causes apparent difficulties: the sun appears on the fourth day, but day and night on the first. This is bound to raise eyebrows, as much in the ancient world as in the modern.) Why is this structure here?<br />
<br />
I do not believe this structure is mere literary ornamentation. Rather, it provides a key to understanding the passage. No one lays a foundation without knowing what the house is going to look like; God did not make the spaces in his creation (days 1-3) without knowing how he planned to fill them (days 4-6). Here is another of the key differences of the Genesis cosmology with essentially all other cosmologies, both ancient and modern: <b>God had a plan from the beginning.</b> In the pagan accounts, the creation of the habitable world is an afterthought of the big battle between the gods and was not planned from the beginning. (See my post on <a href="http://exegeticalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/07/genesis-1-and-pagan-cosmologies.html">Genesis 1 and pagan cosmologies</a>.) In modern atheistic evolutionary thinking, the creation of the world is an accident and there is no design, no goal, and no purpose.<br />
<h4>Why is the account so repetitive?</h4><p>Repetition is the main device the author uses for emphasis. (Also he sometimes repeats things and then unexpectedly breaks the repetition to provide a contrast.) We therefore must ask ourselves why he chose to emphasize these particular things.<br />
<br />
<table class="widthborder" border="2"><tbody>
<tr><td width="25%" class="widthborder"><b>Repeated element</b></td><td width="75%"><b>Likely purpose</b></td></tr>
<tr><td vapign="top">God said... and it was so (8x)</td><td valign="top">The verbalization of the goal is another indicator that God has a plan. He states what he is doing, and is happy with the result.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, when God says something, it happens. This not only emphasizes his power; it also is a key idea in the later parts of scripture, when God says things to the patriarchs and prophets and apostles. The promise to Abraham is as certain as God's statement, "Let there be light." Redemption is as much by the word as creation. A number of passages compare the surety of the word of promise to the stability of the word of creation (e.g., Ps. 89:36-37; Is. 44:24-28; Jer. 32:35-36; Rom. 4:17) and this idea is behind other key passages (e.g., throughout Is. 40)<br />
</td></tr>
<tr><td>God saw that it was good (8x)</td><td>Not only did God have a plan, but he did exactly what he planned. He did not fail in the execution, nor did he conclude after executing his plan that it wasn't a such a good idea after all. (See below on "God's good plan".) Contrast this with the Prometheus/Epimetheus creation myth from Plato (recounted very briefly in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimetheus_(mythology)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimetheus_(mythology)</a>), where the resulting creation was not good because Epimetheus lacked foresight.<br />
<br />
Also, this strongly emphasizes God's statement in Genesis 2 that "It is not good for the man to be alone."<br />
</td></tr>
<tr><td>God separated (3x)</td><td>This phrase occurs in each of the first three days. It links them together and contrasts them with the second three days, reinforcing the structure above.</td></tr>
<tr><td>God called the ...</td><td>This is one of the indicators that the passage is intended to be linked closely to Genesis 2, where the concept of naming is key. Naming in the ancient world indicates authority and ownership. God rules the inanimate world because he names it; Adam rules over the creatures because he names them, in agreement with comission to man in Gen. 1:28.<br />
</td></tr>
<tr><td>after its kind (10x)<br />
</td><td>The idea of a "kind" is yet another indicator that God had a blueprint or plan in mind when he made the creatures.<br />
<br />
More importantly, there is one creature who is not made after its own kind: man is made after God's kind. The breaking of the monotonous repetition highlights the contrast between man and the animals. See <a href="http://exegeticalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-adam-and-new-humanity.html">previous post</a> on the image of God for more details.<br />
</td></tr>
<tr><td>God blessed (2x) them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill..."<br />
</td><td>God's plan is a good plan, not just in his own eyes, but for the creatures as well. See below on "good".<br />
<br />
"Blessing" is a key word in Genesis (and also later in Scripture), and summarizes what God intends to do.<br />
</td></tr>
<tr><td>There was evening and there was morning, day... (6x)<br />
</td><td>This formula appears for all of the days except day 7, and emphasizes the difference between that day and the others. Hopefully I will write on the theology of the Sabbath later.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, the order "evening and morning" sticks out like a sore thumb to a Westerner, because for us the day begins in the morning; but for a Hebrew, the day began at sunset of what we would call the previous day, so for them "evening and morning" is a natural way to describe a day.<br />
</td></tr>
<tr><td>the image of God (3x)<br />
</td><td>This is contrasted with "after its kind", and shows the importance of the special role of man (see <a href="http://exegeticalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-adam-and-new-humanity.html">previous post</a> on the "image of God").<br />
</td></tr>
<tr><td>God rested (2x)<br />
</td><td>God was finished, having achieved his goals.<br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<h4>Redemption and God's good plan</h4><p>Genesis 1 lays the foundation for the understanding of redemption in the rest of scripture. Not only did God have a goal in the beginning, but <i>he is once again moving to achieve that same goal</i>. The Bible repeatedly refers to redemption as a new creation which achieves God's goal in the original creation.<br />
<br />
No other ancient culture nearby had a concept that history was going anywhere. Either the present situation will continue indefinitely (Babylonian gods will rule the world this way forever, and therefore Babylon will never fall), or there will be continual cycles (e.g., the great cycles of the Stoics or Hindus). Nothing fundamentally different will ever happen. Nowhere is there any sense of eschatology, that the gods will ultimately intervene and fix things up permanently.<br />
<br />
But the joining of the creation story to the story of the fall in Genesis 3 shows that the present state of the world is not what God intended (there is curse instead of blessing). Furthermore, the rest of Genesis, especially the themes of promise and future blessing, make it clear that God still has a plan--it is really the same plan of blessing in creation, but now we are looking at it while it is being carried out, not after it has been finished. (At key stages, the author is careful to connect with Genesis 1 by repeating the key ideas of blessing, fruitfulness/seed, and ruling. See Kaiser, <span style="font-style:italic;">Toward an Old Testament Theology</span>.)<br />
<br />
Now just as God's initial creation happened in stages, redemption also happens in stages; it is not instantaneous. The old creation climaxed with man and his commission to fill and rule the world; the new creation starts from a new humanity (beginning with Jesus, the new Adam) and will spread to fill the world (the great commission, Matt. 28:18-20) and finally the universe (e.g., Rev. 21:1). The old creation ended with a judgment ("God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and a rest ("God rested from everything he had created and made"). The new creation ends with a judgment (the last judgment, after which only what is good will be left) and a rest for the saints (Heb. 4:9-10; Rev. 14:13).Gary Holthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04963527816905774899noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7185990731670838653.post-30925049286592534222009-07-30T09:20:00.031-04:002010-01-03T17:59:45.255-05:00Genesis 1 and pagan cosmologies (updated)<p>When the Babylonian creation accounts first came to light over a hundred years ago, they caused quite a stir because they had some notable similarities to Genesis 1-11. Some scholars argued that this showed the Biblical accounts to be a reworking of earlier forgotten pagan accounts, and therefore presumably not reliable or divinely inspired. More recent scholars have pointed out not only the similarities but also the striking contrasts between the narratives. It now appears that Genesis 1-11 was written primarily to <b>refute</b> certain pagan notions. Emphasizing the similarities rather than the differences between Genesis and pagan accounts would be like thinking that Copernicus' heliocentric theory is nothing more than an extension of Ptolemy's geocentric thinking. (By the way, probably the best book on this topic is <u>Understanding Genesis: The Bible </u> by Nahum Sarna.)<br />
<br />
Genesis 1's cosmology establishes the Judeo-Christian world view. Since a world view is something we look through rather than look at, it is hard to see its importance unless it is contrasted with a different world view. But Genesis 1 has dominated western thinking so much that all other cosmologies were forgotten for a millennium; it takes effort for us to appreciate how revolutionary it must have been when it was written.<br />
<br />
The Enuma Elish is a Babylonian poem which was recited every year during the New Year festival which celebrated the power of the Babylonian gods over the forces of chaos, and the security of the Babylonian system that rested upon those gods.<br />
<br />
</p><div style="margin-left: 40px; "><p>When on high the heaven had not been named,<br />
Firm ground below had not been called by name,<br />
Nothing but primordial Apsu [fresh water] the Begetter,<br />
and chaos Tiamat [salt water], She Who Bore them All,<br />
-–their waters commingling as a single body–-<br />
No reed hut had been matted, no marsh land had appeared,<br />
Uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined–-<br />
Then it was that the gods were formed within them.</p></div><p>So begins the Enuma Elish. Our most complete copy of this poem dates to about 1100 BC, but it includes material which is much older, coming from the Sumerians more than a thousand years earlier.<br />
<br />
Tiamat and Apsu beget a series of deities, including the sky Anu. Apsu then is angered by his children and conspired to kill them all. The god Ea son of Anu strikes down Apsu and becomes the chief god. He also conceives Marduk, the principal god of the Babylonians. Anu then rouses Tiamat to revenge for killing Apsu, and Tiamat sends terrifying monsters to fight the other gods and destroy them. Ea and Anu are too frightened to face Tiamat. Marduk, in exchange for the supreme authority over the gods, agrees to fight Tiamat.<br />
<br />
</p><div style="margin-left: 40px; "><p>Then the lord [Marduk] raised the thunderbolt, his mighty weapon,<br />
He mounted the chariot, the storm unequaled for terror,<br />
He harnessed and yoked unto it four horses,<br />
Destructive, ferocious, overwhelming, and swift of pace;<br />
Poisoned were their sharp teeth...<br />
He posted on his right the Batterer, best in the mêlée;<br />
On his left the Battle-fury that blasts the bravest,<br />
Lapped in this armor, a leaping terror,<br />
With overpowering brightness his head was crowned;<br />
With a magic word clenched between his lips,<br />
A healing plant pressed in his palm, this lord struck out.</p></div><br />
<p>The dramatic, heroic poem goes on to describe how Marduk kills Tiamat, and cuts her in two. With half of her body he forms the sky (note the reference to the waters above the sky here, as in Gen. 1), and half the oceans beneath. Marduk sets in place various deities as stars in Tiamat's body in the sky, and orders them "to mark off the days" and keep time.<br />
<br />
Many other pagan cosmogonies from the ancient near east are similar: gods are born, there is a battle between the gods, and one god becomes supreme and destroys the others. Canaanite mythology had a similar saga of conflict with the monsters of chaos and the eventual triumph of Baal. Modern readers are probably more familiar with the similar Greek myths of the Titans and their struggle with the Zeus and the Olympian gods. In all these accounts, the creation of the world is a more or less accidental consequence of the outcome of the battle between the gods. The body of the dead god formed the world and the sky.<br />
<br />
<b>The nature of God: monotheism makes faith possible</b><br />
<br />
The creation narrative in Genesis 1 has a few superficial similarities to the Babylonian account. For example, it starts with salt water ("Tiamat" is possibly a cognate of the Hebrew word <i>tehom</i>, "the deep"). The water is separated into the waters above and the oceans. Stars are for a calendar.<br />
<br />
While the similarities are real, the differences are much larger, and the differences are what would have been noticed first by ancient audiences. It should be obvious to even a casual reader that the world of Genesis 1 is utterly different from the world of the Enuma Elish. Probably the most obvious difference is that Genesis 1 has no conflict. In comparison with the poetry of the Enuma Elish, Genesis 1 is a dull, plodding list. There is no violence and there is no sex. The mythological accounts of cosmology are frankly much more interesting as a story than anything in Genesis 1 or 2. But the fact that Genesis 1 is boring is what makes it so exciting. Reading a gripping drama is pleasurable and interesting, but living in one is unpleasant and terrifying.<br />
<br />
Drama depends on conflict. Now we do not see the world as populated by independent, disagreeing, and unpredictable entities, but the ancients did. Gods were as unpredictable as weather; in fact, that's what caused weather. The supreme deity barely managed to keep all the fractious gods in line. There were lapses where his will was not obeyed, and there are limits to his power. This is the main plot device in the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aneid, and various other classical myths such as the Prometheus story. The same is true of mesopotamian stories such as the Atrahasis Epic and the flood story in the Gilgamesh epic, and many other ancient works. In most of these epics, it is sometimes better for humans when the supreme deity's will is not obeyed. For pagans, no deity could be trusted; even if there were a deity with the character, he did not have the power. In contrast, if the Genesis 1 cosmology is true, the creator can be trusted because his will is always done. There are no limits to his power, and no one can stand in his way. <b>Living by faith is impossible without monotheism.</b><br />
<br />
This point is reinforced by what Genesis 1 does not mention. Genesis 1 goes out of its way to avoid even naming other possible actors. In other scriptural discussions of creation (e.g., in Proverbs or Job) we hear that Wisdom and the angels were in some way involved. But mentioning them here would weaken the argument that the author is making, that there are no other gods involved, because people from a polytheistic background would automatically think of angels or wisdom as distinct gods. Similarly, the sun and the moon are not even named. This is probably because they were widely worshiped in the ancient near east, and the author of Genesis wishes to demote them to mere created objects. So he calls them just "the greater light" and the "the lesser light". Such a slight on the celestial bodies would stand out to an ancient audience.<br />
<br />
In the same vein, in 1:21 it says "God made the great sea monsters"--which would have been understood in ancient times as the sea monsters who were the imagined incarnation of frightening pagan deities, the monsters of chaos (like Tiamat). God made those too. There is no danger that these personifications of chaos will again swamp the creation--God made them.<br />
<br />
Another difference between Genesis 1 and the other ancient cosmologies which would be blindingly obvious to a person in the ancient near east is that God has no origin. Most other ancient cosmologies are primarily cosmogonies (i.e., stories about the origin of the gods), and the origin of the visible world is usually an afterthought. Set against this pagan background, the omission of any history of God makes a powerful statement. "In the beginning, God created...": the fact that the God whom we worship now is the same God who was there at the beginning, without any development, is important for living by faith. If God changed in the past, then he might change in the future. If God changes and develops, then we cannot trust in his plan for all time--he might change his mind. The unchanging nature of God is often celebrated later in the scripture, because it gives us hope. "I, Yahweh, do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed." (Mal. 3:6)<br />
<br />
Vital to every mythological creation account is sex between the gods; all over the ancient world, sex seems to have been regarded as something that has power over even divinity. Once again, the Genesis account is completely different: sex is something that God created, not a fundamental force in the universe apart from God which controls even him. It should therefore be subservient to him. This is part of the foundation for biblical sexual ethics.<br />
<br />
<b>The nature of the universe</b><br />
<br />
Another fundamental difference between Genesis and other ancient cosmologies is the clear separation between God and what he made. The world that is created is not part of a god (as in the Babylonian account), or something that proceeds from a god (as in several Egyptian accounts), nor is the universe equal to god (as in Stoicism and Hinduism and other pantheistic religions); instead, the world is something separate from God, that he created. The universe itself is not divine, nor does it have any divine essence.<br />
<br />
What difference does it make whether God <i>created</i> the universe or God <i>is</i> the universe? It is obvious to everyone that the world has some serious flaws right now. If the world is divine, then God is the problem, and there is no hope that the world can improve. The best that we can do is to accept suffering (Stoicism or Buddhism), or to withdraw (e.g., to stop being reincarnated, as in the Hindu concept of Nirvana). But if the world was created by and is separate from God, then the Creator can make things new again. The entire Christian hope of redemption of the world depends on the concept of God as creator separate from and superior to the universe.<br />
<br />
Although the creation is not divine, it is good. This assertion also has far reaching consequences. Later Greek thinkers tended to regard the material world as a mere poor copy of the nonmaterial world, the world of Platonic "forms" or ideals, where there was true perfection; the physical body was seen as a hinderance which would gladly be sloughed off. Still later, gnostics thought that matter is intrinsically evil; a bad god imprisoned our spirits in matter, and our hope is to rise above the material existence and enter the world of pure spirits.<br />
<br />
Although the author of Genesis likely does not have these gnostic theologies in mind as he writes, this text nevertheless clearly contradicts these ideas, with important consequences for us. The simple Christian practice of thanking God for our food would make no sense if we did not believe that matter is a good creation of God. The body is not unnecessary or bad; far from it! The body is a good creation of God, and we cannot be what God intended us without it. This is why the ultimate Christian hope is resurrection from the dead rather than a disembodied existence in heaven; we long to be clothed with our new bodies, as Paul says, not to be unclothed (2 Corinthians 5:3). A mere nonphysical existence after death would be a defeat for the creator. Only resurrection of the physical body can swallow death up in victory (1 Corinthians 15:54).<br />
<br />
The world view established by the Genesis creation account makes possible the Christian hope in God's good plan. More on this later....</p>Gary Holthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04963527816905774899noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7185990731670838653.post-89781597678197635812009-07-03T15:32:00.008-04:002010-01-14T10:05:17.510-05:00The new Adam and the new humanityWhat does it mean to be human? This is obviously a vast topic, but the best starting point in the Bible is Genesis 1, where God says, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." After making man, he "blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."<br />
<br />
From this passage, we see that what makes man human is that he is in God's image, as opposed to the animals, which are made after their own kinds. Clearly we are like God in some important way, unlike the animals, and clearly the the image of God is connected with ruling over the world. I think that it is best to say that the image of God is the likeness of man to God which enables him to rule. This consists of the intellectual ability to rule (planning, speech). It also consists of the character to rule, which is the main focus of the biblical discussion.<br />
<br />
The image of God is also connected with sonship. Consider Genesis 4:1: "Adam had a son in his own likeness, in his own image." This is the only other place in the Bible where the phrase "in his own image and likeness" appears, and I think we are to understand the sons of God as those who bear the image of God. (Adam is explicitly called the "son of God" in Luke 3:37.) A son is to be like his father, and a son will do what his father does.<br />
<br />
God created man as the keystone of his creation, and gave him the charge to rule, and in the same passage blessed all of creation. I think it is not a stretch to say that God gave man the charge to rule <b>so that</b> all creation would be blessed. But when Adam fell, he brought curse to the entire creation instead of blessing. Creation is now waiting in eager expectation for the unveiling of the sons of God (Rom 8:19-20) who will liberate it from its bondage to decay. What God is doing in redemption is creating a new humanity which will accomplish God's original plan to bring blessing. At key stages in redemptive history, the scripture is careful to connect the people of God with the blessing of creation.<br />
<br />
When God calls Abram, he tells him to "leave your country, your people, and your father's household" (Genesis 12:1). He says it three times, so it must be important. There is more involved here than just leaving behind the idolatrous influence of his family (Joshuah 24:2). Leaving family behind was very unusual in the ancient world, where family gives a person his identity. Family ties define one's connection to the rest of the human race. (This is one reason why genealogies are so important in many cultures.) When Abram turns away from his family, he loses his connection to the rest of humanity, and that is the point: the family of Abraham will be a new humanity.<br />
<br />
God promises to bless Abram and to make him a blessing, a clear allusion back to the blessing of creation. It is through Abraham that the blessing of God will reach the ends of the earth. Abram also will have many descendants, corresponding to God's blessing to Adam to "be fruitful and multiply". (In fact, his offspring "will be like the dust of the earth," which is perhaps an inverted allusion to God's curse on Adam that he would return to the dust.) Abraham's descendants will "rule over the gates of their enemies" (Genesis 22:17), corresponding to Adam's charter to rule. Abraham is given the land, which Paul understands to mean the whole earth (Romans 4:13), not just the land of Israel.<br />
<br />
It is the descendants of Abraham, the children of Israel, who are referred to as the sons of God (Exodus 4:22). Note also the reiteration of blessing as part of the covenant (e.g., Deuteronomy 28) and the curses that follow if the people refuse their calling, just as with Adam. The people of Israel are intended to be the new humanity who accomplish God's purpose.<br />
<br />
David is given a similar blessing: seed, a special relationship with God, authority, land. Note particularly 2 Sam 7:19, which can arguably be translated, "Is this your charter for humanity?" (See Kaiser, <i>Toward an Old Testament Theology</i>, pp. 152-155.) The kings of Israel are called "the son of God" (e.g., Psalm 2; 2 Samuel 7:14); they are the representative head of the new humanity, and the commission and the blessing are focused on them (e.g., Psalm 72: "All nations will be blessed through [the king]", referring back to Genesis 12).<br />
<br />
Daniel 7 is God's plan for humanity. (It is a development of the same theme earlier in Daniel; chapter 2 is about humanity's destiny, and chapter 4 is about how proud humanity's boasts make it less than human.) Daniel 7 portrays the kingdoms of men as ravaging beasts--they are not even human. Men in their sinfulness and violence have sunk to the level of animals: they do not have the character to rule. But then "one like a son of man" is given the final authority to rule over the entire earth. The contrast between the man and the animals is strikingly reminiscent of Genesis 1. The angel interpreting the vision explains that the meaning of the son of man is that "the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever"--the truly human people will rule. This passage is particularly interesting because it highlights the divine likeness of the "son of man" (he comes with the clouds, and people worship him), and yet it connects it with the people of God. This tension between the "son of Man" as a divine person, and the "son of Man" as collectively the people of God is not resolved until the New Testament, where the "Son of Man" is in fact the Son of God, the exact image of God, and his people who are in his likeness and rule with him.<br />
<br />
Though the Old Testament presents Israel as the new humanity, it is only as a type (a foreshadowing), not the reality. Israel, as is apparent from her record, behaves very much like the old humanity. The real change begins with Jesus and the coming of the Spirit, and is still continuing today. Of course, like Israel, the church does not often act as the true humanity, but with the Spirit it has the potential to do so, sometimes does now, and is guaranteed to do so in the future.<br />
<br />
In the New Testament, it is Jesus who is the truly human person, because he is the exact image of God. A number of passages compare him with Adam (most obviously Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15). The gospels show how he was tempted as Adam was in a garden (and also in the wilderness, the opposite of a garden), but he obeyed. He wears a crown of thorns, symbolically bearing the curse. Pilate and the soldiers jeeringly proclaim him as king, but what they say is ironically true: Jesus is the ruler of the world. And Pilate, in another ironic act with much deeper significance than he realizes, brings Jesus out dressed as a king, and says, "Behold <span style="font-weight: bold;">the man</span>!" (John 19:5) That John intends this an allusion to Genesis 1 is likely given the other allusions to Genesis 1 nearby: this happens on the sixth day of the week, a day which is ended by Jesus' loud cry, "It is finished," and then comes the sabbath. The point is that in the death of Jesus, God has created the new humanity. Jesus has accomplished what God intended, and is ruling as God intended for man.<br />
<br />
After his resurrection, Jesus breathes his Spirit into the disciples (John 20:22), which is an allusion to God breathing the breath of life into man in Genesis 2. (Also the Spirit came as a mighty rushing wind at Pentecost, which is likely an allusion to Genesis 1:2--now the whole world is being re-created, with the new humanity first rather than last.) After announcing that "all authority is given to me" as it was in part to Adam, he gives them the commission to "go into all the world and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19). This is essentially the same as saying "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it."<br />
<br />
Now we are the sons and daughters of God, and it has not yet appeared what we will be (1 John 3:1ff), but we will be like him when he appears. We, Jesus' brothers and sisters (Hebrews 2:11), are putting on the new man, which is being made in the image of our creator (Colossians 3:10). These and other New Testament passages about the image of God are primarily about having the character of God. We will one day rule the world with Jesus, the way God intended for Adam to rule; but we must have the character to rule.<br />
<br />
The climax comes when Jesus has finally subdued the earth, as Adam was supposed to: "He must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.... For it says, 'he has put everything under his feet.'" (1 Corinthians 15:25ff, quoting Psalm 8.) Paul here takes what was said of humanity in general, that humans rule over the earth because God intended it that way, and applies it to Jesus in particular (as the new Adam), and explains it as the goal of history. The last Adam, unlike the first, "will himself be subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." In the end, the curse that came from Adam's action is undone, the tree of life is again accessible, and the redeemed people of God rule over the earth as God intended (Rev. 22:1-5).<br />
<br />
[Material for this was gathered primarily from W. Kaiser, <span style="font-style: italic;">Toward an Old Testament Theology</span>, and N. T. Wright, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Resurrection of the Son of God</span>, both of which are well worth reading for their insights into the development of key themes of the Bible from beginning to end.]Gary Holthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04963527816905774899noreply@blogger.com0