Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 3

Psalm 1

Psalm 1:1-6, ASV translation, as prose:

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of scoffers: but his delight is in the law of YHWH; and on his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the streams of water, that bringeth forth its fruit in its season, whose leaf also doth not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The wicked are not so, but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the wicked shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For YHWH knoweth the way of the righteous; but the way of the wicked shall perish.

Psalm 1:1-6 ASV according to Hebrew parallelism (as marked in BHS):

Blessed is the man / that walketh not / in the counsel of the wicked
Nor standeth in the way of sinners / nor sitteth in the seat of scoffers.
But his delight is in the law of YHWH / and on his law doth he meditate day and night.
And he shall be like a tree / planted by the streams of water
That bringeth forth its fruit in its season / whose leaf also doth not wither
And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
The wicked are not so
But are like the chaff / which the wind driveth away.
Therefore the wicked shall not stand in the judgment / nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
For YHWH knoweth the way of the righteous / but the way of the wicked shall perish.

Psalm 1 in the Scottish Metrical Psalter of 1650:

1 That man hath perfect blessedness,
who walketh not astray
In counsel of ungodly men,
nor stands in sinners’ way,

2 Nor sitteth in the scorner’s chair:
But placeth his delight
Upon God’s law, and meditates
on his law day and night.

3 He shall be like a tree that grows
near planted by a river,
Which in his season yields his fruit,
and his leaf fadeth never:

4 And all he doth shall prosper well
The wicked are not so;
But like they are unto the chaff,
which wind drives to and fro.

5 In judgment therefore shall not stand
such as ungodly are;
Nor in th’ assembly of the just
shall wicked men appear.

6 For why? The way of godly men
unto the Lord is known:
Whereas the way of wicked men
shall quite be overthrown.

As we begin our study of the Psalms, let us consider these different ways of looking at the same text. When we see the Psalm as unbroken prose we may see the substance and the theme but cannot as clearly see many of the poetic features. When we break up the Psalm into appropriate parallel versets we can see the poetic features in a bit better relief but they remain foreign to our ears. I include the Scottish Metrical Psalter recognizing the limitations of a 365 year old project but in order to show the poetry in a way more familiar to us English speaking types. If the Psalms will be effectively put to song it will look quite like the Scottish Metrical Psalter with updated language.

Psalm 1 as Poetry

Psalm 1 features all the hallmarks of a wisdom psalm and an elaborate poetic composition. The first word of the Psalm begins with aleph and the last word with tav, from “A to Z” in English terms. Psalm 1 is organized according to A B A’ B’ order (Psalm 1:1-3 A, Psalm 1:4-5 B, Psalm 1:6a A’, Psalm 1:6b B’). Psalm 1 features the inclusio of the “wicked”, beginning with the righteous avoiding the way of the wicked and ending with the overthrowing of the way of the wicked. Psalm 1:1-2 also maintains an anaphora of triple negative and then triple positive declarations.

The imagery of Psalm 1 is quite striking. The predominant image is that of the way or journey: a sharp, clear choice between the “way” of righteousness and the “way” of the wicked. We can perceive the warning in movement in Psalm 1:1: not to walk with wicked, not to stand with sinners, not to sit with scoffers, with each level denoting ever greater comfort and association with ever more depraved and terrible persons. In addition the Psalter uses agricultural imagery: the righteous as the healthy, prosperous tree and the wicked as the chaff, the refuse blown away when grain is thrown in the air, thus, the unhealthy, unprofitable plant.

Psalm 1 in Context and Canon

Psalm 1 is generally and rightly seen as a wisdom psalm.

Psalm 1, and in fact the whole book of Psalms, begins without any sort of superscription; since antiquity Psalms 1 and 2 have been understood as part of the “bookends” of the Psalms, providing an introduction to the entire corpus.

Psalm 1 contrasts the fortunes of the “righteous” and the “wicked.” The righteous man is blessed and made prosperous by YHWH because he delights in and meditates upon the torah of YHWH; he does not maintain association or connection with the wicked. The righteous are commended highly in Psalm 1:1-4; the Psalter then makes a sharp and emphatic contrast in Psalm 1:5, declaring that while the righteous prosper, it is “not so” with the wicked. The righteous are an ever fruitful tree planted by water; the wicked are as the chaff that blows away and will not endure. The wicked will not stand in judgment or be able to participate in the community of God’s people in Psalm 1:5. The conclusion of the matter is seen in Psalm 1:6, the point to which the whole Psalm points: YHWH knows the way of the righteous, for it is the way He has prepared for them; the way of the wicked will perish.

The focus on the two “ways” emphasizes the choice put before the people of God as individuals and as a collective: the “way of the righteous,” based in YHWH’s torah, and the “way of the wicked,” which is opposed to God’s torah.

There are no strong contextual markers upon which to declare that Psalm 1 is pre-exilic, exilic, or based in the Second Temple period. Some have tried to reconstruct a first Temple context for Psalm 1 but it does not seem to have any special cult-functional purpose. The focus on torah and the “community of the righteous” may denote a Second Temple period setting in the synagogue as exhortation toward faithful torah living, especially if there is movement from Temple to Torah from the First to Second Temple period.

The canonical purpose of Psalm 1 is more clear: it opens the Psalter. The presence of a robust wisdom psalm to begin the Psalter may seem surprising in light of the Psalms’ purpose as praise and giving a voice to the people of God to make petitions and declarations to YHWH. Yet perhaps that is the point: Psalm 1 begins the Psalter to warn the reader, hearer, or petitioner to remain firmly grounded in YHWH’s torah. Psalms and Torah are not in competition with one another; the Psalter in fact goes out of his way to make the Psalms parallel to Torah, compiling a fivefold collection of Psalms just as there are five books of Torah. The wicked will find no solace in the Psalms; there will be no avoiding or getting away from the demands of Torah. The people of YHWH should sing the Psalms but continue to serve YHWH according to Torah. Likewise, Psalm 1 can be seen as the door or gate for the rest of the Psalms, in terms of protecting the Psalter’s collection from the taint of heresy and as a continued warning, in light of Israel’s history, of trying to substitute liturgy for obedience.

We may not be able to ascertain the specific time of the writing of Psalm 1 but its placement dates to the Second Temple period as the Psalter finally compiled the Psalms as we now know them. Psalm 1 is deliberately placed to exhort the synagogue community to righteousness through delight in and meditation upon torah as found in the Pentateuch and likely in the Psalms and Prophets as well.

Psalm 1 Throughout History

It did not take long for early Christians to see Jesus as the embodiment and illustration of the “righteous” in Psalm 1. Jesus came to fulfill the Torah according to Matthew 5:17-18, and thus exemplifies the Righteous One who lived by YHWH’s instruction. Likewise, to delight in YHWH’s torah is to delight in His Word, the Logos, that is, in Jesus as the embodiment of God’s instruction to humanity.

Exegetes like Hilary of Poitiers and Augustine saw connections between Psalm 1 and Exodus 3 in terms of the revelation of YHWH: as YHWH is Being and the Source of Life, to be known by YHWH is life, and to be unknown to Him is death.

Many focused on the contrast between the righteous and the wicked and used it as a paradigm for other similar contrasts, especially in the days of the Reformation and beyond. In light of James 1:22-25 it could be contrasted with the one who does versus the one who just hears, or one who actually loves God while another just loves to learn, or the godly person seeking to serve YHWH versus the humanist scholar who pursues learning for learning’s sake. Among the Puritans Matthew Poole declared that the life of the faithful must start with trust in the Creator which is to lead to obedience to the Savior and then praise in the Holy Spirit; thus, Psalm 1 invites the reader toward trust in the Creator and imitation of the Righteous One so as to be able to proclaim the praises inspired by the Spirit throughout the Psalms.

In hymnody the chorus of “I Shall Not Be Moved” is drawn from the tree image of Psalm 1:3 (and has been coordinated with many different types of verses, even for secular purposes):

I shall not be moved
Like a tree planted by the water
I shall not be moved

Psalm 1 Today

The substance and exhortation of Psalm 1 is timeless: everyone is confronted with the two ways. We can either follow the way of God’s instruction, participate with the people of God, and share in the prosperity which God will give all of His people, or we can follow the way of the wicked, sit in their counsel, and perish along with them. The choice seems obvious, and it should be. Yet the people of God need constant reminder and exhortation to delight in God’s instruction and meditate upon it; thus Psalm 1 remains ever relevant.

We must not be moved from YHWH’s instruction in Christ, but we must first make sure that we are firmly rooted in YHWH, delighting in His instruction, meditating on His precepts, and actually doing that which YHWH has commanded. Let us be firmly anchored in God in Christ and continue to devote ourselves to His instruction!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Psalm 1 appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Prayer of Manasseh

What, exactly, was the substance of Manasseh king of Judah’s prayer before YHWH? While many among the people of God have most likely asked this question, someone in antiquity wrote down what they believed the prayer would have been which we now deem the apocryphal Prayer of Manasseh.

The historical Manasseh ben Hezekiah, king of Judah, reigned over Judah for 55 years (ca. 697-643 BCE; 2 Kings 21:1-18, 2 Chronicles 33:1-20). According to the Kings narrative, Manasseh was a most wicked king of Judah, introducing service to foreign gods into the Temple complex in Jerusalem itself; on account of what Manasseh did, YHWH condemned Jerusalem and the Temple to destruction just as He did to Israel (2 Kings 21:1-18).

The Chronicler also bore witness to Manasseh’s many sins, denouncing him as encouraging the Judahites to sin more than the nations which YHWH had destroyed before Israel (2 Chronicles 33:1-9). Yet the Chronicler would also make known how YHWH brought the Assyrians against Manasseh and Judah, and they captured him and carried him away to Babylon (2 Chronicles 33:10-11). The Chronicler then recorded Manasseh’s response:

In his pain Manasseh asked YHWH his God for mercy and truly humbled himself before the God of his ancestors. When he prayed to YHWH, YHWH responded to him and answered favorably his cry for mercy.
YHWH brought him back to Jerusalem to his kingdom. Then Manasseh realized that YHWH is the true God (2 Chronicles 33:12-13).

According to the Chronicler, Manasseh returned to Jerusalem, heightened its walls, removed the service to foreign gods from the Temple, and exhorted the Judahites to serve YHWH God of Israel (2 Chronicles 33:14-17). In concluding his account of Manasseh’s reign, the Chronicler spoke of his sources:

The rest of the events of Manasseh’s reign, including his prayer to his God and the words the prophets spoke to him in the name of YHWH God of Israel, are recorded in the Annals of the Kings of Israel. The Annals of the Prophets include his prayer, give an account of how YHWH responded to it, record all his sins and unfaithful acts, and identify the sites where he built high places and erected Asherah poles and idols before he humbled himself (2 Chronicles 33:18-19).

We might associate the Annals of the Kings of Israel with the Books of Kings, but while 2 Kings 21:1-18 bore witness to Manasseh’s reign and the words the prophets spoke to him, none of our manuscripts preserve his prayer. We are left to believe the Annals of the Kings of Israel, if nothing else, included other information beyond what we can see in 1 and 2 Kings, and has been lost to us. The same would be true for the Annals of the Prophets: anything regarding Manasseh’s sins, his prayer, and YHWH’s response have been lost to us.

The record of Manasseh’s prayer was not just lost to us; it was most likely lost well in antiquity, early in the Second Temple Period. We can perceive this not only because no later source describes anything in the Annals of the Kings of Israel or the Annals of the Prophets, and also because two different prayers purported to be Manasseh’s have come down to us: a prayer in Hebrew as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q381:17), and a Greek text called the Prayer of Manasseh which became part of some forms of the Septuagint. We will consider this latter Prayer of Manasseh in greater detail.

The Prayer of Manasseh has been preserved in Greek, as well as in Syriac, Old Slavonic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Latin translations; many scholars believe it was originally a Greek composition, but some argue for a Hebrew original. All agree the Prayer of Manasseh was certainly written during the Second Temple Period: no later than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and most likely between 200-1 BCE.

This is the Prayer of Manasseh as translated in the New Revised Standard Version of the Apocrypha (NRSVA):

O Lord Almighty, God of our ancestors, of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and of their righteous offspring; you who made heaven and earth with all their order; who shackled the sea by your word of command, who confined the deep and sealed it with your terrible and glorious name; at whom all things shudder, and tremble before your power, for your glorious splendor cannot be borne, and the wrath of your threat to sinners is unendurable; yet immeasurable and unsearchable is your promised mercy, for you are the Lord Most High, of great compassion, long-suffering, and very merciful, and you relent at human suffering.

O Lord, according to your great goodness you have promised repentance and forgiveness to those who have sinned against you, and in the multitude of your mercies you have appointed repentance for sinners, so that they may be saved. Therefore you, O Lord, God of the righteous, have not appointed repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who did not sin against you, but you have appointed repentance for me, who am a sinner. For the sins I have committed are more in number than the sand of the sea; my transgressions are multiplied, O Lord, they are multiplied! I am not worthy to look up and see the height of heaven because of the multitude of my iniquities. I am weighted down with many an iron fetter, so that I am rejected because of my sins, and I have no relief; for I have provoked your wrath and have done what is evil in your sight, setting up abominations and multiplying offenses.

And now I bend the knee of my heart, imploring you for your kindness. I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge my transgressions. I earnestly implore you, forgive me, O Lord, forgive me! Do not destroy me with my transgressions! Do not be angry with me forever or store up evil for me; do not condemn me to the depths of the earth.

For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent, and in me you will manifest your goodness; for, unworthy as I am, you will save me according to your great mercy, and I will praise you continually all the days of my life. For all the host of heaven sings your praise, and yours is the glory forever. Amen.

The Prayer of Manasseh provided no narrative or editorial introduction; at no point within the text was Manasseh explicitly mentioned. Instead, the Prayer of Manasseh begins by invoking God as the Lord Almighty, God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their offspring, praising God as the Creator to whom all things are subject, full of splendor but terrifying with wrath toward sinners, and yet also deeply merciful (Prayer of Manasseh 1:1-6). The Prayer of Manasseh highlighted God’s compassion, longsuffering, and mercy as the Lord Most High, having promised repentance and forgiveness to those who sinned against him (Prayer of Manasseh 1:7). The Prayer of Manasseh would suggest God did not appoint repentance for the righteous, like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but repentance for the author, a sinner who sinned profoundly against God; he could not even look up to God on account of all his iniquities; he was weighed down with his sins and provoked God’s wrath against him on account of his idolatry (the strongest point of association between the material in the prayer and Manasseh; Prayer of Manasseh 1:8-10). The Prayer of Manasseh then set forth great contrition: the one praying would bend the knee of his heart, imploring God’s kindness, confessing he had sinned, begging for forgiveness, and asking to avoid destruction, God’s anger, and condemnation (Prayer of Manasseh 1:11-13). The Prayer of Manasseh concluded with the expectation the prayer would be heard and accepted: the one praying confessed the Lord as the God of those who repent, and through him God would manifest His goodness, and would save him despite his unworthiness; the one praying would praise God continually for the rest of his life along with the host of heaven (Prayer of Manasseh 1:13-15).

There is no evidence the Prayer of Manasseh was a seventh century composition by Manasseh ben Hezekiah, king of Judah, or recorded as part of the Annals of the Kings of Israel or the Annals of the Prophets. Instead, in Jewish and all Christian traditions, the Prayer of Manasseh is reckoned as apocryphal and pseudepigraphal: not actually written by Manasseh ben Hezekiah, but by someone later imagining what Manasseh might have prayed, and preserved as part of some editions of the Greek Septuagint.

While most believe the author of the Prayer of Manasseh was most likely a Jewish person of the later Second Temple Period, Jewish tradition overall did not make much of the Prayer of Manasseh, although a copy of it in Hebrew was found as part of the Cairo Genizah. The Prayer of Manasseh would feature more prominently in many Christian traditions. In the Ethiopian Bible and some of the earliest editions of the Latin Vulgate, the Prayer of Manasseh was placed either within or at the end of 2 Chronicles. More often, the Prayer of Manasseh would be placed among other apocryphal or deuterocanonical works, as in the Greek Septuagint, later editions of the Vulgate, Luther’s translation of the Bible in German, and some of the earliest English Bible translations, including the Apocrypha of the 1611 King James Version. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches consider the Prayer of Manasseh to be deuterocanonical; the Roman Catholic Church did not include the Prayer of Manasseh among the deuterocanonical works it considered part of the canon of Scripture, but may consider it profitable for devotional purposes.

What should we make of the Prayer of Manasseh? We have every reason to believe Manasseh ben Hezekiah, king of Judah, prayed a prayer before YHWH in contrition and repentance for all the abominations, idolatry, and immorality he himself perpetrated and also encouraged the Judahites to perpetrate. We also have every reason to believe the prayer Manasseh ben Hezekiah prayed was preserved, along with other details and information surrounding his life and the prayer, as part of the Annals of the Kings of Israel and the Annals of the Prophets.

But we have no manuscripts of, or even other texts referencing, the Annals of the Kings of Israel or the Annals of the Prophets. Since two very different prayers have come down to us purporting to be what Manasseh ben Hezekiah prayed, it proves challenging to even entertain the possibility one of them might preserve the prayer from either source mentioned by the Chronicler. It would make more sense to believe both prayers were written by later Jewish people who were imagining what Manasseh ben Hezekiah would have prayed in that situation.

Therefore, while no doubt some sincere and faithful Christians have believed the Prayer of Manasseh represents the prayer Manasseh ben Hezekiah actually prayed, it is more likely a later Greek apocryphal composition. The overall theological framework and expressions within the prayer prove far more aligned with the later Second Temple Period than the days of the Davidic kings.

So if the Prayer of Manasseh was not what Manasseh ben Hezekiah actually prayed, why should we give it any regard? For generations, Christians have appreciated the Prayer of Manasseh for devotional purposes: just as its author imagined himself as giving voice to what Manasseh ben Hezekiah would have prayed, so we all likewise can consider the Prayer of Manasseh in giving voice to us to ask God for forgiveness. The vast majority of the Prayer of Manasseh presents solid theology and provides compelling expressions of contrition before God. The only troublesome premises within the Prayer of Manasseh would involve the suggestion the righteous would never need repentance, or that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not sin (cf. Prayer of Manasseh 1:8): the Scriptures appropriately understand all people, including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, and thus even the “righteous” will at times need to repent of sin (cf. Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:7-10).

The Prayer of Manasseh, therefore, was not actually spoken by Manasseh ben Hezekiah, and was not what was recorded in the Annals of the Kings of Israel or the Annals of the Prophets. The Prayer of Manasseh should not be considered canonical or inspired Scripture. But the Prayer of Manasseh remains a devotional composition of the Second Temple Period which can provide benefit to Christians to this day. Christians can appropriate many aspects of the Prayer of Manasseh in their prayers of contrition and repentance before God. The Prayer of Manasseh expertly framed the appeal for contrition and repentance within a framework which established God’s great majesty, compassion, kindness, grace, and mercy, along with expressions anticipating the acceptance of the prayer and the desire to continue praising God among His people and the host of heaven. After all, who among us could not speak out the vast majority of the Prayer of Manasseh in good conscience as an appeal to God to be forgiven of our sins? May we well consider the Prayer of Manasseh as an exemplar of expressing contrition, repentance, and asking God for the forgiveness of our sins, appropriate it appropriately, and continue to seek to serve God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Prayer of Manasseh appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Baal of Peor and a New Census

The generation God delivered from Egypt would meet its final end. A new generation would arise and fulfill all God had promised.

The Book of Numbers was aptly named bemidbar in Hebrew, for it bore witness to Israel’s experiences “in the wilderness.” YHWH had prepared the Israelite camp and His Tabernacle for entry into Canaan (Numbers 1:1-10:11), but that generation of Israelites continued to persist in rebellion against Him, and to that end He condemned all of them to die in the wilderness (Numbers 10:12-19:22). Over forty years all but Moses, Joshua, and Caleb from that generation would die in the wilderness; Moses would also be condemned to die; YHWH then led Israel to the banks of the Jordan River in the land of Moab (Numbers 20:1-22:1).

Balak king of Moab, concerned about the welfare of Moab in the face of Israel, had hired Balaam son of Beor to curse Israel; nevertheless, three times Balaam instead blessed Israel according to the will and word of YHWH (Numbers 22:1-24:25). In Numbers 25:1-26:65, attention was redirected back to Israel and what would transpire at Shittim in Moab.

At Shittim, the men of Israel “played the harlot,” or “committed sexual immorality,” with the daughters of Moab (Numbers 25:1). After engaging in sexual relations, or perhaps as part of the rituals involving said sexual relations, the Moabite women invited the Israelites to the sacrifices they would make before their gods, and Israelites would bow down to them (Numbers 25:2). The god in particular was Baal of Peor (Numbers 25:3); Baal was the storm god served throughout the lands of Canaan and ostensibly the Transjordan; Peor was a mountain which looked toward the wastelands according to Numbers 23:28. When gods were associated with a particular place, it generally meant there was some special cult site for the god at that location, either because some myth or legend associated that particular place with that god, or because the place had earlier been a cult site for a god which was assimilated into a newly dominant culture.

YHWH’s anger arose against Israel on account of their service to Baal of Peor (Numbers 25:3). YHWH commanded Moses to arrest the leaders of the people and to hang them before YHWH (and all the people) so YHWH’s anger would turn from Israel (Numbers 25:4). It would not seem as if Moses followed this command, unless we are to understand they were eliminated from the lack of mention of any tribal chiefs in Numbers 26:1-65. Instead, Moses commanded the judges of Israel to execute all those who joined themselves to Baal of Peor (Numbers 25:5).

While Moses was having this conversation with the judges of Israel at the tent of meeting, Zimri ben Salu of Simeon brought Cozbi (or Kozbi) bat Zur of Midian into a tent in the full sight of Moses and all the Israelites while they were weeping at the entrance of the tent of meeting (Numbers 25:6). Most reject the suggestion the two entered the tent of meeting itself, but they certainly seemed to enter some kind of tent which included some kind of sanctuary to Baal of Peor or some other god or goddess. We should not imagine Cozbi was merely a Midianite leader’s daughter; she was likely a priestess of some sort, and the sexual activity in which Zimri and Cozbi were engaged was most likely the consummation of some kind of religious ritual.

Zimri’s behavior was blatant and shocking. Moses did not seem to do much of anything. Instead, Phinehas ben Eleazar ben Aaron the high priest took a javelin and thrust through Zimri and Cozbi while they were in flagrante (Numbers 25:7-8, 14-15). Phinehas’ action led to the end of a plague which had spread throughout Israel and which led to the death of 24,000 (Numbers 25:8b-9).

While Zimri’s behavior was inexcusable, Phinehas’ response was itself shocking and well beyond anything so far prescribed in the Law. Zimri was the son of the chief of Simeon, and Cozbi was the daughter of a Midianite leader; there would be political and foreign policy implications for Phinehas’ actions. Perhaps for this reason YHWH spoke to Moses regarding what Phinehas had done: his zeal had turned YHWH’s anger away from Israel, and YHWH would give him a covenant of peace, and his descendants would remain priests before Him; he had made atonement for the Israelites (Numbers 25:10-13). YHWH would also command Moses to tell Israel to bring trouble against the Midianites and to destroy them because of the treachery by which they had deceived Israel in the matter of Baal of Peor and by the behavior of Cozbi (Numbers 25:17-18).

Cozbi was the first Midianite mentioned in regards to the matter of Baal of Peor, but since the Midianites were associated with the Moabites in terms of the Balak and Balaam episode in Numbers 22:1-24:25, we should not be surprised to see Midian involved with the matter of Baal of Peor as well.

Later traditions have been ambivalent about Phinehas and his zeal. Those who have nurtured a strong desire to resist what is deemed religious oppression have tended to strongly exalt Phinehas and to associate themselves with a similar zeal. The author of 1 Maccabees spoke of Mattathias’ actions against the Greek authorities who would have them renounce the customs of Moses in terms of what Phinehas had done:

When Mattathias saw it, he burned with zeal, and his heart was stirred. He gave vent to righteous anger; he ran and slaughtered him on the altar. At the same time he killed the king’s officer who was forcing them to sacrifice, and he tore down the altar. Thus he burned with zeal for the law, just as Phinehas did against Zimri son of Salu (1 Maccabees 2:24-26).

Paul would also speak regarding his former days as a Pharisee as being zealous for God and the traditions of Moses in Acts 22:3 and Galatians 1:14, and wanted his audience to understand such zeal motivated his former persecution of the faith. No doubt those Israelites who resisted the Romans in the First and Second Jewish Wars of 68-70 and 132-135 felt as if they were proving zealous for the traditions of Israel like Phinehas; perhaps for this very reason, the rabbis proved far more suspicious and concerned regarding Phinehas’ zeal, often speaking of its extrajudicial nature and the concerns attendant therein.

We do well to maintain a balanced view of Phinehas and his zeal. We can understand why Phinehas was thus driven to act as he did, but we should also remember how shocking and extrajudicial Phinehas’ actions proved to be. We do best to understand YHWH’s commendation of Phinehas not necessarily as an encouragement for the people of God to act likewise, but instead as justifying Phinehas in the face of the extrajudicial nature of his actions and commending him personally. We should all maintain great zeal for God and His purposes in Christ, but must always channel and direct that energy into serving the Lord as He has prepared the way (Romans 12:11, Hebrews 2:10).

After the plague, YHWH commanded Moses and Eleazar to again take a census of the people, just like they had taken a census forty years earlier (Numbers 26:1-65; cf. Numbers 1:1-3:51). The reason for the new census was made apparent in its conclusion: among the Israelites numbered in the plains of Moab opposite Jericho, none save Caleb ben Jephunneh and Joshua ben Nun were numbered who had been counted before Mount Sinai (Numbers 26:63-65). The word of YHWH against the former generation had been fulfilled; Israel was counted again in order to prepare for the military expedition they would soon begin in Canaan.

Much can be gained by comparing and contrasting the two censuses (Numbers 1:1-3:51 vs. Numbers 26:1-65). The first featured the tribal leaders of the twelve tribes and focused only on the men twenty years and above who could serve in a military capacity; the second was done only by Moses and Eleazar, and while the number still featured the men of military age, each tribe was described in terms of its family units. In the tribal listings, all maintained their places, except Manasseh and Ephraim were reversed (Ephraim then Manasseh, Numbers 1:32-35; Manasseh then Ephraim, Numbers 26:28-37). The overall number of Israelite men counted was smaller the second time, but not by terribly much (from 603,550 in Numbers 1:46 to 601,730 in Numbers 26:51, a loss of 1,820). As with the full number of Israelites, so with some of the tribes: their numbers varied somewhat over the forty years, but not significantly (Reuben, -2,770; Gad, -5,150; Judah, +1,900; Zebulun, +3,100, Dan, +1,700; Levites, +1,000; Numbers 1:20-45, 3:14-39 26:5-50, 58-62). Other tribes, however, saw significant changes in their numbers (Simeon, -37,100; Issachar, +9,900; Manasseh, +20,500; Ephraim and Naphtali, -8,000; Benjamin, +10,200; Asher, +11,900; Numbers 1:20-45, 26:5-50). Some speculate Simeon’s devastation might have come from the plague regarding Baal of Peor on account of Zimri’s affiliation with Simeon, but the text nowhere provides any explanation regarding why some tribes grew and other tribes shrank in population.

Challenges regarding how we should understand the meaning of the Hebrew word ‘eleph remain for Numbers 26:1-65 as in Numbers 1:1-3:51. The word would certainly come to mean “thousand.” Perhaps it meant “thousand” in terms of both of these censuses, yet we have good reason to be skeptical Israel would have truly been so large at the time. God could certainly have made as much provision for millions as thousands in the wilderness; it is not a question of God’s ability to be faithful. Instead, it is a matter of understanding Israel in terms of the Late Bronze Age and with other aspects of Israel as described in the Torah. A military population of over 600,000 and an overall population around 2 million would have completely overwhelmed the Levant in the Late Bronze Age, as far as we can tell; it also would strain credulity to suggest Israel at such numbers was the “least numerous” of all people, as in Deuteronomy 7:7. Perhaps the numbers were deliberately exaggerated; perhaps the term ‘eleph meant a military contingent of a given size far smaller than a thousand and later became a term for a thousand.

The numbers in the second census would matter because they would be the basis on which the land would be apportioned: larger tribes would get a larger inheritance, and smaller tribes a smaller inheritance, with the land divided by lot (Numbers 26:52-56). The lack of an inheritance among the Israelites for the Levites was again re-emphasized (Numbers 26:62).

While the census in Numbers 1:1-46 focused entirely on the tribes and their numbers, the census in Numbers 26:1-65 also would provide some details regarding certain characters associated with the different tribes. Some of the family structures and some of the characters mentioned well be derived from the listing of Jacob’s family from Genesis 46:8-27. Others were mentioned on account of their association with various narratives in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers: Dathan, Abiram, and Korah (Numbers 26:9-11; cf. Numbers 16:1-50; here we learn Korah’s descendants did not die along with him); Zelophehad and his daughters (Numbers 26:33; cf. Numbers 27:1-11, 36:1-13); Amram, Jochebed, Aaron, Moses, and Miriam (Numbers 26:58-59; cf. Exodus 6:20, 15:20); and Nadab and Abihu (Numbers 26:61; cf. Leviticus 10:1-3).

Despite all the travails and trials in the wilderness, YHWH had proven faithful to His promises regarding Israel. The plague which came as a result of the incident regarding Baal of Peor wiped out the rest of the older generation (and likely not a few of the younger generation as well). One generation had thus passed away, and another generation had arisen at around the same size with around the same strength. The rest of the narrative in Numbers would describe how YHWH would prepare this people to accomplish what He had promised to their ancestors and to prove more faithful than their fathers. May we gain insight from the examples of those who have come before us and faithfully serve God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Baal of Peor and a New Census appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Living Is Christ, Dying Is Gain

My confident hope is that I will in no way be ashamed but that with complete boldness, even now as always, Christ will be exalted in my body, whether I live or die. For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. Now if I am to go on living in the body, this will mean productive work for me, yet I don’t know which I prefer: I feel torn between the two, because I have a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far, but it is more vital for your sake that I remain in the body. And since I am sure of this, I know that I will remain and continue with all of you for the sake of your progress and joy in the faith, so that what you can be proud of may increase because of me in Christ Jesus, when I come back to you (Philippians 1:20-26).

Is the “worst case scenario” really the worst possible case? Paul understood the apprehensions and concerns of the Philippian Christians, and took the opportunity to provide some instruction and exhortation in Christ.

Philippi was a Roman colony in Macedonia (part of modern Greece); Paul first visited the area and preached Jesus around 51 (cf. Acts 16:11-40). Paul wrote to the Christians in Philippi most likely around 60-61 from Rome while living under house arrest there (cf. Philippians 1:1). The church had appointed elders and had deacons serving them, and had sent Epaphroditus to provide support and service to Paul (cf. Philippians 1:1, 2:25-30, 4:18). Paul thanked the Philippian Christians for their joint participation in his ministry and prayed for them to abound in love and make good decisions to share in Jesus’ praise at His return (Philippians 1:2-11).

Paul had begun his narratio, according to standard conventions of letter writing in the Greco-Roman world, in Philippians 1:12-19. He would update the Philippian Christians regarding his condition, adroitly addressing their understandable concerns regarding his welfare and the socially shameful condition in which he found himself: the Gospel was actually advancing on account of his house arrest, and the Christians in Rome felt more comfortable speaking of Jesus. Paul remained confident he would find deliverance from his current predicament and appreciated their prayers and support.

Paul concluded his narratio in Philippians 1:20-26. Paul maintained strong hope he would not be ashamed; Christ would be exalted with complete boldness through what happened to Paul whether he lived or died (Philippians 1:20). Then Paul used the language of risk calculus to set forth how he looked at his condition: living is Christ and dying is gain, or profit (Philippians 1:21). Paul felt torn between going to be with Christ, which would be far better, or to remain in the body and prove productive in good work for the Lord (Philippians 1:22-24). Yet he was using the rhetorical technique known as diaporesis, or feigned perplexity: he maintained confidence he would continue to live since it was more vital for the sake of the progress and joy of the Philippian Christians in their faith, and they might have more regarding which to be proud when Paul would come back to them (Philippians 1:24-26).

In this way Paul could address many of the deep apprehensions and concerns of the Philippian Christians without having to mention them explicitly. Paul was a prisoner of the Romans and had appealed to Caesar. While his standing as a Roman citizen would provide him with some benefits, life remained cheap in the world of first century Rome. Paul had every reason to be confident in the accuracy of his claims and the justice of his cause, but how much would that mean before Nero Caesar? The Philippian Christians were acutely aware of this difficulty, and they would have understandably proven very concerned about Paul’s welfare and the prospect of his execution by the Romans.

In Philippians 1:12-26 we can perceive how Paul projected a lot of upbeat confidence regarding his prospects and situation in Rome. Some of it may have involved rhetorical posturing or some positive projection, but most of it was well grounded in what was taking place at the time. But the concern of the Philippian Christians was not entirely invalid: Paul’s situation might turn dire, and quickly. Paul had likely already experienced such a situation as related in 2 Corinthians 1:3-11, and in a couple of years would find himself at the end of that particular road, again in Roman custody, as manifest in the whole letter of 2 Timothy.

So it remained possible Paul might be killed by the Roman authorities, however inappropriate or unjust the sentence. Paul did not want the Philippian Christians to consider this to be such a terrible outcome: after all, if he were to be martyred for the cause of Christ, it would mean Paul would go and be with Christ, and that would be far better (Philippians 1:23)! Paul would rather be with Christ: he was not speaking as if suicidal, but honestly reflected on how he personally would be in a better situation with the Lord in heaven or paradise rather than continuing to proclaim Jesus in Roman chains (Philippians 1:22). Therefore, what the Philippian Christians might imagine to be the worst-case scenario for Paul was not bad at all; in fact, it was pure profit for him!

But it can only really be fully “profit” if Paul would really go to “be with Christ.” Philippians 1:21-23 provides strong support for the expectation Christians do not go to some kind of “Hadean” state, or experience what has been called “soul sleep,” immediately after death: instead, Christians go to be with the Lord in heaven, awaiting the day of the resurrection of life, especially in light of Revelation 7:9-17. We hear nothing regarding Christians going to any kind of Hadean realm in any witness from any of the Apostles since the Lord died and was raised from the dead. The idea of “soul sleep,” first and foremost, distorts and warps the concept of death as sleep in the New Testament, which was the way many spoke of the condition of the body which has died and now awaits the resurrection of life (e.g. Acts 7:60, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18); secondly, no Apostle in the New Testament spoke of “soul sleep” or gave any credence to it as a possibility. Instead, we do best to share in Paul’s hope: when we die, we go to be with Christ, and it is far better than remaining in the flesh with the travails and tribulations of life.

Paul adroitly negotiated the tension within his explanation: on the one hand, he wanted to assure the Philippian Christians regarding his prospects in a worst-case scenario, but on the other hand, he would not want them thinking he really just wanted to go and be with Christ and not remain in the body doing the work of ministry. No wonder Paul went with diaporesis: he did not want to seem disingenuous, but wanted to assure the Philippian Christians his understanding and expectation in persevering in ministry. He would go and be with the Lord Jesus soon enough; Paul would remain and continue with the Philippian Christians. They would not feel ashamed of Paul; they would have reason to be all the more proud of their joint participation with him in his ministry, and it would redound to the glory of God in Christ.

The Philippian Christians loved Paul and continued to support him in his ministry. We can understand their concerns: Paul was not in a great situation, and they were very concerned for his person, welfare, and honor. Paul understood those concerns, and he expertly addressed them throughout his narratio, both reassuring them and also taking appropriate opportunities to reframe their thinking. Imprisonment normally was shameful and would prove a stumbling block for ministry; yet the Gospel was actually advanced on account of Paul’s house arrest. Being executed by the Romans was normally understood as a pretty bad worst-case scenario; for Paul, however, it meant going to be with Christ, which would be very profitable for him! But the worst-case scenario was most probably not going to happen; instead, Paul would be set free to continue to proclaim Jesus and encourage his fellow Christians, and he looked forward to the opportunity to see the Christians of Philippi again to encourage and be encouraged by them.

We also can draw a lot of encouragement from how Paul viewed his situation. We can easily get so concerned about our physical welfare we forget about our ultimate hope of rest in Jesus, and eventually, the resurrection of life. We would gain more profit being with Christ! Nevertheless, to live is also Christ, to glorify and honor Him in our lives: it remains profitable to remain in the body and serve and work to proclaim the Gospel and encourage our fellow Christians. May we also reckon life as Christ, and dying as profit in Christ, and obtain the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Living Is Christ, Dying Is Gain appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

It Is the Lord!

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” known as John, either John ben Zebedee (the Apostle), or John the Elder, wrote down his recollections of his experiences with Jesus so that those who hear or read would believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and would find eternal life in His name (John 1:1-20:31). Many might consider John 20:30-31 to represent a satisfying conclusion, but John the Evangelist did not think so. There was one more story of Jesus’ revealing Himself to His disciples to tell (John 21:1-22).

According to John, Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee (James and John, Mark 1:19-20), and two other disciples were together (John 21:2). The “disciple whom Jesus loved” was present according to John 21:7; he might be John ben Zebedee, or John the Evangelist, and if the latter, then one of the two otherwise unnamed disciples. This is the first instance in which John spoke of the “sons of Zebedee”; here we also learn Nathanael, whom we have not seen mentioned since John 1:45-49, was from Cana in Galilee.

John assumes we have figured out these disciples were near the Sea of Tiberias, and therefore in Galilee (John 21:1). Simon Peter announced he was going fishing, and the rest decided to go with him (John 21:3).

We do not really know when exactly this transpired within the forty days between Jesus’ resurrection and His ascension (Acts 1:3). We assume it would take place after the eighth day and the events described in John 20:1-31; we likewise should assume it did not take place toward the very end of that period of forty days, since the disciples were all back in Jerusalem when Jesus ascended according to Acts 1:4-11. In Matthew’s account of the resurrection, Jesus told the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, and Jesus would appear to them there, and He did so (Matthew 28:10, 16); perhaps this is why the disciples decided to return to Galilee for a moment.

While Luke made it known how Jesus appeared to the disciples over that forty-day period and spoke with them regarding the Kingdom in Acts 1:3, it would not seem His appearances took up even the majority of that time. The disciples had been with Jesus intensively over three years; He had died and now He was raised from the dead; He had commissioned them, but the day of Pentecost and all it would make known had not yet arrived (cf. Acts 2:1-41). The disciples dwelt in the in-between time without fully understanding what was about to happen, or that it was even an in-between time. We can therefore understand why the disciples might have felt a bit aimless during this period. It would be natural, especially for someone as generally impetuous as Simon Peter, to want to go and do something. He was a fisherman; fishing is what he knew. He very likely also had financial imperatives driving his behavior: the disciples were not wealthy, and he and his family needed to eat. The sons of Zebedee were also fishermen (cf. Mark 1:19-20), and so it makes sense why they would go fish with him. The rest of the disciples might have joined them out of a sense of solidarity and also to give them all something to do.

They fished all night and caught nothing (John 21:3), which did not augur well for them. Very early in the morning, Jesus stood on the beach; it was not immediately apparent to the disciples it was Jesus (John 21:4). He asked them if they had caught any fish, and they responded they had not; He told them to cast their nets on the right side of their boats to find some (John 21:5-6a). When they did so, they could not bring the net back in on account of the number of fish present (John 21:6b).

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” be it John ben Zebedee or a different John as the Evangelist, somehow discerned who had been speaking with them, and told Peter it was the Lord (John 21:7a). When Peter heard this, he immediately accepted it; he put on his outer garment, since he had stripped down for work, jumped into the sea, and ostensibly swam to Jesus (John 21:7b). The rest of the disciples sailed the final one hundred yards with the boat and the net full of fish (John 21:8).

When they arrived on shore, they saw Jesus had already prepared a charcoal fire with a fish on it and some bread (John 21:9). Jesus asked them to bring some of the fish they had caught; Peter brought the net to shore (John 21:10-11a). There were 153 large fish, and yet the net was not torn (John 21:11b; the precision of the count need not be an invitation to gematria or anything of the sort, but likely remained a detail which so suitably impressed our Evangelist as to remember and record so many years later). Jesus invited the disciples to have breakfast with Him; the whole meal was enjoyed with what was likely an awkward silence, for none of them asked Jesus who he was, since they knew He was the Lord, but He also did not seem to do much speaking with them at this moment (John 21:12-13). John the Evangelist commented regarding how this was the third time Jesus was revealed to His disciples after His resurrection (John 21:14; John seems to have excluded the appearance to Mary Magdalene in John 20:11-18).

There would have been much for the disciples to think about during this breakfast. Perhaps some of them remembered how this had all happened before. While this might be the first time we have a story regarding fishing in the Gospel of John (and one of only a few stories set in Galilee), it was not the first time the disciples had experienced something like this with Jesus. According to Luke in Luke 5:1-11, there had been another futile night of fishing which Peter and the sons of Zebedee had suffered. Jesus had asked them to use one of their boats so He could better address the crowds. Afterward He told them to go out and lower their nets for a catch; Peter at first protested, but then did as he was told. On that day they also had caught so many fish the nets were about to tear, and they all were astounded at how much fish they caught. Peter recognized what had happened and what it meant regarding Jesus; he had fallen before Jesus’ knees and told Him to depart since he, Peter, was a sinful man.

This had been the moment Jesus had called Peter and the sons of Zebedee. A lot had happened in the intervening few years. But Peter now had more reasons to prove reflective: he was again before a charcoal fire. We all know the power of smell to evoke memories; it would not at all be surprising for Peter to smell the charcoal and be immediately brought back to that fateful night not long before in Annas’ courtyard and the events which took place therein (cf. John 18:15-27).

Or maybe Peter did not want to remember those moments at all. Yet it would be addressed. After breakfast, Jesus would ask Peter three times if he loved Him. Three times Peter would respond how Jesus knew he loved Him. Jesus would then tell him to feed His lambs, shepherd His sheep, and feed His sheep (John 21:15-17). Jesus then prophesied how Peter as a young man would go wherever he wanted, but when he would grow old, he would stretch out his hands, and others would tie him up and take him to where he did not want to go; John the Evangelist provided the appropriate commentary, associating this prophecy with the death by which Peter would die (John 21:18-19a). Jesus then told Peter to follow Him (John 21:19b).

Some want to make much of the distinction in Greek verbs between the love Jesus asked about (Greek agapao), and the love with which Peter would respond (Greek phileo). It may feel theologically satisfying to do so, as if Peter was only willing to go so far in his friendly love with Jesus, and shrunk from a more self-sacrificing love; yet it would not be wise to do so, for our Evangelist has already displayed the habit of using these two terms interchangeably (cf. John 3:35, 5:20; 11:3, 11:5; 13:34, 15:19). Perhaps Peter did not quite understand what was going on at first; but he certainly did so by the third question, at which point he was quite grieved (John 21:17). As Peter had denied Jesus three times, so Jesus asked Peter thrice regarding his love for Him.

We could rightly understand what Jesus was doing after breakfast as “restoring” Peter, although we should note how Jesus has already appeared to Peter before, Peter never seemed to be alienated from his fellow disciples, and Peter had just shown his enthusiasm for being with Jesus by jumping into the sea in John 21:7. We can also rightly understand Jesus as commissioning Peter. While some later religious organizations have perhaps made too much of Peter, believing he was given a level of authority above and beyond all the other apostles, we should also not entirely dismiss him, either. As it was throughout the days of Jesus’ ministry, so now after His resurrection Peter will be the one to stand up and be the spokesman for the group (cf. Acts 1:12-26). It will be Peter who will stand up and deliver the first sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41). It will be Peter who would truly be seen as the “first among equals,” a “pillar” of the church (cf. Acts 1:12-12:19, Galatians 2:6-9). Peter would serve as an elder in his own right according to 1 Peter 5:1-4, and Jesus manifestly commissioned him to do the work of shepherding and providing for Jesus’ “lambs” and “sheep,” His later followers (John 21:15-17). Jesus’ specific commissioning of Peter at this moment should not automatically be interpreted as exclusive, as if the other eleven were not likewise commissioned, or to assume John the Evangelist was thus demonstrating why Peter was elevated above others. Instead, we do better to see this as Jesus’ gentle restoration and commissioning of Peter: Jesus had already forgiven Peter, and Jesus knew Peter was repentant. The weaknesses Peter displayed that fateful night were inextricably tied up with the characteristics which would also prove to be Peter’s strengths. To this end Jesus commissioned Peter to direct his energies appropriately for His purposes in His Kingdom, and Peter would not prove disobedient to the Lord in these matters. The book of Acts testifies to the many things Peter would suffer for Jesus (cf. Acts 4:1-5:17-42, 12:1-19).

John also bore witness to what Jesus had said regarding Peter’s martyrdom. Such is the only New Testament witness to what tradition has affirmed. It would make the most sense to believe Peter’s martyrdom had already taken place by the time John wrote his testimony about it. The second century apocryphal Acts of Peter told the story tradition has held to ever since regarding how Peter died: Peter was planning on fleeing Rome but saw an apparition of Jesus who asked him, quo vadis? (where are you going?). Peter thus stayed in Rome and accepted his fate; he was condemned to be crucified. Since he could not bear to die the exact same way as his Lord did, he requested to be crucified upside down, and thus he suffered and bore witness to Jesus. While the Acts of Peter is not inspired, and many of its earlier stories seem fantastic and a bit challenging for us to accept, the story of how Peter suffered and died certainly sounds a lot like what we would expect from Simon Peter.

But that would be something Peter would experience likely ca. 64-65, over 30 years after eating breakfast with the Risen Lord along the Sea of Tiberias. On that morning, Peter no doubt understood the import of what Jesus was prophesying regarding him, but he certainly did not like that level of attention. In response, Peter asked Jesus about the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” the same one whom he indicated to ask Jesus about His betrayer at the final supper, regarding what he should do (John 21:20-21; cf. John 13:21-30). Jesus responded: if Jesus willed for him to remain until Jesus returned, what would that mean for Peter? Peter should follow Jesus (John 21:22).

Whenever we feel called out or pointed out, we have the natural tendency to want to shift the focus to others; therefore, we can understand Peter’s response that morning. We would likely have a similar response. To this end we do well to deeply consider Jesus’ response: do not worry regarding the burdens and path of others, but determine instead to follow Jesus no matter what. As Jesus well instructed in the Parable of the Talents, disciples are different, and each is called to prove faithful in terms of what they have been given (cf. Matthew 24:15-30). John the Evangelist would no doubt himself encounter various trials and tribulations as he followed the Lord Jesus, even though he would die a natural death according to tradition. Peter was called to suffer for the Lord Jesus in different ways. We must resist the temptation to make our lives in following Jesus a matter of competition or comparison with fellow Christians. So what if the Lord has called other disciples to experience different ways of living? It is for them to follow the Lord Jesus and for us to follow the Lord Jesus no matter what may come.

John has retold this story, at least in part, to offer some clarifications of misunderstandings which took place. Some had heard about what Jesus had spoken regarding John and concluded John would not die until the Lord Jesus returned; John emphasized how Jesus was speaking in a hypothetical, an if statement, and the inference they had drawn was unwarranted (John 21:23). The Evangelist then identified himself as this disciple whom Jesus loved (John 21:24). He concluded his Gospel with a statement somewhat like John 20:30, presuming the world could not contain all the books which could be written if they recorded all the many other things Jesus did (John 21:25).

We can perceive the care and concern John the Evangelist had for those who had heard his witness as he concluded his testimony. Many date his Gospel to the period between 75-90, which would mean he was likely at least in his sixties when he wrote it all down. He did not want anyone to despair in their hope when he died, presuming the Lord had proven unfaithful, or would otherwise be given reason to doubt the validity of his testimony. John the Evangelist would go the way of all flesh, and Jesus did not prove unfaithful to him; Jesus had never actually promised John would still be alive when Jesus returned, but only used that as a hypothetical in contrast to the result for which Peter was seemingly digging.

In this way John the Evangelist brought his testimony regarding his witness and experience of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Son of God, to an end. Jesus loved him, and he loved Jesus, and we should prove thankful for his testimony. May we accept it as the truth and believe in Jesus, and find eternal life in His name!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post It Is the Lord! appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Considering the Psalms

And be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit; speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord (Ephesians 5:18-19).

In the middle of our Bibles we have the song book given by God to His people: the Psalms. The Psalms have encouraged and transformed Israelites and Christians for generations, giving voice to the deepest feelings and yearnings of God’s people, allowing them to convey their praise, their laments, and their thanksgivings before God.

Until the eighteenth century the songbook of Christianity was heavily dependent on the Psalms across confessional lines. It has only been in the past three hundred years, and particularly among Evangelical groups and even in churches of Christ, that hymnody has almost entirely replaced psalmody. Some psalms have been put to effective tunes and remain relevant in churches (Psalms 23 and 148 in particular); many hymns feature themes, illustrations, and even some verses from the psalms. Nevertheless, in general, the Psalms have been lost as a fundamental source of song, prayer, and meditation by the people of God as they had been for generations in the past.

This loss is tragic; if the matter involved the nature or identification of the church, a hot button moral issue, etc., preachers, teachers, elders, and “brotherhood publications” would be all over it with a cry for a need to “restore the ancient order.” In every other part of our “liturgy” we have been careful to root all we do in the Word of God, using Biblical commands, examples, and inferences, and in every way attempt to stay closely aligned with the text; after all, that is why we do not use instruments along with the singing (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16). Yet the Psalms remain sidelined, no longer the primary fount of inspiration for song, left as an ancient relic with the apparent smell of denominationalism (God forbid that the denominations feature part of God’s Word prominently in their song and prayer!).

There are many great hymns that have been written over the past two millennia; this is not a call to abandon hymnody. But we cannot seriously claim to seek to restore the ancient order, to seek to restore the Bible to its proper place in our lives, and yet not allow the Psalms to saturate, dictate, and give expression to our song and prayer lives as they did for generations of Israelites, for Jesus, the Apostles, early Christians, and Christians for 1700 years. The time is long past to restore the Psalms in Christian song, prayer, meditation, and service.

Name and Authorship

“Psalms” derives from the Greek word psalmos, originally meaning the twanging of an instrument but taking on the meaning of “a song.” Such is the name given to the Psalms in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament; it translates Hebrew mizmor, “song,” a term frequently used to introduce psalms (e.g. Psalm 3:1). Yet the Hebrew name for the Psalms is tehillim, “praise,” exemplifying the ultimate purpose of the psalms, to give praise to God for who He is, what He has done, how He sustains His creation, and what He has promised to do.

Psalms are most frequently associated with David, king of Israel, to whom 73 psalms are attributed (cf. 1 Samuel 16:16-23, 2 Samuel 23:1). Other authors of psalms include the Sons of Korah, who wrote 11 psalms (cf. Numbers 16), Asaph, who wrote 12 psalms (cf. 1 Chronicles 16:17; 12 psalms), and Solomon, Moses, Heman the Ezrahite, and Ethan the Ezrahite, who each wrote one psalm. Many are not specifically attributed to any particular author; some have speculated that many of these “anonymous” psalms, while often independent works, maintain a continuity of theme with the previous psalm with an attributed author.

Moses lived around 1450 BCE; the persons named as other psalm authors lived during the United Monarchy around 1000-900 BCE. Some psalms speak as being written in Babylonian exile (ca. 580 BCE; Psalm 137). While a large number of the Psalms were most likely written by 900 BCE, the collection of Psalms in the form we have it today was established between 500 and 200 BCE, most likely in the 5th or 4th centuries BCE (499-300 BCE).

The Text

The base text used to translate the Psalms in most English Bibles comes from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), derived from the Masoretic Hebrew text (MT) preserved in the Leningrad Codex (1008 CE).

The MT of Psalms has accrued many errors in transmission, as is consistent with Hebrew poetry, and many variants have been found in translations in other languages. Therefore English translations will frequently appeal to other textual authorities to explain textual variants, believing that some translations are more faithfully preserving the original Hebrew (called the Vorlage, the original text upon which the translation is made) than the MT.

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) more texts and fragments were found of the Psalms than any other book (30+ copies and fragments of 115 psalms). 4QPs preserves Books 1 and 2 of the Psalms in close to canonical order. 11QPs preserves another 39 psalms of Books 4 and 5 but in a very different order than the canonical order. Psalms beyond the canonical collection were found as well. Many newer translations take DSS variants into account.

The Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The LXX of Psalms was most likely translated in the third or early second century BCE. The LXX includes the apocryphal Psalm 151. MT/English Psalms 9 and 10 were rightly seen by the Septuagint translators as one psalm; the translator divided MT/English Psalm 147 into two in order to reach 150 psalms. This is why many references for Psalms 10-147 will provide the reference to the numbering of the Psalm in MT/English and Greek/Latin [since Jerome in the Latin Vulgate kept the LXX numbering system; e.g. Psalm 51 (Psalm 50 LXX)]. The many variations between the LXX and the MT led later Jews to “re-translate” the Hebrew into Greek to provide a more harmonized text: Aquila (2nd century CE), Symmachus (late 2nd century CE), and Theodotion (ca. 150 CE).

The Peshitta is the Syriac translation of the Old Testament, most likely translated from the Hebrew in the second century CE.

In Latin the Vetus Latina (“Old Latin”, or OL) is an important witness to the Psalms; translated from the LXX, it would become the foundation for Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate into Latin from Hebrew in the late fourth century CE.

The Aramaic Targum of Psalms, while not completed until much later, most likely contains Second Temple period interpretations of psalms and is often cited as a witness to textual variants.

Inspiration of the Psalms

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The authors of the New Testament never doubted the inspiration of the Psalms. Jesus affirmed that David said Psalm 110:1 in the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:35-37); Peter declares the same regarding Psalms 2:1, 69:25, 109:8 (Acts 1:16, 20, 4:25). On many other occasions the Apostles will quote David as the author of Psalms authoritatively (e.g. Acts 2:25, 34, Romans 4:6-8).

Nevertheless, the Psalms contain some difficult statements that cannot easily be reconciled with what we know as good theology in the rest of Scripture. The idea that YHWH would be asleep and would miss things taking place, as seen in Psalm 44:23, is at variance with Isaiah 40:28; Psalm 51:5 is at variance with Jesus’ portrayal of children in Matthew 18:1-5.

We do well to keep in mind that the Psalms are poetry and they give voice to the people of God to express their deepest feelings, needs, and desires before God. There are many important consequences to this truth:

1. While the psalm’s attribution may provide some understanding in meaning, we must resist the temptation to understand the psalm entirely in terms of its author. The author is giving voice to themes, ideas, and feelings beyond himself.

2. The psalm may involve statements that are in reality and fact inaccurate but true to a person’s feeling at the time. The author is giving voice to emotion, feeling, and deep things; such defy rational thought and refuse the strictures of rational thinking. By inspiration the Psalter gives voice to feelings that are not factually true yet exist in response to given circumstances (as in Psalms 44 and 51 above).

3. Psalms frequently feature thematic shifts and upheavals, assisting the petitioner/singer to proceed from one place or emotional state to a very different place (e.g. from despair to confidence in God, Psalms 13, 73). Psalms must be understood first in their entirety, and occasionally even in sequence. We may find ourselves doing grave disservice to Scripture if we take out certain selections of a psalm or psalms and use them as proof-texts for some other purpose that may be antithetical to the psalm’s purpose (contra 2 Timothy 2:15).

In truth these are not really “problems” with Psalms; in its design such poetry as the Psalms intend to give voice to things we cannot otherwise describe. Athanasius spoke of the psalms as comprehending and teaching the emotions of the soul, enabling us to possess the image that we can derive from their words. They are a form of “verbal iconography,” describing God in ways that we can understand but not rationally explain in prose; in a sense they are a form of incarnation, a means by which God comes down to be understood at our level in poetry and metaphor. The Psalms are often brutal but they are always real; they speak to the real condition of mankind, the real cry of the soul, and above all, the reality of YHWH, God of Israel, the Creator God, His love and mercy for His people, who enables all things to be and for whose praise the Psalms all exist.

Thus the Psalms are inspired to give the people of God a voice to express feelings and longings which cannot be expressed in any other way than in poetry and metaphor. As poetry the Psalms can help us understand, in a figure, who God is, who we are, and what God is trying to do; yet, as poetry, we must never use the Psalms in contrast or contradiction to other Scripture that may speak in more literal or concrete ways about the truth of God or our condition.

Another matter of inspiration involves what to do regarding significant variants in the Septuagint (LXX) that have bearing on the Christological interpretation of a psalm (e.g. MT “they are at my hands and feet” vs. LXX “they pierced my hands and feet,” Psalm 22:16). Perhaps it is a matter in which the LXX preserves the text more faithfully than the MT; even if it is a variant introduced in the LXX, it would pre-date Jesus, and may have been made a part of His purpose to fulfill all of what the Psalms said of Him (Luke 24:44). We continue to believe in the inspiration of the author and what was written on the original manuscript (in whatever later copies in whatever language such may be best preserved), yet also must give room for God’s providential working among His people.

Form

We do well to remember that the Psalms are a song and prayer book and their form fits that function. Psalms tend to have a logical progression within them; we will explore that progression as we investigate individual psalms.

Most psalms begin with a superscription, identifying the psalm’s author, and perhaps some information about the situation in or purpose for which the psalm was written. In our Bibles the superscription will also include statements like “to the choirmaster,” or “for the chief musician”‘; in light of Habakkuk 3:19, it seems best to believe this particular direction actually belongs to the previous psalm.

The Psalms are filled with technical directives which we no longer fully understand. Within the text itself selah will be found frequently; it may be a direction for a musical interlude on strings. Most terms are found in the superscription: sheminith, shiggaion, muth-labben, miktam, maskil, Jeduthun, alamoth, malahath (or malahath leannoth), shuhan eduth, gittith; we do not know what they mean. Sometimes it seems that psalms are set to certain tunes named “the doe of the dawn,” “lilies,” “dove on far-off terebinths,” and “do not destroy.”

Hebrew poetry is marked by parallelism; in the Psalms the parallelism can be semantic, syntactic, or accentual. Some have found development of parallelism in Psalms over time from incremental repetition toward interlinear parallelism. The meaning of each parallel verse is focused most frequently in the second verset. The Psalms maintain their great power in no small part because their poetic form can be thus replicated in translation.

Some psalms (e.g. Psalms 9-10, 119, Lamentations 1-4) are acrostic, featuring lines or sections beginning with each letter of the Hebrew alphabet in turn. In some each verset or verse begins with a successive letter of the alphabet; in others, every other line; in Psalm 119, each eight-verse section begins every verse with the same letter of the alphabet, and continues successively with each set of eight (e.g. Psalm 119:1-8 all begin with aleph; vv. 9-16 with bet, etc.).

Organization

To the casual reader the Psalms seem to have little discernible order. Psalms is internally divided into five “books”: Book 1 (Psalms 1-41), Book 2 (Psalms 42-72), Book 3 (Psalms 73-89), Book 4 (Psalms 90-106), and Book 5 (Psalms 107-150). The fivefold collection of books is most likely intentional: as Moses gave Israel the five books of Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), so there are five books of praise. Each book ends with a doxology, or praise, to God, even if inappropriate for the psalm (Psalms 41:13, 72:18-19, 89:52, 106:48). Psalm 72:20 gives the impression that Book 2, or perhaps Books 1 and 2 together, were once an independent compilation of Psalms. Some have seen various forms of organization in the books: Books 1-3 as the king in prayer, Book 4 as Israel looking back to its heritage after the end of kingship (and perhaps with Book 5 as an answer to Psalm 89), and Book 5 as proclaiming the overcoming the exile, for example.

Many have noted how Psalms 1-2 and 146-150 frame the whole collection of psalms: Psalm 1 affirms the value of wisdom, warning the believer away from the idea that religious behavior can be separated from ethics; Psalm 2 affirms the king and his role; Psalms 146-150 conclude the book with shouts and declarations of praise to YHWH. Internally some organization is by author: Psalms 3-41, 51-72 are of David; Psalms 42-49 are of the sons of Korah; Psalms 72-83 are of Asaph; Psalms 120-134 are “psalms of ascent”. At other times psalms are perhaps ordered for effect (e.g. Psalms 108 and 110, of God’s victory, bracketing Psalm 109 of lament).

Most believe there is some sort of “theological intentionality” in the order of the Psalms however well we are able to discern it. Some of the arrangement may exist to give greater depth to individual psalms than would otherwise be ascertained.

Categorizing the Psalms

And [David] appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of YHWH, and to celebrate and to thank and praise YHWH, the God of Israel (1 Chronicles 16:4).

The Chronicler affirms the notion of considering the Psalms in terms of their ultimate function and thus in categories. All the psalms can be understood ultimately in terms of celebrating (that is, making known or invoking), thanking, or praising YHWH. Yet how those psalms get to the point of making YHWH known, thanking Him, and/or praising Him can differ widely. There are many ways we can categorize the Psalms; let us consider a few general themes.

Psalms of praise are designed to glorify God, magnify His character, and express faith in Him (Psalms 8, 9, 23, 29, 33, 45, 47, 62, 67, 84, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 125, 134, 135, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150).

Thanksgiving psalms thank God for all the great things He has done (Psalm 18 (cf. 2 Samuel 22), Psalms 30, 34, 40, 52, 56, 65, 66, 75, 92, 107, 116, 118, 124, 136, 138).

Psalms of lament express great sorrow on account of sin, betrayal, adversity, and destruction, both of the petitioner and done to the petitioner, and request for God to assist (Psalms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 22, 25, 28, 31, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71, 74, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 102, 108, 109, 120, 121, 123, 126, 130, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143).

Messianic psalms speak of the coming Messiah and reign (Psalms 2, 16, 22, 45, 69, 110). Royal psalms are related, praising the king and his lineage, but are not necessarily Messianic in function (Psalms 18, 20, 21, 72, 89, 101, 132).

Wisdom or Instructional psalms use song as a medium for instructing in God’s torah or wisdom (Psalms 1, 4, 11, 15, 19, 24, 26, 27, 32, 34, 37, 49, 50, 53, 73, 91, 119, 127, 128, 131, 133, 139).

Some psalms mirror the messages of the prophets, known as prophetic psalms (Psalms 81, 82, 115).

Many psalms recount Israel’s history for various reasons (Psalms 44, 68, 78, 105, 106).

Other psalms ask to bring down condemnation or difficulty upon enemies, often called imprecatory psalms (Psalms 35, 58, 83, 129).

Other psalms include celebrations of Zion (Psalms 46, 48, 76, 84, 87, 122), the hallel set of psalms (Psalms 113-118; likely what Jesus sang after the Last Supper in Matthew 26:30), and the “songs of ascents” sung by pilgrims heading to Jerusalem (Psalms 120-134).

We do well to remember that whatever scheme of categorization we use is for our benefit in understanding, is not the way God organized the Psalms, and is no substitute for deeper study and appreciation of the individuality of each psalm.

Exploring the Purposes of the Psalms

The Psalms are given “to make known, to thank, and to praise YHWH the God of Israel” (1 Chronicles 16:4). Yet how the psalms are used to do so varied tremendously, and to different ends, at different times and in different places; few parts of the Bible have proven as flexible for multiple purposes in different times, places, and contexts as the Psalms.

As in many other ancient Near Eastern cultures, the “original context” for a good number of the Psalms surrounds the Tabernacle and Temple service of offerings, referred to in scholarly literature as the “cultus” or “cult.” In the Psalms this service centers in the Temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem and its regular service. David, who is famous in Scripture for psalm writing and whose life events provide the backdrop for many psalms (1 Samuel 16:16-23, 2 Samuel 23:1, Psalm 51:1), established this service for Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and others among the Levites to do according to 1 Chronicles 16:4-41, 25:1-31, even before the Temple was built. Such is illustrated in 2 Chronicles 29:25-30 in Hezekiah’s restoration of the Temple service: the Levites would sing the psalms of David and Asaph while appropriate instruments were played, all during the offering of sacrifices. Therefore we do well to first consider whether a psalm has reference to the Temple cult: how might the psalm be used in the Temple service? Would it give voice to an individual worshiper or does it give voice for the collective of Israel? What does the psalm have to say about YHWH, His relationship to the creation, specifically to Jerusalem/Zion, and to His people Israel? How would the use of the psalm in the Temple cult influence its understanding and impact the lives of the Levites who sang them and the worshipers on whose behalf they were sung?

Yet not all Psalms have the Temple in mind; some seem to offer a critique of it (e.g. Psalms 40, 50). Psalm 137 serves as an “anti-psalm,” a song about how the Israelites cannot sing YHWH’s song in a foreign land, their land taken, their Temple desolate. Some psalms were written in light of these circumstances; many others were re-interpreted and understood differently in light of them. Royal psalms were either democratized or seen as Messianic in hope. Psalms would be used to explain situations or contexts beyond their original purpose; consider 1 Maccabees 4:23-25 and its reappropriation of Psalm 136:1:

Then Judas returned to plunder the camp, and they seized a great amount of gold and silver, and cloth dyed blue and sea purple, and great riches. On their return they sang hymns and praises to Heaven–“For he is good, for his mercy endures forever.” Thus Israel had a great deliverance that day (NRSVA).

Likewise, God’s presence with/for Israel is seen as prominently in God’s torah, instruction or law, as it had been seen in the First Temple. Emphasis on torah is not inherently antithetical to emphasis on the Temple, and even early psalms proclaimed both. Nevertheless, during the exilic and Second Temple periods great emphasis was placed on the importance and value of God’s torah and how it sustains and empowers the Israelites in righteousness (as can be seen in Psalms 19, 119). The rise and centrality of the synagogue in local communities of Jews contributed to this emphasis; psalms were no doubt sung by the congregation in the synagogue, for there is evidence that by 150 BCE they were sung in Greek translation in Alexandrian synagogues. We must give consideration, therefore, to how the psalms were understood in reference to Second Temple Judaism. If the psalm has clear reference to the Temple cult, how would its understanding and purpose shift during the Second Temple period? What can be gained from psalms grappling with God’s faithfulness and promises in light of the destruction of Jerusalem, exile, and the seeming fulfillment but not full realization of YHWH’s promise of restoration?

In Luke 24:44 Jesus proclaimed that all things written of Him in the psalms were fulfilled, and ever since, Christians have diligently sought to understand how the psalms point to Jesus and His work. We would be remiss if we did not consider the Christological implications of the psalms: how does the psalm point to Jesus? Does the psalm’s original context highlight or bring into stark relief its Christological fulfillment? How do the variations between the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint influence the Christological aspect of the psalm?

Not for nothing do the Apostles continually speak of God’s new covenant people in Christ in terms of God’s covenant people in physical Israel as the ultimate expression of God’s purposes (Ephesians 3:10-11). Christians are the new Israel of God (Romans 2:25-29, 9:30-33, Galatians 6:16, Philippians 3:3); individually and collectively they are the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:14-16, 6:18-20, Ephesians 2:20-22, 1 Peter 2:3-8); they are God’s priests and sacrifices, His elect people (Romans 12:1, 1 Peter 2:5, 9); their songs are as harps and their prayers as incense before God (Revelation 5:8). We should not be surprised, therefore, that Paul commands Christians to sing “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16). Many have wondered why Paul uses this particular triad and what distinctions may exist among the three, yet in the Septuagint we see psalms described as all three [e.g. Psalm 3:1 (psalmos, “psalm”), Psalm 53:1 LXX (Psalm 54:1, humnos, “hymn”), Psalm 4:1 (ode, “song”)]. The earliest Christians thus sang the psalms in light of how God was accomplishing His purposes in Christ and through them. Therefore we must consider the pneumatical/ecclesiological functions of each psalm and their place in Christianity: how could the psalm be reasonably sung and understood as Christians in the new covenant? How does the original context of the psalm connect and lead to its understanding in light of Christ and His Kingdom? How can this psalm help inform and strengthen our faith? How could we use this psalm in devotional contexts?

Forms of Interpretation

The Psalms have been subjected to all sorts of forms of interpretation, for good or ill.

As seen above the Second Temple Jews would often interpret the Psalms in terms of their own condition and situation. Such direct application can be fraught with dangers and difficulties if done without regard to original context and meaning; nevertheless, the Psalms often invite consideration and application to times and places quite remote from the original. God does not change; He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8). Who can say that consideration of certain psalms in certain life situations could not be a sign of God’s continual providence and care for His people?

Jesus’ declaration in Luke 24:44 and the New Testament inaugurated the Christological form of interpretation; Christians in the first few centuries after Jesus attempted to find all the ways in which the Psalms pointed to Jesus and rejected any understanding of the psalms that were not Christological. The New Testament rightly invites us to explore the Christological interpretation of psalms but not in violence against its original contextual purpose.

Most early and many medieval Christians advanced typological forms of interpretation, focusing on the “figural” interpretation; Augustine was its strong champion. Such allegorization has the appearance of beauty and wisdom but can too quickly lose its grounding in the original meaning and purpose of the psalm and should be avoided.

The past two hundred years have seen interpretive contests between historical Biblical criticism and criticism using the grammatico-historical method. Both approaches affirm the critical need to first understand the text in context; in so doing historical Biblical criticism is willing to vaunt history and modernist understanding of history to the detriment of the text as revealed while the grammatico-historical method attempts to make sense of the text in its context according to the language and what can be known of the context, always affirming the inspiration and integrity of the text. Historical Biblical criticism makes much of the literary-critical approach as well. A major flashpoint of argument involves the superscriptions of the Psalms, the legitimacy of which is denied by exegetes in the tradition of historical Biblical criticism but fully accepted by those using the grammatico-historical method. In order to get a foundation for understanding a psalm in context, the grammatico-historical method remains the most sound.

Modern exegetes have tended to focus on various forms of literary-critical/analytical criticisms. 1 Chronicles 16:4 seems to justify investigating the Psalms in terms of their forms, yet form criticism of the Psalms did not begin until Wilhelm de Wette in the early nineteenth century and was not pursued in earnest again until the twentieth. Form criticism of the Psalms has also led to exuberance for cult-functional interpretations, attempting to understand the Psalms purely in terms of their Temple function. The “re-discovery” of the form of Biblical poetry by Bishop Robert Lowth in the eighteenth century, and the more recent development of understanding of Hebrew poetry and parallelism instigated by James Kugel and clarified by Adele Berlin and Robert Alter, among others, has led to the popularity of rhetorical criticism of the Psalms. Any investigation of the Psalms now requires consideration of what sort of poetry is being used and to what end, the different images and illustrations, how they get their power, and to what they refer, and investigation into what sorts of literary devices are in play. Rhetorical criticism is a great tool but cannot be an end unto itself. Consideration of the possible original context and purpose of a psalm in light of its form and through literary analysis has its value; literary criticism of the Psalms as a whole, however, puts too much confidence in what the interpreter can see in the text, and often tells you more about the interpreter than the text itself. The evidence of cultic use of the Psalms in 1 and 2 Chronicles commends some sort of cult-functional understanding of psalms; nevertheless, not all psalms were designed for that use.

Canonical criticism of the Psalms has been re-affirmed among more “conservative” exegetes in light of the liberalized interpretations brought forth over the past 200 years, attempting to make sense of the Psalms in their current, canonized form, especially the present order of the Psalms, the fruit of which is seen above. There is benefit in canonical criticism, yet it too is not an end unto itself.

Our way forward will incorporate most of these approaches. To establish the psalm’s basic meaning we will use the grammatico-historical approach primarily with insights from literary-analytical criticism (including form and rhetorical criticism and the cult-functional approach). We will then consider the psalm’s meaning in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity in light of canonical criticism and the Christological approach, and then consider its standing and value today so as to get to possible direct applications.

The Goal

What is it then, brethren? When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying (1 Corinthians 14:26, emphasis mine).

To this day the Psalms have a place in the life of the Christian and in the life of the church to build up each individual Christian and the collective Body of Christ. For good reason the Psalms have sustained the faith and strength of Christians for centuries. The Didascalia of the third century CE declares, “if you yearn for songs, you have the psalms.” Alcuin of the sixth century declares, “no mortal man can fully declare the virtue of the psalms.” To John Donne, the psalms are as the “manna of the church.” If we approach the Psalms with scalpels and attempt to dissect them and think we can come to a full understanding of them in that way we will be sorely disappointed; the Psalms will be left as dead and we will be impoverished. Our investigation into the Psalms must lead to edification: we should bring to bear all forms of interpretation and understanding that helps us understand their meaning, but the goal cannot be to just understand the Psalms as fossils of the past but to give them full life in the here and now.

From the day of their writing until now and to the final day the Psalms are to be sources of meditation, song, and prayer. They continually give the people of God a voice to express their deepest yearnings, concerns, and ultimately praise to YHWH, God of Israel, their Creator God.

Ethan R. Longhenry

Bibliography

Alter, Robert. The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. W.W. Norton & Company, 2007.

Gerstenberger, Erhard. Psalms Part I with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry [The Forms of the Old Testament Literature (FOTL) Volume XIV]. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Goldingay, John. Psalms for Everyone, Part 1: Psalms 1-72 (Old Testament for Everyone series). Westminster John Knox Press, 2013.

Goldingay, John. Psalms for Everyone, Part 2: Psalms 73-150 (Old Testament for Everyone series). Westminster John Knox Press, 2014.

Schmutzer, Andrew and Howard, David, editors. The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul. Moody Publishers, 2013.

Waltke, Bruce and Houston, James. The Psalms as Christian Worship: A Historical Commentary. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010.

Wright, N.T. The Case for the Psalms: Why They Are Essential. HarperOne, 2013.

The post Considering the Psalms appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Gospel as Good News

The story of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth was called the euangelion, or “good news” (e.g. Romans 1:16). But how might it have been understood as good news?

The question which always ought to be asked about the prospect of “good news” is: good for whom? Those who lived in the Mediterranean world in the first century would have constantly heard the most recent “euangelion” proclaimed by the Roman Emperor, generally the “good news” of Roman victory in some recent conflict. The victory might have been “good news” for the Roman elite, but it would have hardly been understood as “good news” by those who had just suffered the brutality of the Roman army. Likewise, all would have been bombarded with various forms of propaganda expressing the “good news” of the Pax Romana, or the “Peace of Rome,” which of course was maintained at the end of the spears of the Roman army. Such “good news” might not have seemed so “good” to the many thousands who lived as slaves or Roman subjects highly burdened by oppressive taxation.

Therefore, we must confess how “good news” to some is not understood as “good news” to others. And the message of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return was really not “good news” for everyone in the first century. The Gospel was not “good news” for Satan or the powers and principalities over this present darkness, since Jesus triumphed over them (Colossians 2:15). The Emperor would not have been amused: he claimed to be “Lord” and the “Son of God,” and if Jesus were truly the Lord and Christ, the Son of the living God, then Caesar assuredly was not (John 20:30-31, Acts 2:36). The Gospel was certainly not “good news” for the Jewish religious establishment, since Jesus foretold their humiliation and the destruction of all they held dear (cf. Matthew 23:1-24:37). Most of the wealthy and powerful would not have found the Gospel to be “good news,” since Jesus condemned the love of money and power and embodied love and humility instead (cf. Matthew 19:16-24, 20:25-28).

And yet, as the Apostle Paul would confess in 1 Corinthians 1:26, many other people perceived very good news in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return: in it they found love, belonging, acceptance, and liberation. The Gospel was eagerly received less by the educated, wealthy, and wise, and far more so by those degraded and dehumanized in Roman society: the poor, slaves, and women. Many of these, including sinners and tax collectors, had been attracted to Jesus during the days of His ministry (Matthew 9:10, Luke 15:2). Whereas the religious and social authorities did everything they could to remain separated from the masses, Jesus welcomed everyone to come and learn of Him.

Therefore, many thousands of people who had been considered and deemed less than human, or less than ideal, found acceptance in Christ. Jesus had lived like they did, and Christians regarded them all as having equal value in the sight of God, and acted like it (cf. Galatians 3:28, 6:9-10).

In that very way, the church became part of how Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return was understood as good news. The church at its best became the community of the people of God, and those who committed themselves to the Way and Life of Jesus shared what they had, provided for those in need, visited the sick and imprisoned, and did so without regard to class or social standing (e.g. Hebrews 13:1-19). People would hear the story of Jesus and would then see the transformation in life of those who had accepted its truth. Persecution and martyrdom would only add to the reputation of the Christians: whatever they believed about Jesus must have been very serious and important to them if they were willing to suffer and die for it, and in the process many others would hear and likewise become convicted.

It was not as if Christians had the best public relations in the first century and afterward. From almost the beginning false teachers arose and promoted distorted versions of the Gospel which appealed to various subgroups within the Roman Empire, whether the Judaized message of the Ebionites, Gnosticism for those enraptured with the prospect of secret knowledge, and the like. Scandalous rumors were spread about what Christians did in their assemblies: they were accused of cannibalism on account of the Lord’s Supper and for incestuous orgies because of joint participation in “love feasts” and identifying one another as “brothers” and “sisters.” Some early Christians would write apologies, or defenses, trying to explain the truth of what God accomplished in Jesus and how Christians live to explain to others, but these kinds of treatises probably worked more to encourage Christians than they would have been found persuasive to outsiders. The Christians resisted the rumors about them by living according to the Gospel: they continued to love one another, provide for those in need, and would bear witness to their commitment to Jesus even unto death. And despite all the salacious rumors, people would come to hear and accept the story of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return as the “good news” it was always intended to be.

Over time the Gospel would thus spread and many thousands would become Christians. Within and after the fourth century, Christianity would gain standing within the Roman Empire and would become its official religion. The good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return would be appropriated to serve the interests of the state and its elite for generations. In the Western world, people would be just expected to accept Jesus as Lord and serve the king and whatever religious and secular establishments existed in the land, and to understand how all of that worked together well.

And so various forms of theologies and doctrines were developed which claimed to be “good news,” but really were not. The marriage of convenience between church and state often meant many prickly aspects of the Gospel message were blunted or suppressed. Western theology began to make far more of the cross than the empty tomb, and theologians developed and later emphasized and prioritized the penal substitutionary atonement theory of Jesus’ death. In this framework, a wrathful God punishes His Son as opposed to people in the world; it is not terribly far off the mark to present this viewpoint as “God so hated the world He punished His Son,” and such did not really sound like “good news” whatsoever!

In recent years, the development of the marketplace of goods and ideas has tended to transform the way the Gospel was presented. The Gospel is often considered the “solution” to the “problems” mankind faces: a decision for Christ is marketed, promoted, and sold not unlike many other “lifestyle” products of the day. In our marketplace we can find marriages of convenience between the Gospel and the church with business and the cult of leadership; in this way, much of what you might hear from the pulpit or in small groups in churches sounds almost indistinguishable from what you might hear in the corporate boardroom. When there seem to be few qualms about the acquisition of goods and resources by the few at the detriment of the many, we have to wonder what has happened to the “good news.”

In our current predicament we might be tempted to think the Gospel just needs a good rebranding. Instead, we do well to consider what made the Gospel good news in the first century world, and then apply it to our current circumstances.

If the “good news” of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth was not perceived as “good news” by the religious and social establishments of the first century, we should not expect our current religious and social establishments to really consider it “good news” either. In the first century, this meant rejection of the Gospel and the persecution of its adherents; today, it tends to look more like the appropriation of many of the themes of the Gospel to create a distorted Gospel, and the marginalization and persecution of anyone who would cry out regarding the points of variance between what Jesus was really and truly about and what those in positions of influence and power are trying to promote. The most hostile and vicious persecution will come from those who have convinced themselves they are God’s faithful people and are in the right: so it was in the first century, and so it is now.

If the “good news” of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth was primarily perceived as such by the marginalized and poor in the first century, and if we do not see the marginalized and poor of today hearing and heeding the message, we do well to wonder what has happened. James the Lord’s brother expected most Christians to be numbered among the poor (cf. James 2:5). If the marginalized and poor are not coming to faith in Jesus, in what ways are those who promote the Gospel failing them? Have churches become so enamored with middle class members and values as to prove hostile and uncomfortable for those who are among the marginalized and poor?

If the “goodness” of the “good news” was confirmed in the testimony of the transformed lives of the Christians who confessed Jesus as Lord in the first century, can people today see testimony to the lordship and power of Jesus in His disciples today? Wherever the church is generally living up to the message it proclaims, and people are loved and welcomed into the life God has provided in Jesus, care and provision are made for those in need and in distress, and Christians jointly participate in life in Christ, will not many see the difference in their lives and want to share in that life? Even if Christians and the church are everywhere maligned, if we are trusting in Jesus as Lord and are better displaying the fruit of the Spirit rather than the works of the flesh, will not our light shine, and many will want to share in Christ on account of it?

Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return is good news because God in Christ has liberated us from the power of sin and death. The Gospel is good news because God has done all He could in Christ to reconcile us to Himself and to share in His life now and forever. The Gospel is good news because God has given His people of His Spirit so they might grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and manifest the fruit of the Spirit to a world awash in demonic wisdom and selfish endeavors. The Gospel is good news because in Christ God has overthrown the powers and ways of this world, and Christians are invited to jointly participate in His Kingdom to display to the world a very different way of relating and living.

At the same time, the good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return is not good news at all for any and all who remain committed to the ways of the world in its corruption and decay. Therefore, we all do well to commit ourselves to the ways of God in Christ through the Spirit, and to resist the ways of this world in its futility. May our lives bear witness to our confidence in the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth as good news; may we embody that message well so others may see its goodness and share in its goodness; and may God give us strength and wisdom to hold fast to this testimony as good news if we encounter the hostility and persecution which comes from those forces for whom the Gospel is less than ideal. In all things may we believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and have eternal life on account of the good news of all of what God has accomplished in and through Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Gospel as Good News appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

I Have Seen the Lord!

John the Evangelist invites you, the reader, to experience the garden and the locked upper room. Come: see and hear what the disciples saw, heard, and experienced.

Before dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb (John 20:1). She was grieving the loss of Jesus of Nazareth, who had borne witness to His Father but had been arrested, condemned, and crucified not long earlier (John 1:1-19:37). Jesus had been hastily prepared for burial (John 19:38-42); Mary and other female disciples had come to complete the task more thoroughly.

But she did not find the tomb in any kind of condition as she was expecting: the stone had been rolled away (John 20:1). She ran to Peter and the “other disciple whom Jesus loved,” whom we believe to be John the Evangelist, and told them how someone had taken the Lord from the tomb, but they did not know where they put Him (John 20:2). Peter and John ran to the tomb; John wanted to make sure the reader was aware he made it to the tomb first (John 20:3-4). John looked into the tomb: he saw strips of linen lying there, but no body (John 20:5). When Peter arrived, Peter did not bother to look first but burst into the tomb: he also saw the linen strips, but also the face cloth rolled up in a place by itself (John 20:6). John then entered the tomb, and he saw and believed: he accepted the reality Jesus’ body was not there but the linen strips and face cloth were, but did not yet understand how the Scripture spoke of Jesus rising from the dead (John 20:8-9). Peter and John returned to where they had been staying; Mary Magdalene stood outside the tomb weeping (John 20:10-11).

Maybe Peter and John spoke somewhat of what they had seen as they traveled home; maybe they were silent and were attempting to process it all. Mary Magdalene might continue to insist someone had taken the body, but it would be difficult to explain why anyone who would be trying to steal the body would have unwrapped it first: it would have taken a lot of additional time, and it would have proven far more convenient to carry the body away as wrapped and deal with the wrappings in another place. The only reason the strips of linen and the face cloth would still be there without the body is if Jesus had removed them Himself.

John might have believed, but Mary Magdalene was having none of it at the moment. While weeping, she looked inside the tomb, and she saw two angels in white sitting, one where Jesus’ head had been, and the other where His feet had been (John 20:11-12). They asked her why she was weeping; she spoke to the angels according to what she had said formerly to Peter and John (John 20:13).

Apparently all of the power and symbolism of the moment was completely lost on her. She was speaking to angels. They sat where Jesus’ head and feet had been, very much like the cherubim flank the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18-22). The mercy seat was the place of atonement; and just as the Aaronite high priest was commanded to put off the linen garments he wore in the holy place after having made atonement for Israel (Leviticus 16:2-4, 23-24), so Jesus left off the linen strips and folded the face cloth after His death in His resurrection (cf. John 20:5-7).

Yet Mary Magdalene could not perceive all of this in her grief. Nor was she able to discern who she then turned to see, for Jesus then asked her why she was weeping, but she thought he was the gardener and asked Him to tell her where He had put His body so she might take Him (John 20:14-15). This whole scene is saturated in irony: by providing redemption where Adam and Eve had transgressed, Jesus very much was a type of gardener (cf. Romans 5:12-20), and this “gardener” had indeed “carried away” the body of Jesus, since it was Jesus Himself in the flesh!

And then, the height of the drama: Jesus called Mary by name. Mary Magdalene then recognized Him, calling Him Rabboni, or Teacher, in Aramaic (John 20:16)! Jesus told her to not touch Him since He had not yet ascended to His Father; He commissioned her to go tell “My brothers” how He was ascending to “My Father and your Father” and to “my God and your God” (John 20:17). Mary went and told the disciples how she had seen the Lord and then related what He had said to her (John 20:18).

Many have tried to make much of Jesus’ command for Mary Magdalene to not touch Him. We do best to understand the concern as very contextually and momentarily specific; after all, Jesus’ disciples would soon be invited to touch Him, and so it is not as if Jesus was not able to be touched before He ascended (e.g. John 20:27). It would not at all be surprising for Mary Magdalene to have wanted to hold onto Jesus: she had lost Him once, and would have been determined to not lose Him again.

But it was not at all the purpose of God in Christ for anyone to cling to the resurrected Jesus; instead, Jesus commissioned Mary to deliver the great and transformative news, not only of Jesus’ resurrection, but also of His imminent ascension (John 20:17). Jesus would later speak regarding His ascension with His disciples explicitly; the power of the message here involves the possessive pronouns. Mary was to go and tell “My” brothers how Jesus was about to ascend to “My” Father and “your” Father, to “My” God and “your” God. Jesus had frequently spoken of God as His Father; He had not yet spoken of His disciples as His brothers, nor of His Father as their Father and God. While it is true they were all fellow Israelites and thus brothers in that sense, and likewise God was always their God and Father, the relationships had now been reconciled and redeemed in ways not possible before Jesus’ suffering and death.

In this way, Mary Magdalene is the apostle to the Apostles: Jesus sent her to tell them the good news of His resurrection, and she did so. No one should ever attempt to diminish or dismiss the importance and power of Jesus’ choice of Mary Magdalene as His first witness of His resurrection.

John the Evangelist then related the events which would take place later that evening (John 20:19-23). The disciples were gathered and locked the doors of the place for fear of the Jewish authorities (John 20:19). Jesus appeared in their midst and offered them His peace (John 20:19). He showed them His hands and side, and they rejoiced to see Him (John 20:20). Jesus again gave them His peace and commissioned them: as the Father sent Jesus, so Jesus now sent them (John 20:21). Jesus breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Spirit: if they forgave or retained anyone’s sins, they would indeed be forgiven or retained (John 20:22-23).

There were times before Jesus’ death and resurrection in which He would escape from very precarious situations in miraculous ways (e.g. John 8:59), but at this moment He seemed to be able to transcend space and time barriers and simply appear in a locked room. And yet Jesus was no ghost or phantasm: John insisted on how He showed them all His hands and side (John 20:20), and ostensibly the wounds from what He had recently suffered remained. From this we have some reason to believe our bodies in the resurrection will still bear at least some of the signs of our experiences in this life, although how and to what extent remains, as with most things regarding the resurrection, left unrevealed.

This scene represents the moment the disciples became the Apostles. Jesus commissioned them as the Father had commissioned Him. Spirit, in Hebrew and Greek, is associated with wind or breath, which well explains why Jesus would have breathed upon the disciples to give them the Spirit in John 20:22. But did the Apostles truly receive the Holy Spirit at this moment or the better part of fifty days later at Pentecost (cf. Acts 2:1-13)? No text provides an explicit answer, but we are likely best to understand this moment as Jesus preparing them for Pentecost: He wanted them to understand how the promises formerly made would be fulfilled; even though Thomas was not present at this moment (John 20:24), he yet would receive the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Likewise, we do well to understand the ability to forgive and retain sins as specifically directed to the Apostles as part of their work in bearing witness to all God accomplished in Jesus (cf. Matthew 18:18).

John then noted how Thomas called Didymus was not with the disciples when Jesus came (John 20:24). When the disciples told him how they had seen the Lord, Thomas was not about to take their word for it: he insisted upon seeing and touching the wounds on Jesus’ hands and side before he would believe (John 20:25). Eight days later the disciples, with Thomas present, were again in a locked room, and Jesus again appeared (John 20:26). Jesus then invited Thomas to do as he had said formerly, to see and touch Jesus’ wounds, so he might believe (John 20:27). John did not record whether Thomas actually touched Jesus’ wounds; instead, Thomas replied, “My Lord and My God!” (John 20:28). Jesus then asked if Thomas believed because he saw Jesus and then pronounced blessings on those who have not seen but yet have believed (John 20:29).

John the Evangelist then confessed how Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples which were not recorded in his book (John 20:30). But those which have made up the Gospel of John were recorded so the hearer and/or reader might believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and they would have life in His name (John 20:31).

What should we make of Thomas and of John’s commentary? Thomas has been called “Doubting Thomas” ever since on account of this scene. Many would castigate or think less of Thomas because of his doubt, yet such likely proves unwise.

Many also read Jesus’ response to Thomas as a rebuke: oh, so you had to see to believe? Those who are really blessed are those who believe without seeing! But Jesus had just invited Thomas to investigate His wounds so he might come to believe (John 20:27).

Likewise, many consider John 20:30-31 to represent the original conclusion to John the Evangelist’s witness. According to this perspective, John 21:1-25 would represent a later addendum or coda, most likely added by John the Evangelist himself, to tell more stories and clarify some matters. And yet we have no text critical evidence for this claim.

Instead, we might better understand John’s commentary as stemming directly from Jesus’ beatitude in John 20:29. In this reading, Jesus was not really attempting to rebuke Thomas at all; instead, He was simply pointing out how Thomas, and the other disciples, all needed to see and experience in order to believe, and pronounced blessing on all those who would not see but would yet believe.

For Jesus knew He would soon ascend to the Father, and it would be the eyewitness testimony of those disciples present in that locked room which would be the basis upon which all future generations might come to believe He is the Christ, the Son of God.

And it is the credibility of that witness which has, at least in part, animated how John the Evangelist has portrayed Mary Magdalene and the disciples as they encounter the Risen Christ. Imagine if Jesus had not really risen from the dead, but the disciples had later come to have some kind of spiritual experience which they imagined to be a kind of resurrection, and were trying really hard to justify Jesus despite His death. Is this the way they would have told the story about themselves? It would be highly unlikely. In this scenario, we would have expected them to all be at the tomb early in the morning, already fully expecting Jesus to have risen.

But that is not how the story is told. Instead, the first real witness to Jesus is a woman, one who immediately beforehand insisted to angels and disciples how someone had stolen Jesus’ body. Mary Magdalene did not show up to the tomb expecting the Risen Jesus. In the Roman world, the witness of a woman was not seen as maintaining sufficient integrity to stand in a court of law; therefore, if they were making this story up, they would not have had Mary be the one to tell them about Jesus’ resurrection.

Likewise, it is not as if they portray themselves as easily convinced. Peter and John believe something happened, but even they did not fully understand at first. In this way, Thomas’ intransigence provides important credibility for his witness. He was not going to just uncritically accept the witness of his fellow ten disciples regarding their experience of Jesus in the resurrection. We should not imagine Thomas was harboring specific, unique doubts about Jesus; if anything, Thomas should have really wanted to believe, for Thomas, by all accounts, was as committed and faithful a disciple as any of the other ten.

Such was confirmed by the moment Jesus stood before Thomas: maybe Thomas actually touched Jesus, or maybe he did not, but it is from the mouth of Thomas where we find the first confession of Jesus not only as Lord, but also as God, in the narrative of John’s Gospel (John 20:28). How Thomas drew this conclusion is left unrevealed, but he was certainly not wrong in doing so. God had raised Jesus from the dead; Jesus, therefore, was Thomas’ Lord and God.

We are unable to physically be present to experience what Mary Magdalene and the disciples experienced on the first day of the week and eight days afterward. But we can maintain great confidence in the integrity of John the Evangelist’s witness, and the witness of Mary Magdalene and the other disciples. Mary Magdalene really saw Jesus raised from the dead, as did Thomas and the other disciples. John’s witness has been recorded so we might have the same moment of recognition as did Mary Magdalene and Thomas: Jesus our Teacher is risen from the dead, and He is now our Lord and our God. May we thus accept the witness of John, Mary, and the disciples, and obtain eternal life by believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post I Have Seen the Lord! appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Balak and Balaam

Balak needed supernatural assistance against a prospective foe who had just destroyed enemies who had defeated him. Balaam would only speak the words YHWH would give him. A great contest would take place in the hills of Moab regarding Israel; but Israel would remain momentarily oblivious regarding it all.

It was not like YHWH was entirely happy with Israel. In the Book of Numbers, well named “in the wilderness” in Hebrew (bemidbar), things had started out quite well, but ended up in disastrous rebellion leading to the condemnation of the entire generation YHWH delivered from Egypt (Numbers 1:1-19:22). They had most recently completed their forty years of wandering in the wilderness, with even Aaron and Moses being condemned for their transgressions (Numbers 20:1-29). But YHWH gave Israel victory over the Canaanite king of Arad and the Amorite kings Sihon and Og, and the rest of the people of the southern Levant no doubt took notice (Numbers 21:1-22:1).

Above all people, the Moabites and Midianites proved the most concerned, and for understandable reasons: the Israelites were currently dwelling in the plains of Moab across the Jordan River from Jericho, and what would stop them from devouring everything in the land (Numbers 22:1-3)? Conventional warfare seemed foolish: Sihon had defeated the Moabites and had taken some of their land, and the Israelites had just defeated Sihon (cf. Numbers 21:21-30). And so Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab, decided on supernatural warfare: he sent elders of Moab and Midian to Balaam son of Beor who lived at Pethor in Amaw near the Euphrates to come and curse the Israelites for him, for whomever he blessed would be blessed, and whomever he cursed would be cursed (Numbers 22:4-7).

Pethor is associated with the ancient site of Pitru not far south of Carchemish, but still a decent journey from Moab. We have found extra-biblical evidence for Balaam of Beor: in Deir ‘Alla in Jordan, Biblical Succoth, a likely 9th century BCE inscription was discovered setting forth the book of Balaam son of Beor, a “seer of the gods.” A lot of the material in the Deir ‘Alla inscription well paralleled what can be found in Numbers 22:1-24:25: Balaam making known what was in the counsel of God/the gods and providing oracles for the people. Balaam son of Beor, therefore, was a Mesopotamian, a diviner of the will of the gods, and highly regarded by many different people in at least the region of the Transjordan. The Numbers narrative will simultaneously honor and mock Balaam, and its treatment of him was likely strongly associated with how well known he was among the nations.

When the elders of Moab and Midian visited Balaam son of Beor and stated their business, Balaam sought the word of YHWH; YHWH told him to not go with them, for the Israelites were blessed, and thus he would not go with them (Numbers 22:7-14). Balak was miffed and would not be deterred; assuming Balaam was not suitably impressed with the delegates he sent, Balak sent even more honorable and numerous princes, and promised great honor if he would come and curse Israel (Numbers 22:15-17). Balaam insisted he would not transgress what YHWH would say if Balak gave him his palace full of gold and silver, but again sought the word of YHWH (Numbers 22:18-19). YHWH this time told him to go with them but only say the word he was given (Numbers 22:19-21).

God’s anger was then kindled against Balaam, and an angel of YHWH stood as a satan, or opponent, against him. His donkey saw the angel and turned off the road into a field; Balaam beat the donkey so she might return to the road (Numbers 22:22-23). Again the angel stood in his path with a wall on either side; the donkey saw him and pressed herself against the wall, crushing Balaam’s foot in the process, and he beat her again (Numbers 22:24-25). For a third time the angel stood in the road, but this time in a narrow place without anywhere else to go; the donkey again him and crouched down under Balaam (Numbers 22:26-27). Balaam angrily beat the donkey with his staff (Numbers 22:27). But then YHWH opened the mouth of the donkey, and she asked him what she had done to deserve these beatings; he said she made him look stupid, and he would kill her if he had a sword to do so (Numbers 22:28-29). The donkey then compelled Balaam to confess how she had been a faithful donkey in how she had treated him (Numbers 22:30). YHWH finally opened Balaam’s eyes and he saw the angel of YHWH standing as his satan, or opponent (Numbers 22:31). He threw himself to the ground, and the angel chastised him for his treatment of his donkey; if it had not been for his donkey, the angel would have killed him (Numbers 22:32-33). Balaam confessed his sin and offered to return home; the angel told him to go with Balak’s men, but only speak what God would have him to speak (Numbers 22:34-35).

The story of Balaam and his donkey is funny and was intended to be funny. Balaam was made to look ridiculous, and the Israelite audience would no doubt chuckle at how the renowned oracle of Mesopotamia was rebuked by his donkey. But the story has its purpose: Balaam was put on notice about how important it would be to say what YHWH would have him to say. And as it went between Balaam, his donkey, and the angel, so it would go between Balaam, Balak, and the word of YHWH.

Balak met Balaam and rebuked him: did Balaam not think Balak could sufficiently honor him (Numbers 22:37)? Balaam testified how he had come, but strictly warned Balak how he could only speak what God told him to speak (Numbers 22:38). They went to Kiriath-huzoth to offer sacrifice, and then went to Bamoth Baal, the “high place of Baal,” so he might see the extent of Israel (Numbers 22:39-41). Balaam commanded Balak to build seven altars and prepare seven bulls and rams, and Balak did so (Numbers 23:1-2). Balaam went to hear from YHWH at a high place; YHWH met him there and told him to go and give a message to Balak (Numbers 23:3-6). Balaam then issued his first oracle, asking how he could curse or denounce a people YHWH had not cursed or denounced; Israel was a great nation, unique among them, impossible to number; Balaam wished for his life to end like theirs, which would prove ironic in the end (Numbers 23:7-10). Balak asked what was up: he had brought Balaam to curse his enemies, but he had instead blessed them; Balaam reminded him how he could only speak what YHWH put in his mouth (Numbers 23:11-12).

Balak then wanted Balaam to see but a portion of Israel from the top of Mount Pisgah; there again seven altars were built and a bull and a ram were offered on each altar; again Balaam went to meet YHWH, and YHWH met him and again told him to say only the message given (Numbers 23:13-17). Balaam then issued his second oracle, which began as a chastisement of Balak: God was not a man who would lie or change his mind; He will do what He said He will do; Balaam was commanded to bless Israel, and it could not be reversed; YHWH was King in Israel, and they would not experience trouble; God brought them out of Egypt and they had the strength of a bull; no spell or divination would work against them; they would rise up like lions (Numbers 23:18-24). Balak then told Balaam, essentially, to shut up: to not bless or curse them, and Balaam again told him how he could only say what YHWH would speak (Numbers 23:25-26).

Balak should have gotten the hint, but he was desperate and therefore hoped maybe YHWH might provide a curse from a third place; they went to Peor and built the altars and offered the animals (Numbers 23:28-30). We are told Balaam did not go and seek for omens this time as the other times, which explains what Balaam was doing beforehand (Numbers 24:1). Instead, he saw the camp of Israel, the Spirit of God came upon him, and he uttered his third oracle as the man whose eyes were open, hearing the words of God, seeing visions from the Almighty: the dwelling places of Israel are beautiful and like a garden or cedar trees; their descendants would be abundant and their king would be great; God brought them out of Egypt and they would devour hostile people; they maintain power and strength like lions; blessed were those who blessed Israel, and cursed were those who cursed them (Numbers 24:2-9).

Balak had seen and heard more than enough: he was angry, and struck his hands together: he had called Balaam to curse his enemies, but he had done nothing but bless them (Numbers 24:10). Balak commanded Balaam to return to his home: he would have greatly honored Balaam, that is, he would have given him a lot of money, but Balak insisted YHWH stood in the way of his honor (Numbers 24:11). Balaam again appealed to his consistent message from the beginning: he could only say what YHWH would have him speak (Numbers 24:13).

Balaam intended to return to his people, but before he left he would prophesy what Israel would to do to Moab in the future, presenting a fourth and final oracle, again as the one whose eyes were open, hearing the words of God and knowing the knowledge of the Most High, seeing visions from the Almighty: he saw a king rising from Israel, crushing Moab and the sons of Sheth making a possession of Edom; Amalek would perish; the Kenites would seem strong and secure, but Asshur would take them captive; ships would come from Cyprus or Greece to afflict Asshur and Eber, and he would perish (Numbers 24:14-24). The narrative ended abruptly: Balaam departed and returned to his home, and Balak went on his way as well (Numbers 24:25).

The details regarding much of Balaam’s fourth oracle remain in dispute, but the overall picture seems to foretell the rise of David, Solomon, and Israelite hegemony over the Transjordan and the elimination of Amalek. In terms of Numbers 24:21-24, while we would naturally associate Asshur with Assyria, but there was also a people of north Arabia known as Asshur who might well be in view here (cf. Genesis 25:3). Later people would associate the ships from Cyprus or Greece with Alexander and the Macedonians, but considering the antiquity of the oracle, Balaam might well have the “Sea Peoples” in view (ca. 1200 BCE).

In the end, both Balak and Balaam walk away frustrated. Balak’s motivations were apparent throughout. We can understand his desire to have Israel cursed, but he certainly got what he deserved when he kept asking Balaam to try cursing Israel again in a different place. Balak did not truly know YHWH or His relationship with His people Israel. Balak got the opposite of what he wanted, for now Israel was more blessed than before; perhaps the kings of the other nations heard, took notice, and would not attempt the same thing.

Balaam thought very highly of himself, perhaps for understandable reasons. He was a diviner with such great insight from the gods of all the nations as to be hired by a king hundreds of miles away for his services. Balaam seemed to be faithful to the word of YHWH based on all which has been recorded in Numbers 22:2-24:25; but this would not be the end of the story regarding Balak, Balaam, Moab, Midian, and Israel, as later material in Numbers would attest. Balaam’s passion and desire to obtain wealth and honor would become his undoing. The Israelites would have reason to confess Balaam son of Beor as a diviner and a non-Israelite prophet of God/the gods, as would the nations around them. But Israel had reason to mock Balaam as the prophet who was humiliated by his donkey, and Balaam’s end would come at the hands of Israel.

For the first time in Numbers, and for the longest time so far in the whole Torah, the narrative shifted away from Israelite activity. Throughout Numbers 22:2-24:25, Israel was blissfully unaware of what was transpiring right above their heads. YHWH might have all kinds of reasons to be frustrated with His people; some of those Israelites dwelling in the plains of Moab remained subject to condemnation to death in the wilderness. Despite all those frustrations, however, Israel remained the people of YHWH, and YHWH was not about to countenance a Moabite king obtaining advantage against them through curses from a well-regarded diviner. Israel was blessed by YHWH, their fathers, and even one of the most highly regarded Mesopotamian diviners, and Israel should never forget it. May we learn from the story of Balak, Balaam, and Israel, and live so as to glorify God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Balak and Balaam appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Christ Proclaimed in Pretense or Truth

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that my situation has actually turned out to advance the gospel: The whole imperial guard and everyone else knows that I am in prison for the sake of Christ, and most of the brothers and sisters, having confidence in the Lord because of my imprisonment, now more than ever dare to speak the word fearlessly. Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from goodwill. The latter do so from love because they know that I am placed here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, because they think they can cause trouble for me in my imprisonment. What is the result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:12-19).

Many would have looked at Paul’s situation and seen it as challenging, dire, and perhaps even hopeless. Paul would not have denied the challenge but chose to focus upon how it was all working to advance the Gospel and glorify God in Christ.

Philippi was a Roman colony in Macedonia (part of modern Greece); Paul first visited the area and preached Jesus around 51 (cf. Acts 16:11-40). Paul wrote to the Christians in Philippi most likely around 60-61 from Rome while living under house arrest there (cf. Philippians 1:1). The church had appointed elders and had deacons serving them, and had sent Epaphroditus to provide support and service to Paul (cf. Philippians 1:1, 2:25-30, 4:18). Paul thanked the Philippian Christians for their joint participation in his ministry and prayed for them to abound in love and make good decisions to share in Jesus’ praise at His return (Philippians 1:2-11).

According to standard conventions of letter writing in the Greco-Roman world, Paul followed up his greeting and exordium with a narratio, or story, in Philippians 1:12-26. In the narratio, a letter’s author would explain the situation which has compelled him or her to write. Sometimes, as in 1 Corinthians, the narratio focused primarily on what was going on with the Christians themselves; sometimes, as in Galatians, the narratio would involve both Paul’s situation as well as that of the Christians to whom he wrote. Yet Paul’s narratio to the Philippian Christians focused primarily on his own situation, as was made vividly apparent in Philippians 1:12-19.

Paul wanted to shift the narrative from what the Philippian Christians had imagined and/or heard: his situation was actually leading to the advancement of the Gospel (Philippians 1:12)! The praetorium, or imperial guard, and many others knew Paul was imprisoned for the sake of Jesus (Philippians 1:13); while a few want to suggest this could refer to a contingent of the imperial guard located in other parts of the Empire, this detail provides strong evidence by which we associate the Philippian letter with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. Paul also made it known how most of his fellow Christians in Rome gained in confidence because of Paul’s imprisonment to feel comfortable in speaking the word more fearlessly (Philippians 1:14). This represented a very different situation than the one in which Paul would find himself in 2 Timothy 1:15, in which most Christians from Asia completely abandoned Paul while in Rome. It might be possible these represent the same situation, but it would seem highly doubtful, and would give more credence to the belief Paul experienced two Roman imprisonments at different times with very different outcomes. The days of 2 Timothy remain in the future at this point; Paul can maintain a more cheerful optimism with the Philippian Christians because his current plight was not as terrible as might be imagined.

Paul then focused on the preaching of the Gospel in Rome for a moment (Philippians 1:15-17). Some did preach the Gospel with sincerity and out of love, unashamed of Paul’s imprisonment for the Gospel; but some were preaching Jesus as Christ out of envy and rivalry, motivated by selfish ambition and gain, imagining they would cause Paul greater trouble in his imprisonment by doing so (Philippians 1:15-17).

Some seem to suggest these envious preachers were in Philippi, but it makes far more sense to understand these preachers as dwelling in Rome. Exactly what their message would sound like, and to what end, are not revealed. Perhaps they spoke of Jesus as the Christ, or King, in mocking or derisive ways, seeking to make fun of the message of Jesus at the expense of Christians. We have explicit evidence of this kind of mockery from a later source: a graffito has been discovered near the Palatine Hill in Rome, dated to around 200, of a donkey-like figure on a cross with the inscription, “Alexamenos worships his god.” Nevertheless, it would be hard to imagine how going about and mocking the Christian message would cause trouble for Paul in prison; by making Christianity seem more ridiculous, it might even make it seem more ludicrous and preposterous to keep Paul imprisoned. Therefore, it is more likely these “rivals” went about preaching Jesus as the Christ in ways which may have seemed sincere even though they actually were not. They would have tried to “thread the needle,” sufficiently bold to insinuate Paul was a danger to Roman law and order but in such a way to make sure the proclaimer did not end up in prison along with him.

It would not be hard to imagine how such a proclamation could cause Paul trouble in his imprisonment. Suetonius, a Roman historian, bore witness to how Claudius expelled the Jewish people from Rome because they were making disturbances at the instigation of “Chrestus” (Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Claudius 25); this was probably the same decree to which Luke made reference in Acts 18:2, and many believe “Chrestus” is a distortion of “Christ,” and thus the Jewish people were all expelled because there had been some disputes going on regarding Jesus as the Christ. The same Suetonius related how Nero inflicted punishments on Christians around 64, and spoke of them as “given to a new and mischievous superstition” (ibid., Nero 16). We tend to believe Philippians was written only a couple of years before 62; nevertheless, the situation for Christians in Rome was manifestly quite precarious, and it would not have been challenging to stir up hostility toward Christian leaders by going out and speaking of Jesus as the real Lord and King.

One might expect Paul to respond to such proclaimers with hostility and prejudice. Instead, however, Paul rejoiced in how Jesus was proclaimed as the Christ, whether done in pretense or sincerity (Philippians 1:18). Paul remained confident all of these things would lead to his salvation through the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ and the supplications of the Philippian Christians (Philippians 1:19). We have good reason to believe Paul understood his “salvation” as deliverance from his imprisonment in this particular context; while his words might allow for a darker, more ominous conclusion, his further explanation in Philippians 1:20-26 would confirm the more optimistic scenario.

Paul began his narratio for the Philippian Christians as he did for good reasons. He remained under imprisonment in Rome, even if it were house arrest. As a prisoner, it would be assumed he had done something sufficiently wrong as to warrant being a prisoner. Presumption of being a criminal and possibly guilty of upsetting the laws and customs of the land remains a severe burden even in modern times; it would be all the more shameful and challenging in the eyes of good Roman citizens who earnestly desired to uphold their standing and the Roman way of life. The Philippian Christians would have good reason to imagine Paul was experiencing very difficult conditions for himself and a very hostile climate for the proclamation of the Gospel. Their association with him would have been seen as shameful and an embarrassment to their fellow Philippians.

Paul did not lie to the Philippian Christians, but he did focus on the positive. The Gospel was not being hindered by Paul’s imprisonment; he found ways to advance it, making sure the imperial guard and many in the imperial household well understood who he was and what he was about. Paul did not deny some people were proclaiming Jesus as the Christ in Rome with a view to cause Paul greater difficulty in prison. But Paul put it all in perspective: even if in pretense, Christ was being proclaimed, and Paul rejoiced in that. Even if it caused him greater trouble in prison, at least Jesus was being proclaimed.

We should always be on guard against shaming or toxic positivity: Paul did experience moments of distress and grief and spoke openly about them (e.g. 2 Corinthians 1:3-11). But Paul’s witness regarding his situation and the Gospel in Philippians 1:12-19 should well remind us to step back and look at the greater picture. We are often tempted toward dismay when we see and hear many preaching Jesus out of rivalry, envy, and selfish ambition. We scold and shame and point out how they are doing it wrong. While we do need to proclaim the Gospel in its fullness with all sincerity in love, we also should embody the spirit of Paul: whenever Jesus is proclaimed as the Christ, we should rejoice. Many lament regarding the condition and state of Christianity these days, but nevertheless, almost two thousand years after His life, death, and resurrection, people around the world still speak of Jesus as the Christ, and Christ is proclaimed in all kinds and sorts of ways, and in that we should rejoice.

When we look at our current predicament, we can always find reasons for discouragement and despair. We can always find ways things could be going better in the advancement of the Gospel. But we should well heed Paul’s example in Philippians 1:11-19 and find ways to see how God is working through His Spirit, and rejoice in it. May we work to advance the Gospel of Jesus in sincerity and truth and obtain life in God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Christ Proclaimed in Pretense or Truth appeared first on de Verbo vitae.