All posts by Daniel Wee

Accounted for Righteousness?

In Rom 4:3, Paul cites Gen 15:6 in the Greek (from the LXX) as follows:-

ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.
Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (NKJV)

What Paul understood by this verse was that Abraham’s belief in God was regarded by God as righteousness. In a sense, faith equals righteousness. When we inspect the Greek here, however, we find that things are not so clear. The literal translation of the Greek is something like this:-

Abraham believed God and he ἐλογίσθη (elogisthe) to righteousness.

The Greek verb elogisthe comes from the root word logizomai, which according to the BDAG carries a semantic range of meanings:-

  1. to reckon, calculate
  2. to give careful thought to a matter, to consider, to ponder
  3. to hold a view about something, be of the opinion

These meanings do not include the idea of an imputation of values to another, such as “accounted to him for” as understood by Paul. The Barnes’ Commentary, for example, says:-

I have examined all the passages, and as the result of my examination have come to the conclusion, that there is not one in which the word is used in the sense of reckoning or imputing to a man what does not strictly belong to him; or of charging on him what ought not to be charged on him as a matter of personal right.

The preposition εἰς (eis) likewise carries a range of meanings (BDAG):-

  1. extension involving a goal or a place, ie. towards
  2. extension in time, ie. until
  3. marker of degree, ie. up to
  4. marker of abstract goals, ie. into, to
  5. marker of a specific point of reference, ie. with reference to
  6. marker of a guarantee, ie. by
  7. distributive marker, ie. -fold
  8. the predicate nominative or predicate accusative, under Semitic influence, ie. as
  9. marker of instrumentality, ie. by, with
  10. other uses, eg. at

While this is quite a list of meanings, many of the uses cannot apply to “righteousness” since it is not a place, time, degree, guarantee, distributive marker nor an instrument. It is also not a “goal” in the normal sense of the word. In all likelihood, it is being used as a predicate accusative.

It seems that a more likely translation of Gen 15:6 from the LXX is:-

Abram believed God, and he considered (it) as righteousness.

*In quoting the LXX, Paul changed “Abram” to “Abraham”. Whether this was intentional or not is unknown but there is little material difference to the meaning.

At this point, we are pretty close to the Hebrew Gen 15:6:-

וְהֶאֱמִ֖ן בַּֽיהוָ֑ה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ֥הָ לּ֖וֹ צְדָקָֽה
And he trusted Yehovah and he יַּחְשְׁבֶ֥ (yachshev) to him righteousness.

The Hebrew verb yachshev, according to the HALOT, carries the meanings:-

  1. weave
  2. respect, hold in high regard
  3. assume, regard

The primary meaning of “weave” clearly doesn’t fit into this context. Looking at the other use of this word form in Gen 38:15 where it carries the meaning “assume” or “regard”, that seems to be the more common usage. If so, we can translate the text as:-

And he trusted in Yehovah and he assumed/regarded (it) to him as righteousness.

It is worth noting that “righteousness” here is just a common noun and is not in a genitive form (Greek), or carries a pronomial suffix (Hebrew). In other words, it isn’t talking about anyone’s righteousness, or righteousness attached to a person, but simply the idea of righteousness.

We now have good agreement between the Hebrew and the LXX translations but there are two unknowns remaining in this text. Who is it that considered/assumed/regarded what as righteousness?

And he trusted in Yehovah and he assumed/regarded (it) to him as righteousness.

The first “he” we can safely say refers to Abram due to the context – it has to be Abram who trusted Yehovah and not Yehovah trusting himself. What of the next “he”? Christians traditionally follow the Pauline reading and so assume that the second “he” refers to God and the “it” refers to Abram’s believing or faith. There is nothing, however, in the sentence that would lead to that reading. Someone who is unaware of the Pauline tradition would not have read it that way.

The NET translators tried to justify their assignment of the second “he” to God by saying that the verb form (waw consecutive in the third person) from verses 5-7 always refers to God. This is, however, an extremely weak argument, not just because the same waw consecutive verb in verse 8 clearly refers to Abraham, but because this verb form is one of the most common (if not THE most common) form in the Hebrew bible.

A more normal reading of the verse, unaffected by Paul’s take, would go like this:-

An he (Abram) trusted in Yehovah and he (Abram) regarded (it) to him (God) as righteousness.

Here the “it” would refer to God’s intention of giving Abram a son and an heir. Abraham could trust in God because God was righteous. God then reiterates that promise in the very next verse, Gen 15:7:-

Then He said to him, “I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it.”

Abram responds by asking for an assurance (Gen 15:6):-

And he said, “Lord GOD, how shall I know that I will inherit it?”

Contrast this to the Pauline version where after God considers Abram’s belief as righteousness, Abram goes on to ask for assurance. This does not flow quite as smoothly as the unbiased reading.

Among Jewish scholars, there is some dispute about this. Rashi seems to agree with Paul’s reading while Ramban (Nachmanides) disagrees. In the Mikraot Gedolot, he wrote:-

The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the verse is stating that Abraham believed in G-d and he considered it due to the righteousness of the Holy One, blessed be He, that He would give him a child under all circumstances, and not because of Abram’s state of righteousness and his reward, even though He told him, Your reward shall be very great.

In the Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis, the author says the Masoretic Hebrew would dictate that without an explicit change of subject, the presumed subject would still be Abram.

What is the Gospel?

The word “gospel” as used within Christian circles today carry different meanings. They are used to refer to the NT books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. When used in this way, they are using “gospels” as a literary genre – that is in reference to these books that provide a narrative of the life of Jesus – an ancient biography. Mark 1:1, for example, introduces the book saying:-

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Mark is, here, referring to the book in the sense of “biography”. It is, as it were, the gospel of Jesus Christ or the biography of the life of Jesus the Messiah.

The Greek texts of the gospels, however, as found within the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, our oldest complete manuscripts, do not actually call these books “gospels”. Not all the books are titled (eg. Matthew in Codex Sinaticus has no title) but where they are titled, they are usually called “Kata Markon” (“According to Mark”) for example, or “Kata Yohannan” (“According to John”.) In other words, the popular usage of “gospels” as reference to these books of the NT is more of a convenient usage, but one that does not relate to the bible’s internal use of the word “gospel”.

“According to John”, Codex Sinaiticus

“According to Mark”, Codex Vaticanus

*There are other works that present themselves as “gospels” that are not part of our regular NT canon. You may have heard of the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Judas, among many others.

The gospel of the kingdom of God

Within the NT, the word that is usually translated as “gospel”, “good news” or “glad tidings” is the Greek noun εὐαγγέλιον (pronounced euaggelion). This breaks down to “eu” which means “good” and “aggelia” which means “message”. Put together, the word literally means “good message” or “good news”. Mark, immediately after introducing his work as the gospel-biography of Jesus, goes on to use the same word in a very different sense. In Mark 1:14-15, we have:

Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

In this case, it cannot be referring to the book of Mark which would have been anachronistic. The “gospel” here is referring to the message that Jesus preached at the very onset of his ministry in Galilee, what Mark called the “gospel of the kingdom of God” as opposed to the “gospel (biography) of Jesus Christ”. This “gospel of the kingdom” is the one that is being presented to the hearers and demanding their belief. At this point, Jesus had not called his disciples yet. He certainly had not been crucified yet, nor died on the cross and resurrected three days later. What, then, was this “gospel” or “good news” that Jesus was asking his hearers to believe in?

In Luke 8:1, we once again see that the message that Jesus brought was the “gospel of the kingdom of God”:

Now it came to pass, afterward, that He went through every city and village, preaching and bringing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God.

This wasn’t just some passing news, but appears to be the central preaching of Jesus during his years of ministry, and for this reason we can get some idea of the substance of this “gospel” by looking at what Jesus preached. In Luke’s account, right after Jesus’ temptation, he went to a synagogue in Nazareth, in the Lower Galilee area, and inaugurated his ministry with the familiar words of Isaiah. Luke 4:18-19:

The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.

Jesus had been appointed to read the prophets, which on that day happened to fall on Isa 61:1-2 (NKJV):

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor. He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to those who are bound, to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, …

This was the “gospel” that Jesus was preaching. The Hebrew word that is translated “good tidings” here is actually a bit more neutral. The Hebrew noun and cognate to the Greek εὐαγγέλιον is בְּשׂוֹרָ֥ה (pronounced besorah) simply means “news”. It could be good news or bad news. Moreover, the form in which this word often appears, such as in Isa 61, is usually as a verb baser which can be translated as “heralding” or “announcing”. There is no implicit “good” in the news. That “good” is more of a translatorial interjection. For example, if we look at 2Sam 18:31, the verb yitbaser there was translated as “good news” in the NKJV, NASB and ESV but was translated as “informed” in the JPS. In 1Chr 16:23, on the other hand, baseru was translated in the NKJV and NASB as “proclaim the good news/tidings” whereas the ESV simply translated it as “tell of.” Whether this news was good or not, for the translators, was a matter of contextual interpretation and not intrinsic to the word itself.

In order to understand the nature of the message, therefore, we have to look beyond just the lexical meaning of the word to the context (of Isa 61 in this case.) Isa 61:1 gives us some clues – the message is about healing, liberty, release – but the summary of this message is found in Isa 61:2, that is to declare the “acceptable year of the Lord” or the “year of favour to/of Yehovah.” The word translated as “liberty” (NKJV) is the Hebrew word דְּר֔וֹר (pronounced deror) which refers to the emancipation of slaves upon the year of Jubilee (Lev 25:10), along with the cancellation of debt. This, according to Isaiah, was what the “news” was about. The rest of the chapter goes on to describe a time of great deliverance for the people of God and a time of restoration for the city of God, a day of divine retribution when wrongs would be put right. More than that, Isa 61:8 tells us that this was also the day in which Yehovah would make a (new) covenant with His people. In many ways, this was the day many Jews had been waiting and hoping for. Isa 52:7 similarly speaks of the “news” of such a day when God’s reign is restored:

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who proclaims peace, who brings glad tidings of good things, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns!”

Isa 49:8 speaks of this “acceptable time” as follows:

Thus says the LORD: “In an acceptable time I have heard you, and in the day of salvation I have helped you. I will preserve You and give you as a covenant to the people, to restore the earth, to cause them to inherit the desolate heritages.

The “acceptable time” is a reference to the day of deliverance and salvation. It is also a reference to the promise of restoration as well as the covenant. One could say that this hope for God’s deliverance and restoration of Israel was nothing new to the Jews. They had been longing for this ever since the destruction of the first temple in 586BC. After the Hasmonean dynasty ended in 37BC, giving way to the Herodian rule as a client of the Roman state, these aspirations were heightened with messianic hopes. So when Jesus told the synagogue in Nazareth what he did, you can just imagine their shock. Lk 4:20-21:

Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Jesus was basically saying to them that their waiting for deliverance was over, and that God was finally ushering in the promises of a restoration and of the covenant. The year of Jubilee had finally arrived. That was the “news” and it was good, for those who had been waiting and felt like they had been in bondage as slaves. At this point, we may also look at how Jeremiah had prophesied concerning a time when God would make a “new covenant” with the house of Judah and the house of Israel in Jer 31:31:

Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah …

In the same way that Isa 61:4 looked forward to the day of rebuilding of the old ruins and former desolations, Jer 31:38 also anticipated the rebuilding of the city of God, and by implication the restoration of the rule and kingdom of God. This was not just a picture of personal salvation, but of the ushering in of a new era of the kingdom of God. Jesus confirms the prophecy of Isaiah by performing the very miracles that was described. Mt 4:23:

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.

Mk 1:14-15 says:

Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

One can imagine that on the evening just before the Jubilee would be ushered in (Jewish days start in the evening), there would be the sounding of the shofar throughout the land (Lev 25:9) and every slave, every debtor, everyone who had lost his land and become dispossessed, would have leapt for joy upon hearing the sound of the shofar that starts in Jerusalem and is then echoed and relayed throughout the land of Israel. There would be people who may not have been aware of their Jubilee liberty, and would have had to rely on someone to announce to them the good news as heralds ran from village to village. Jesus was that herald, as well as the fulfilment of the promise. His message was the good news of emancipation, of restoration, and of the establishment of a new era of God’s rulership over the world. This was the gospel of the kingdom of God and the kingdom encompasses every aspect of life, as well as the afterlife, but it was not just about going to heaven.

The writer of Matthew must have understood the imminent advent of this kingdom. As soon as the news gets to everyone who needed to hear it, God’s day of judgement would come. In Mt 24:14, he wrote:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

It was clear that the disciples of Jesus believed that the day of the Lord was imminent and “at hand.” This was why they asked what they did in Acts 1:6:

Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

That was the capping of the good news. Today, we see that this period had lasted longer than anyone had anticipated and that may have been why Jesus did not answer the direct question that was posed to him. It does, however, help us understand what “good news” meant for Jesus and his disciples.

Paul’s gospel

Once we move past Jesus, we discover that Paul’s usage of the “gospel” is somewhat different. Nowhere in his writings does he ever mention the “gospel of the kingdom”. Rather, Paul preached a “gospel of the grace of God”. In his own words in Acts 20:24:

But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.

In several other places, he calls his message the “gospel of Christ” (Rom 1:16, 15:29, 1Cor 9:12,18, 2Cor 2:12, 9:13, 10:14, Phil 1:27, 1Thes 3:2, 2Thes 1:8). Elsewhere he seems to suggest that this gospel which he often referred to as “my gospel” was somehow distinctly for the Gentiles. In Gal 2:7 Paul compares his gospel to that of Peter’s:

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter.

Paul’s gospel focused on salvation for gentiles (Eph 1:13, Rom 1:16), and specifically salvation by faith (Rom 1:17) without the need of conforming to the traditional requirements of the Law (Col 2:14). This involved, primarily, a belief and confession in Jesus Christ (Act 16:31, Rom 10:9) and that salvation comes as a result of God’s grace (Tit 2:11)

This version of “gospel” is the one that is most theologically prevalent in evangelical circles today, but it isn’t the only “gospel” in the bible nor is it even the primary one. I would like to think of this as a subset of the gospel of the kingdom, and one that focuses more on gentile adoption into the plan of God and on salvation specifically. For Paul, the cross represented an “offense”, particularly to the Jews, and is the power that granted to Gentiles access to God for reconciliation (Col 1:20), and salvation as a consequence.

James, the first leader of the Jerusalem church and the brother of Jesus, espoused a gospel that is much more in line with Jesus’ teachings. He does not mention the cross nor utilized it in the way Paul did. For James, the hope of the believer is in the faithfulness of God with the idea that if we keep our part of the covenant, God will surely keep His part which includes our deliverance and salvation. This encompassed more than just a belief, but required obedience as the evidence of that faith (Jas 2:18-24). This also happens to be the direction the Didache taught, that the way of life being found in obeying God’s commands, particularly that of loving God and our neighbours (Did 1).

Summary

In summary, we see that the word “gospel” (good news, glad tidings) isn’t always used int the same way throughout the bible. We also see that much of the evangelical understanding of the gospel tends to be more Pauline than the “gospel of the kingdom” that Jesus himself preached. For Paul, the “cross” symbolizes his theology of justification by faith, which he considers an offense to the Jews (possibly including James.)

The Six Days of Creation

A translation and commentary of Genesis 1

Gen 1:1-2 (Day One)

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֨הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְה֑וֹם וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם
And the earth was empty and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

In the eyes of the ancient peoples, the broadest encompassing categories were the heavens and the earth. Everything we know is contained within these categories. At this time, however, the expanse of heaven and earth were like a blank canvas as nothing else had been formed. Some translations like to use “formless” (NASB, NKJB) instead of “empty” (which is how this word is often translated elsewhere in the bible, eg. 1Sam 12:21, Isa 29:21) and the idea is that things were in a pre-creation or pre-ordered state.

The basic material of this world, however, included waters – deep waters that seemed to have been considered a part of the primeval universe. The word used for this “deep” comes from the Hebrew “tehom”, which is a cognate for the Akkadian word “tiamat” found in the Babylonian creation story, the Enuma Elish (1900-1600BC) which predates the time of Moses (ca.1400BC). The first few lines of the tablet reads as follows:-

At a time when even the glories above had yet to be named, And unuttered was the word for the world which lay beneath It was then that the first being, Apsu, who was their source, And the progenitor Tiamat, the mother who gave birth to all, Intermingled their waters, producing neither field nor marsh At a time when no divine beings had yet come into existence, There were no names to be spoken, and no fates pronounced, But the gods were given birth within those intermixing waves.

In the Enuma Elish, “tiamat” was this primordial chaos that was depicted as a tumultous sea, as well as the “mother” of the gods. The Genesis narrative puts God (Elohim) well over the apex of the Babylonian pantheon.

Going back to Gen 1:2, the fact that the water had a “face” upon which the Spirit hovered seems to suggest something like an ocean. There was also the “heavens” and the “earth”, but it is not very clear how the water fits into the other two at this point. Today, our cosmic world-view consists of a round planet earth and waters that cover parts of the surface of the planet. The ancients, however, saw the cosmos differently. For them, earth was flat and everything above the flat earth was the heavens. Around the flat earth, however, and possibly in the heavens as well, was huge amounts of water. It is possible that the “land” at this stage was viewed as being submerged in the waters.

God was already present, obviously, and the “spirit of God”, being the active agent by which God performs His will, was “fluttering” above the surface of the water since there was no dry land to stand on yet. This as, therefore, the ripe stage for creation – God, through His spirit, fluttering like a bird over the primeval ocean that covered the earth, and the heavens above.

Gen 1:3-5

וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר
And God said, “Let there be light” and light was.

וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָא֖וֹר כִּי־ט֑וֹב וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹהִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָא֖וֹר וּבֵ֥ין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ
And God saw the light, for (it was) good, and God separated between the light and between the darkness.

וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאוֹר֙ י֔וֹם וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם אֶחָֽד
And God called the light “day” and the darkness he called “night.”. And it was evening, and it was morning. Day one.

The very first thing that God ordered out of the darkness was “light”. No mechanics were given. Light came into being simply at the expressed will of God, without effort. The previously dark heavens and earth were now bathed in light. The sky was no longer black as before, but blue, even if the sun had not yet been created. It was naturally the first thing to be ordered since without light, everything else would remain hidden in darkness. There was a logical precedence that called for light to be “created” first. Darkness, however, was uncreated. It was the beginning state and was defined by the absence of light and generally represented the absence not just of light, but of order.

The ancient writer did not yet have the concept of a heliocentric galaxy or how the days and nights were the result of earth rotating on its axis. To them, the sun existed for the day, and the moon for the night. While it should be apparent that the sun brought light, it was not the only source of light and light, as such, could exist apart from the sun (such as from the moon and the stars). The light of day, was not yet connected to the cosmic role of the sun. God calls the light “day”, although in reality it wasn’t “light” that God called day, but the time when the earth was lit. Conversely, when the light was absent, the time was called “night.” This was being written from the perspective of someone on earth, experiencing the progression from day to night and from night to day. This was not being written from a scientific heavenly or cosmic perspective, where the notion of day and night would be irrelevant.

The day came to a natural end when darkness set upon the land and all activity ground to a halt. This also marked the beginning of the next day. The full cycle of night to day and back to the end of day was considered a “day”, even if sunlight only illuminated a part of the day. In this sense “day” is actually a measure of time, and not just the state of being in sunlight.

Gen 1:6-8 (Day Two)

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַמָּ֑יִם וִיהִ֣י מַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין מַ֖יִם לָמָֽיִם
And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,” and there was a division between water and water.

וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִים֮ אֶת־הָרָקִיעַ֒ וַיַּבְדֵּ֗ל בֵּ֤ין הַמַּ֙יִם֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ מִתַּ֣חַת לָרָקִ֔יעַ וּבֵ֣ין הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֖ר מֵעַ֣ל לָרָקִ֑יעַ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן
And God made the firmament and divided between the waters which was below the firmament and between the waters which was above the firmament, and it was so.

יִּקְרָ֧א אֱלֹהִ֛ים לָֽרָקִ֖יעַ שָׁמָ֑יִם וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם שֵׁנִֽי
God called the firmament “heavens”, and it was evening and it was morning of day two.

So what exactly was a “firmament”? In the ancient world-view, there was a dome or an arc that stretched over and covered all of the earth. This was what appeared to people as the sky and it was on this sky that the heavenly bodies transited. The notion of an infinite universe that was deeply three-dimensional was not yet understood and this sky was almost like a two-dimensional canvas. Sometimes, portals or gates would open up in this come and water would pour through, and come down on earth as rain. It must mean, therefore, that there was a massive source of water up beyond the visible sky that was responsible for rains and floods. This is why we see in Gen 7:11, 8:2 the mention of “windows of heaven” which open and close, giving rise to the phenomenon of rain and floods. From that primeval water of Gen 1:2, it has to somehow be divided into the waters above and the waters on earth (and under the earth.)

[Kyle Greenwood, “Scripture and Cosmology: Reading the Bible Between the Ancient World and Modern Science”]

The writer of Genesis was actually describing how the world, as he understood it, came about. It was working back from how he saw things to the beginning, rather than as a first principles approach to cosmogony. Interestingly, for this day, there was no “good” commendation given. Some would consider Gen 1:9-10 events of day two, and thus the “good” commendation can be found there.


Gen 1:9-10 (Day Three*)

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים יִקָּו֨וּ הַמַּ֜יִם מִתַּ֤חַת הַשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙ אֶל־מָק֣וֹם אֶחָ֔ד וְתֵרָאֶ֖ה הַיַּבָּשָׁ֑ה וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן
And God said, “Gather the waters from under the heavens to a one place, and let dry ground appear,” and it was so.

וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לַיַּבָּשָׁה֙ אֶ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵ֥ה הַמַּ֖יִם קָרָ֣א יַמִּ֑ים וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב
And God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters He called “seas”, and God saw that it was good.

The counterpart to the heavens created in day two was now being ordered in day three. The waters below the firmament must have originally covered everything (thus requiring the Spirit of God to hover over the surface) was now collected in places, revealing (soon to be) dry land. They have experienced enough floods to understand that waters can recede to let land appear. Under the heavens, we now have the juxtaposition of land with the seas. Once again, these were very basic features and categories in an ancient person’s view of the world.

*Some consider this part of day two so the next section begins day three.

Gen 1:11-13

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים תַּֽדְשֵׁ֤א הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ דֶּ֔שֶׁא עֵ֚שֶׂב מַזְרִ֣יעַ זֶ֔רַע עֵ֣ץ פְּרִ֞י עֹ֤שֶׂה פְּרִי֙ לְמִינ֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹ עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן
And God said, “Let sprout on the land, grass, herb that bears seed, fruit tree(s) that bears fruit of its kind, whose seed is in it, on the land.,” and it was so.

וַתּוֹצֵ֨א הָאָ֜רֶץ דֶּ֠שֶׁא עֵ֣שֶׂב מַזְרִ֤יעַ זֶ֙רַע֙ לְמִינֵ֔הוּ וְעֵ֧ץ עֹֽשֶׂה־פְּרִ֛י אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹ לְמִינֵ֑הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב
And the earth brought forth grass, herb that bears seed according to its kind, and tree(s) that make fruit whose seed is in it according to its own kind, and God saw that it was good.

וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם שְׁלִישִֽׁי
And it was evening and it was morning. Day three.

This was a long day. After the land had appeared out of the waters, it could not be left barren. Vegetation was seen as part and parcel of what makes the land up, and so it belonged together with the “creation” of land. It was well understood that seeds were basic to continued production of herbs and trees, seeing as the ancients had been in agrarian cultures. Of course, in our scientific world-view, we are aware that plants also depend on water and light, and carbon-dioxide, and a host of other things for survival. The writer was not trying to supply the mechanics of plant growth as much as he was making a statement about how God must have created the world as he observed it. Keep in mind that at this point, the sun had not yet been created if we are to follow the sequence of Genesis, and yet each day was already punctuated by evenings and mornings, further underscoring that this was not written as history, but theology.

Gen 1:14-19 (Day Four)

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים יְהִ֤י מְאֹרֹת֙ בִּרְקִ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם לְהַבְדִּ֕יל בֵּ֥ין הַיּ֖וֹם וּבֵ֣ין הַלָּ֑יְלָה וְהָי֤וּ לְאֹתֹת֙ וּלְמ֣וֹעֲדִ֔ים וּלְיָמִ֖ים וְשָׁנִֽים
And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide between the day between the night, and let there be for signs and for appointed times and for days and years.

וְהָי֤וּ לִמְאוֹרֹת֙ בִּרְקִ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם לְהָאִ֖יר עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן
And let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens for light on the land.”

וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים
And God made the two great lights. The great light to rule the day and the little light to rule the night and the stars.

וַיִּתֵּ֥ן אֹתָ֛ם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בִּרְקִ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם לְהָאִ֖יר עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ
And God gave them in the firmament of the heavens to light the land.

וְלִמְשֹׁל֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם וּבַלַּ֔יְלָה וּֽלֲהַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין הָא֖וֹר וּבֵ֣ין הַחֹ֑שֶׁךְ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב
And to rule in the day and in the night and to divide between the light and between the darkness, and God saw that it was good.

The two great lights were the sun and the moon, as was obvious to any person who wasn’t blind. These have actual Hebrew names – “shemesh” for sun, and “yareach” for moon – but neither of these proper nouns were used. What could have been the reason for this? “Shamash”, as it turns out, was also the name of the Mesopotamian sun god (and god of justice). It is possible that the more oblique language of “greater light” and “little light” was used to avoid the mention of these names because they were worshipped as gods in ancient times. Perhaps the writer was keen to present a monotheistic creation narrative, in which there was one god responsible for everything.

The sun and the moon served not only as light sources, but also play important calendrical functions. The word “moedim” in this verse is usually translated as seasons, possibly because the translators were thinking of the seasons of a year. The word itself, however, is almost always used in reference to appointed times of meeting and feasts of the Lord and translated as such. Here the writer, I believe, was anticipating the calendrical function of the moon, in particular, which was the basis for their lunar calendar. This explains the specific mention that they were for “signs”, as in the sign of a new month, or the sign of the beginning of a feast. This is a connection that appears many times in the rest of the Old Testament (eg. Dt 16:1, Ps 81:3).

Just as the waters under the firmament had to be divided again into land and seas, the lights in the firmament were further divided, into the sun for the day, and moon and stars for the night. In ancient times, these celestial bodies were often associated with deities and angels.

Gen 1:20-23 (Day Five)

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים יִשְׁרְצ֣וּ הַמַּ֔יִם שֶׁ֖רֶץ נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֑ה וְעוֹף֙ יְעוֹפֵ֣ף עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ עַל־פְּנֵ֖י רְקִ֥יעַ הַשָּׁמָֽיִם
And God said, “Let there abound in the seas an abundance of living soul(s), and flying birds over the land on the face of the firmament of the heavens.”

וַיִּבְרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־הַתַּנִּינִ֖ם הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים וְאֵ֣ת כָּל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ הַֽחַיָּ֣ה ׀ הָֽרֹמֶ֡שֶׂת אֲשֶׁר֩ שָׁרְצ֨וּ הַמַּ֜יִם לְמִֽינֵהֶ֗ם וְאֵ֨ת כָּל־ע֤וֹף כָּנָף֙ לְמִינֵ֔הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב
And God created the great sea-monsters and every living soul that moves which swarms the waters according to their kind, and all the winged birds according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

וַיְבָ֧רֶךְ אֹתָ֛ם אֱלֹהִ֖ים לֵאמֹ֑ר פְּר֣וּ וּרְב֗וּ וּמִלְא֤וּ אֶת־הַמַּ֙יִם֙ בַּיַּמִּ֔ים וְהָע֖וֹף יִ֥רֶב בָּאָֽרֶץ
And God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and be great and fill the waters in the seas, and let the bird(s) be many in the land.

וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם חֲמִישִֽׁי
And it was evening, and morning. Day five.

Where most bible versions translate the word “nephesh” here as “living creatures”, it is usually translated as “souls”, which can be used to mean living beings. It is interesting that animals were referred to as souls, and I think this goes back to the ancient notion of life as anything that breathes, whether it be humans or animals. When someone dies, the breathing stops and the soul leaves. Special mention was made about some “great sea-monsters” or “tanninim” which features in Ugaritic myths as a sea-monster that serves Yam, the god of the sea. It is unclear what this actually referred to for the writer of Genesis but it could be any of the great sea creatures that is seen to dominate the seas and rivers (Eze 29:3, Isa 27:1). It is there, I think, to represent the creatures of the sea in the same way that birds came to represent the creatures with wings.

[“Context of Scripture”, Ugaritic Myths, The Ba’lu Myth, CTA3, Anatu’s Response]

For the first time, God specifically blessed these souls, both in the sea and in the air, thus according them a status beyond that of vegetation. Not only that, they were given the command to multiply and to fill the earth. We notice the language of “abundance” and “fruitfulness” as being part of what God considers “good” and connected to blessings.

Gen 1:24-25 (Day Six)

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים תּוֹצֵ֨א הָאָ֜רֶץ נֶ֤פֶשׁ חַיָּה֙ לְמִינָ֔הּ בְּהֵמָ֥ה וָרֶ֛מֶשׂ וְחַֽיְתוֹ־אֶ֖רֶץ לְמִינָ֑הּ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן
And God said, “Let the land bring forth living soul(s) according to its kind, beast(s) and moving things and living things of the land according to its own kind,” and it was so.

וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִים֩ אֶת־חַיַּ֨ת הָאָ֜רֶץ לְמִינָ֗הּ וְאֶת־הַבְּהֵמָה֙ לְמִינָ֔הּ וְאֵ֛ת כָּל־רֶ֥מֶשׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֖ה לְמִינֵ֑הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב
And God made the animals of the land according to its kind and the beasts according to its kind and all moving things of the earth according to its kind, and God say that it was good.

Animals are more generic whereas beasts (or cattle in some cases) are more specific types of animals. These were clearly not conceived of as comprehensive categories, but observational categories, and would therefore have potential overlap. They were what the ancient readers would normally see in the world around them.

Gen 1:26-31

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ
And God said, “Let us make man in our image according to our likeness, and let him dominate the fish of the sea, and the birds of the heavens, and the beasts, and in all the land and over all moving things that moves over all the land.”

וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם
And God created the man in His image, in the image of God He created him. Male and female He created them.

וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹהִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹהִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ
And God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fruitful and be great (many) and fill the land and subdue it, and dominate the fish of the sea and the bird(s) of the heavens and all the animals that moves on the land.

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּה֩ נָתַ֨תִּי לָכֶ֜ם אֶת־כָּל־עֵ֣שֶׂב ׀ זֹרֵ֣עַ זֶ֗רַע אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י כָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאֶת־כָּל־הָעֵ֛ץ אֲשֶׁר־בּ֥וֹ פְרִי־עֵ֖ץ זֹרֵ֣עַ זָ֑רַע לָכֶ֥ם יִֽהְיֶ֖ה לְאָכְלָֽה
And God said, “Behold, I give to you-all all the herbs that bears seeds which is on the face of all the land, and all the tree(s) which is in it, fruit bearing tree(s) that bears seeds, to you-all it shall be for food.”

וּֽלְכָל־חַיַּ֣ת הָ֠אָרֶץ וּלְכָל־ע֨וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֜יִם וּלְכֹ֣ל ׀ רוֹמֵ֣שׂ עַל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ֙ נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֔ה אֶת־כָּל־יֶ֥רֶק עֵ֖שֶׂב לְאָכְלָ֑ה וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן
And to all the animals of the land and to all the bird(s) of the heavens and to all the moving things on the land which has a living soul in it, all green herbs for food, and it was so.

וַיַּ֤רְא אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וְהִנֵּה־ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם הַשִּׁשִּֽׁי
And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning. Day six.

We now come to the climax of the creation narrative, climbing up in status from vegetation to fish and birds, to animals and finally to man. There are many interesting things about these verses. For one, in Gen 1:26 God spoke in the plural, “in our image.” Some have called this a “majestic plural” meaning that it was a way to show the greatness of God by using the plural instead of the singular. On the other hand, in the next verse, with “in His image” the singular was used. Others have suggested that the plural here referred to the divine council that served with God. In any case, it is an interesting detail. What is clear, though, is that man sat on top of the hierarchy, and was given clear dominion over the other living things of the earth. The language of dominion may not sit well with modern day environmentalists but it is what the bible uses.

[Michael S. Heiser, “The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible”]

Man was uniquely made in the pattern or likeness of God. Male and female they were created, suggesting that this was a separate narrative from the Gen 2 narrative of Eden. The progression here is less chronological or sequential, as it is in terms of significance and ranking. This is another reason to think that the order of creation presented here is not meant to be taken literally or historically, but theologically.

Note that here, God gave man the rulership over all living things, but in Gen 1:29, He gave them only the plants for food. Likewise, in Gen 1:30, He gave the animals only plants for food. This would make sense especially for an agrarian culture. If taken literally, we would all be vegans or vegetarians! Like any good ruler, the responsibility and care for the welfare of the ruled is implied so care and stewardship is part of this dominion.

On this final day of creation, God pronounced the “good” verdict twice. First was in Gen 1:25 at the conclusion of the creation of the animals, and then again after the creation of man. God did not bless the animals as he did the fish and the birds earlier, but He blessed man with the same mandate to be fruitful and multiply. One could make the case that blessings, in this context, had to do with fruitfulness.

Observations

The categories of creation over the six-days are:-

  1. Darkness and deep waters
  2. Heavens and the earth
  3. Light
  4. Firmament. Division of waters above and below
  5. Dry land and seas
  6. Sun and moon, and stars
  7. Fish and birds
  8. Animals
  9. Men and women

It seems to me that this was less of a chronological order of creation and more an order of importance of categories within creation, with humans being the most important within this hierarchy. Even from a scientific point of view, if one were to take this order literally, it would mean that earth would be created before light was created. It would mean that waters were not created and were only divided. It would mean that evenings and mornings existed without the sun being first created. Then we have the problem with the “firmament” which simply does not have an equivalent within the modern scientific categories. Some people try to relate this to “atmosphere” but there is nothing in the language or context that suggests that it is anything other than a part of the ancient world-view that has no place within modern cosmology. There is also so much missing from this sequence, even if one were to take it only as the sequence of the creation of earth itself and not of the universe.

Others have pointed out the correspondence between days 1-3 and days 4-6 a follows:-

[Greenwood, Kyle. Scripture and Cosmology (p. 106). InterVarsity Press.]

Here we see the poetic structure of Genesis 1 as a juxtaposition of form and purpose. God first brings order out of disorder, and creates the “container” forms, and then fills them up. This further points the passage away from chronological history towards theological narrative.

The main message of Gen 1 seems to be:-

  1. There is only one true God in all of creation
  2. Everything else is created by God
  3. Man has a special place in creation, indicated by the fact that he was created in God’s image, and the rank he occupies in the hierarchy of creation
  4. Man is given a mandate to rule
  5. Man is blessed so that he might be fruitful
  6. Creation was made for man
  7. Man owes everything to God, and should rightly serve God
  8. Order and function/roles are good. Disorder is bad

The creation hymn is clearly theological in design. If it happens to coincide with some theories of the creation of the physical world, all the better. The writer, here, does not seem to be concerned with chronology or science, but with theology.

There are, nevertheless, proponents for a literal reading of Gen 1. These are typically Creationists who take the narrative as literal history, and even scientifically accurate documentary. I looked at some of the evidence they put forward to argue for this but have found that much of it is speculative and circumstantial.

[https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/did-bible-authors-believe-in-a-literal-genesis/
https://www.gci.org/articles/genesis-1-are-the-six-days-of-creation-literal-or-figurative/
]

It seems appropriate to end with the words of J. I. Packer, a well renowned scholar and thinker, written in response to “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics”:-

What the Bible says about the facts of nature is as true and trustworthy as anything else it says. However, it speaks of natural phenomena as they are spoken of in ordinary language, not in the explanatory technical terms of modern science. It accounts for natural events in terms of the action of God, not in terms of causal links within the created order; and it oflen describes natural processes figuratively and poetically, not analytically and prosaically as modern science seeks to do. This being so, differences of opinion as to the correct scientific account to give of natural facts and events which Scripture celebrates can hardly be avoided

It should be remembered, however, that Scripture was given to reveal God, not to address scientific issues in scientific terms, and that, as it does not use the language of modern science, so it does not require scientific knowledge about the internal processes of God’s creation for the understanding of its essential message about God and ourselves. Scripture interprets scientific knowledge by relating it to the revealed purpose and work of God, thus establishing an ultimate context for the study and reform of scientific ideas. It is not for scientific theories to dictate what Scripture may and may not say, although extra-biblical information will sometimes helpfully expose a misinterpretation of Scripture.

[https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_2.pdf]

The Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13)

The Lord’s Prayer holds a special place for many Christians throughout the history of the church. It was, after all, the prayer that the Lord himself taught his disciples to pray, but what exactly made this prayer special? Some Christians have felt that the use of “our father” to address God made this prayer more personal and intimate than usual, but this suggestion, popularised by Dr. Joachim Jeremias in 1962, was actually unfounded. Jews frequently addressed God as “father” and even “my father” (we have many examples from prayers of that period), so while the language may endear the prayer to some Christians, it certainly was not the reason this prayer was different from other prayers.

Yet others point to the precedence of God’s kingdom before personal needs, or the selection of items included in the prayer, but none of these explanations seem particularly compelling given that these items were certainly not unique amongst Jewish prayers of the day. One such prayer that dates back to possibly as far as 150BCE is known as the Eighteen Benedictions. In the extant versions of this prayer (excerpted below), we find that it contains much of what is also found in the Lord’s Prayer.

P3 – You are holy and revered is your name …
B14 – Upon Jerusalem your city, return in compassion and build her soon in our days …
P16 – May it be your will, Lord our God, to dwell in ZIon …
P9 – Bless to us, Lord our God, this year to our benefit with all kinds of produce …
P6 – Forgive us our Father for we have sinned against you …
P8 – Heal us, our God, from heaviness of our heart and grief and remove sighing from us …

(Pxx refers to the Palestinian Geniza. Bxx refers to the Babylonian version.)

It is not difficult to see the common themes shared with the Lord’s Prayer and if so, they were certainly not unique to the Lord’s Prayer in any way. So what was the point of the Lord’s Prayer if not the presumed intimacy with God, nor the specific contents of the prayer? Perhaps the answer is a lot more mundane than many of us imagine, and more obvious.

Unlike the Eighteen Benedictions, which was a pretty wordy and lengthy prayer punctuated by many liturgical blessings, the Lord’s Prayer was incredibly brief and simple by comparison – occupying a scant four-verses in Matthew’s version and three in Luke’s. In fact, it was so short that it sounded unimpressive – and that, perhaps, was what made it unique – it’s brevity. This brevity, one would argue, was intentional, given Jesus’ preface to the prayer (Matt 6:5-8):-

And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.

Jesus’ points for the prayer that followed was:-

  • not to emulate the flowery prayers of the religious establishment
  • not to pray to impress
  • not to pray in public
  • not to be repetitive
  • not to over-elaborate for God already knows our needs
  • that these things have no traction with God

In Luke’s preface, we see a similar context where Jesus’ disciples wanted a distinctive prayer that would set them aside as his disciples (Luke 11:1):-

Now it came to pass, as He was praying in a certain place, when He ceased, that one of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.”

It wasn’t as if Jesus had not been praying with his disciples. He had. What triggered the request was the desire to have a distinctive prayer that would identify them – a prayer that served a public identification purpose. Luke follows the Lord’s Prayer with Jesus teaching on how much more willing God, who was unlike ordinary people, was to answer His children’s prayers (Luke 11:13):-

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

Interestingly, the scope of the request is narrowed down to the Holy Spirit here.

It is unsurprising, then, that the Lord’s Prayer took the form it did. It wasn’t novel, nor impressive with flowery language. It was brief, to the point and devoid of liturgical repetitiveness. It also reflected an attitude of complete dependence on God to answer the prayer, as opposed to reliance on the human element of prayer. I must say that growing up as a Christian, it was very rare to hear anyone teach that our prayers should be brief, private, and to the point. Rather, we have lionised “prayer warriors” who specialised in praying a lot. The quantity of prayer, whether it be measured in the length of time or the number of people involved, is assumed to have great impact on the efficacy of the prayer, at least around the parts where I come from. At the very least, they seem very impressive to Christians.

This stands in stark contrast to the ostensible purpose of the Lord’s Prayer. More than that, we place the “power of prayer” in the hands of the supplicant (the person praying). It is almost as if the supplicant could move the hand of God by his/her sheer will and determination, and is perhaps what gives rise to sayings such as “there is power in prayer.” With the Lord’s Prayer, the power rests squarely on God and not in the supplicant. There is no power, as such, in prayer. I can totally understand the appeal of the “power” thinking since it gives us an illusion of control in what is otherwise total surrender to the will of God.

At this point, there will, no doubt, be those who will cite Luke 18 with the parable of the unjust judge. My answer is that most people seem to fail to recognize irony in the narrative. Much like Luke 11:13, the point of the parable is that God is NOT like the unjust judge who would need such harassing. He is NOT like that sleepy neighbour who was reluctant to get out of bed, and as a consequence, He does NOT need us to attempt to wear Him down with lengthy prayers. Rather, He is a God who sees our desperation and responds accordingly, to His will.

I think this points to some hermeneutical mistakes that are commonly made when treating the subject of prayer in the gospels. Contemporary Christian culture seems to value long, repetitive prayers, preferably made by a lot of Christians in impressive manners. Our practice of prayer seems more engineered to inspire a sense of confidence in the supplicants rather than to follow the biblical model. Success with a certain form of prayer (eg. overnight prayer meetings, prayer mountains, etc.) invariably generates a following of those who are convinced of using that form. Form, rather than essence, appears to be our fixation when it comes to prayer.

We also seem to view God as a reluctant or sleepy neighbour who needs to be roused from bed by our incessant petitions. Lastly, our theology of prayer places the “power” in our hands – in our ability to move this reluctant God, thus making heroes out of “prayer warriors”. This stands in contrast to what Jesus taught about prayer – that God was attentive to our needs, and is far more willing than any earthly counterpart to hear our prayers. For that reason, we need to keep our verbal prayers brief, and to the point. God is unimpressed with our liturgical prowess, or how long we can organise a prayer chain. If anything, God responds to our heart, and perhaps to the kind of relationship we have with Him.

Praying without ceasing (1Thess 5:17) has a lot more to do with an attitude of trusting God always, than with methods and rites.

Creating God in our own image

A Lenten reflection on the narcissism in contemporary worship

No sooner than Moses had instructed the children of Israel did they craft for themselves a golden calf to call their god. The idea itself seems preposterous as it flies against everything they had witnessed and experienced, but it reveals a prevailing problem with human nature – our desire to deify and worship our needs. The Israelites had some real needs as they faced an uncertain future and innumerable threats from both Egypt behind them, Canaan before them, and the harsh desert they found themselves in. In the midst of such dire circumstances, they had to choose between faith in a god they had not seen (except for smoke and clouds), or the fear that stands at the door of their hearts.

Understandably, their fear got the better of them and they decided that they had to have something more tangible and visceral to invest their hopes in – enter the golden calf. This was more than a particular pagan deity, it was an attempt to make God fit their expectations shaped by their pressing needs. Their need, however legitimate, was the dominant force in their religion. God was that great vending machine in the sky to which they would willingly insert whatever coins was required to ensure that their needs were met.

This same attitude seems to plague the modern church as our religious life continues to revolve around God as the meeter of our needs – be it of health or wealth, emotional or material. Like the children of Israel, our God is infinitely  malleable – shaped to meet whatever your crying need might be. If you are poor, He is the key to wealth and security. If you are lonely, He is your best friend and lover. If you are fearful, He is the perpetual affirmer of your value as a person. If you are rejected, He is the one who will always welcome you with open arms. If you are sick, He is your personal physician par excellence. God is anything and everything you need, or to be more precise, God will serve your every need.

Now, don’t get me wrong – we all have needs and God surely knows that. But a faith that revolves around a God whose primary value to us is a meeter of our needs is little more than a golden calf of sorts. It has been my observation that the church has focused greatly on God as the meeter of our needs, rather than God as the great I AM. When John Newton first penned the lyrics for “Amazing Grace”, the primary theme of the song was God’s grace in the face of our unworthiness and wretchedness. In the contemporary re-write of the song by Chris Tomlin (#14 on CCLI Top 40 of 2017), he added several verses that gave a very different take on the song. Instead of our unworthiness, the focus now became:-

MY chains are gone
I have been set free
the Lord has promised good TO ME
He will MY SHIELD AND PORTION be
God will be forever MINE

This is but an example of the narcissism that has swept through contemporary worship – a reflection of the church’s preoccupation with the meeting of our needs. Worship has shifted away from a pure focus on God as God, to a notion of God as a means for the meeting of my needs. We love God because of what He did, does, and will do for us. This is not to deny the fact that God has in fact saved us in doing for us what we could never do for ourselves on Calvary. It is to point out that we need to consider the question of how our relationship with God would be if He never did another thing for us.

Another Chris Tomlin song that’s been really popular is “Good Good Father” (#3 on CCLI Top 40 of 2017). I think that as a song, it touches many hearts because it speaks to a generation that seems starved of paternal approval and offers God as the answer to our need for fatherly acceptance. If we step back from that need, however, and look at what the song actually conveys, it’s about:-

tender whispers of love in the dead of night
You tell me you’re pleased (with me)
that I’m never alone
I’m loved by you – it’s who I am, who I am, who I am
Cause you know just what we need

Number 1 on the CCLI Top 40 charts for 2017 is currently “What A Beautiful Name” by Hillsongs. The song is ostensibly about the name of Jesus but right in the middle of the song, we find the verse that goes:-

You didn’t want heaven without us
So Jesus, You brought heaven down
My sin was great, Your love was greater
What could separate us now

That seems to suggest that God needed us and that was what prompted God’s salvific work. I really don’t want to get into what “brought heaven down” possibly means or try to answer “What could separate us now?” (clue: a lot). This, once again, tips the hat to the attitude that what is most important about God is what He does for us. It seems to elevate ourselves to a place of undue importance in the eyes of God, quite a different perspective from that of the Psalmist in Psa 22:6:-

But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised by the people

I guess the question is, within this culture of elevated self-importance, are we as worshippers of God prepared to die to our needs and lay those aspirations at God’s discretion? Are we prepared to not be driven by our needs, and let God be God – the great I AM? Are we able to say “not my will, but yours be done”? Can we simply worship God because He is God and not because of some benefit that could result from it? In short, can we make worship not revolve around us, our needs or our feelings, and become more about God and who He is, about His glory?

Lent is the season that reminds us of self-denial, something contrary to the idea of self-fulfillment that under-girds the narcissism of much of contemporary worship (by which I don’t just mean songs of worship.) During this season, we are challenged to die to our own needs and desires and to turn our eyes onto Jesus who set the example of preferring the Father’s will over His own. This is the season to take a break from pandering to our need for emotional affirmation and sense of security, and to simply abandon our fate into the hands of God. True worship happens when we say to God, “I have this need, but You are so important that I am prepared to give up the fulfillment of my need.”

May Lent be a season of breaking free from the chains of self-fulfillment and need.

The Prince of Peace (Isa 9:6)

As Advent rolls around the corner, we will no doubt hear the many familiar verses and passages that have become associated with the season. One of the most prominent of these verses is Isa 9:6 which reads as follows:-

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

This is pretty much the same translation we get with the NKJV, NASB, NIV and the ESV, with minor stylistic differences. The NET, NRSV and JPS, however, presents a slightly different translation. In this article I would like to look at what is behind these differences and you may be surprised to find that there is a lot more going on here, and the final translation of the verse may be something rather unexpected.

Let us begin where I tend to begin in this series, with the original Hebrew. The Hebrew bible has different versification and in this case, the equivalent verse is actually Isa 9:5, and here is the text.

כִּי־יֶ֣לֶד יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ בֵּ֚ן נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּ וַתְּהִ֥י הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה עַל־שִׁכְמ֑וֹ וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ פֶּ֠לֶא יוֹעֵץ֙ אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר אֲבִיעַ֖ד שַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹם

The translation and transliteration is as follows:-

ki_yeled       yulad_l’anu                        ben      nitan_l’anu
For_a-child has-been-born_to’you a-son has-been-given_to’you

v’tehi                  ha’misrah        al_shikhemo
and’it-will-be the’dominion on_his-shoulder

v’yiqra         shemo      pele yoetz                  el gibor
And’called his-name wonderful advisor mighty god

avi’ad                                     sar_shalom
my-father’everlasting  prince_of-peace

If we were to smooth out this translation, the first part would read something like this:-

For a child has been born to you, a son has been given to you, and the dominion will be on his shoulder.

The thing to notice here is that the words “yulad” (has been born) and “nitan” (has been given) in the Hebrew are in the perfect (completed) tense [or more familiarly, past-tense]. The common English translations (NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV) obfuscates this with “is born” and “is given”, whereas the NET, NRSV and JPS actually translates this more accurately as “has been born” and “has been given”. This also means that the plain reading of this verse would present Isaiah as referring to something that has already happened, as opposed to a future referent. Who could he be referring to then, if not a future messiah?

The second part of the verse gets even more complicated because not only is “yiqra” (called) in the perfect tense (ie. completed and past) but it is what is known as a qal-verb (simple unaugmented form) which means that it is an active verb. Active verbs typically require a subject (the acting agent) and usually has an object (that which is acted upon). Since “yiqra” is an active verb in the perfect tense meaning “called”, then there must be a subject, and an object. Someone called someone else something. Okay, so now we look back at our sentence and we have to ask ourself who the subject of this sentence is? Who is doing the calling here? The object we know from the suffix of “shemo” (meaning: his-name) so we know that someone called his-name something. The “his” here refers to the “child” from the first part of the sentence. When a noun ends with an “o”, that’s usually a third person masculine singular referrent – “him” or “his” – and since “shem” means “name”, “shemo” means “his name”.

The mystery here is in the identity of the subject or agent – who is doing the calling? Before we get into that, it is worth pointing out that the English translations completely alters the original meaning and translates “yiqra” passively into “he will be called”. What was originally a perfect active verb became an imperfect passive verb. Once again, NET, NRSV and the JPS gets this more right than the NKJV, NASB, NIV and ESV. The JPS Isa 9:6 reads:-

He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace, The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”

At least they got the tense correct but even here, it translates the verb passively and avoids the problem of requiring a subject or agent for the verb. One clue to how to resolve this mystery comes from the Targum, the Jewish oral tradition and commentary of the bible. In it, it gives the translation of Isa 9:5b as:-

And his name has been called from before the One Who Causes Wonderful Counsel, God the Warrior, the Eternally Existing One, “The Messiah who will increase peace upon us in his days.”

Here you see that they have made the first three of the four titles the subject or agent, and the last title the name. In other words:-

And the wonderful Counsellor and mighty God, our(my) everlasting Father, has called him the Prince of Peace.

This construction and translation is legitimate because, for example, we find a similarly structured verse in Gen 3:20a:-

וַיִּקְרָ֧א הָֽאָדָ֛ם שֵׁ֥ם אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ חַוָּ֑ה

Transliterated and translated this is:-

v’yiqra        ha’adam shem         ishto       chawah
and’called  the’man name (of) his-wife Eve

Here we see both the subject and object follows the active verb “yiqra” with the name being the last in the sentence. If this is true, then the child does not have four titles as we have been taught, but one title – “Prince of Peace” – and the one declaring this is the wise and mighty God himself, our everlasting Father. This child was, literally, a “son” of God the Father.

The conventional (but erroneous) translation is popular because it lends itself to trinitarian arguments which identifies the child with the father, the messiah with God himself. Unfortunately this is not borne out by the actual Hebrew text. The text still has strong messianic overtones, especially in the following verse where it says (Isa 9:7):-

Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

This verse falls within the first 12-chapters of Isaiah, the oracles against Judah, and comes on the heels of the vision Isaiah had in Isa 6:1. Isaiah served under four of the Israeli kings – Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah. Uzziah was considered one of the good kings but he had just died. His son, Jotham, was already a co-regent for 11-years by that time, and would go on to rule another 5-years as a good king after Uzziah died. After Jotham, Ahaz (a bad king) reigned for 16-years before Hezekiah took to the throne at the age of 25. Hezekiah would have been born by this time* and it is quite possible that at the time Uzziah died or soon thereafter Isaiah was thinking about Hezekiah and prophesying about him when he said those words in Isa 9:6.

*The calculation of years is complicated by the unknown years of co-regency between kings.

Now, it is not uncommon for biblical prophecies to have multiple fulfillments and even if it was Hezekiah that Isaiah was originally thinking about, it could also refer to a future messiah. However, if this was referring to Hezekiah in the first place, there is no way that Isaiah would have conferred him the titles “mighty God” and “everlasting Father”. That would force the translation to follow the lines of the Targum, meaning that these titles were a reference to God, the agent, who was declaring the name of the messianic child to be the Prince of Peace.

This child is spoken of again in Rev 11:15:-

Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

As we approach the season of Advent in these chaotic times, may we keep our eye on the one Prince of Peace whose kingdom will have no end.

More LXX translational issues: Isa 28:16

It has been interesting looking at the quality of the LXX translation of the OT and comparing it with the MT (Masoretic Text: Hebrew) to try to understand how some of these issues came about. This will probably be my last post on this subject since there are other things I would like to write on after this. For now, let us turn our attention to Isa 28:16 (NKJV):-

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD:
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation,
A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation;
Whoever believes will not act hastily.”

The context of this particular verse is God encouraging the faithful remnant (Isa 28:15) who live among those who put their trust elsewhere. The phrase there “will not act hastily” comes from the Hebrew לֹ֥א יָחִֽישׁ which literally means “will not (have to) haste/flee”. The various English translations have attempted to translate the sense of this to elucidate the phrase better, for example:-

NASB – … will not be disturbed.
NIV – … will never be stricken with panic.
NRSV, NET – … will not panic.
JPS – … need not fear.

As you can see, the translators were trying to make better sense out of the word here because there is some awkwardness in the original “haste” within the context of the rest of the verse. I think the general sense of the verse is something along the lines of “God will protect Zion and those who trust in God (who live in Zion) will not have to flee because Zion will be kept safe.” The preceding verses talk about those who place their trust in evil and “death”, so either you trust in God or you trust in death, to keep you safe (Isa 28:15) – the issue in question being the source of their safety.

Now, when I looked at Rom 9:33 which quotes Isa 28:16, I was surprised to find there a different version of the verse, which looks like this (NKJV):-

As it is written:
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.

Okay, I think to myself – this looks interesting. First of all, Paul introduces this “a stumbling stone and rock of offense” which isn’t in Isaiah – maybe he is paraphrasing the text to draw a parallel between the “stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation” to a Christological reference (Psa 118:22). Then there’s the change of “will not act hastily” to “will not be put to shame”. While I can appreciate that Paul might have been playing loose with the idea of “As it is written”, it should be quite clear that these two changes alter the meaning of the text significantly. In Rom 9:33, the general sense is something like “God has appointed his stone that many will reject, but those who do not reject him and believe in him will be vindicated (not be put to shame).” I do agree, however, that at the most practical level, this probably isn’t a deal-breaker. From an academic point of view, however, this was very interesting and was worth investigating more.

I figured, this had to be the LXX again, judging from the pattern that had been emerging in my studies, so I went straight to the LXX and sure enough, we see part of the problem there. In the LXX, Isa 28:16 (LXX Brenton) reads:-

Therefore thus saith the Lord, even the Lord.
“Behold, I lay for the foundations of Sion a costly stone,
a choice, a corner-stone, a precious stone, for its foundations;
and he that believes on him shall by no means be ashamed.

Here we see how Paul got the “will not be put to shame” bit but there is no “stumbling stone and rock of offense” in the LXX, which I think we can just attribute to his paraphrasing (I really don’t want to get into a speculative debate about Paul’s motives and sources here.) My interest here is to discover why the LXX translators made the change from “will not hasten” to “shall by no means be ashamed”.

Initially I wondered if the LXX translators might be doing what our English translators were doing, trying to make the sense of Isa 28:16 clearer and using a more dynamic translation instead of a literal one. The problem is that “ashamed” makes the issue one of vindication rather than security/safety that the original “hasten” implies. If it was a dynamic translation, it’s a pretty bad one contextually speaking. Then I started to look at the Hebrew text again. The Hebrew word translated “hasten” is יחישׁ (Hebrew:yachish) and one of the Hebrew words that is translated “ashamed” (Isa 29:22) is יבושׁ֙ (Hebrew:yevosh). When I saw this I thought, “Wow, those two words sure look the same!” – the main difference being only in one alphabet, the ח (chet) and the ב (bet) because the difference between the י (yud) and ו (vav) can easily be mistaken in handwriting.

At this point, I realised that a number of scenarios could have happened that gave rise to this discrepancy in the text:-

  1. The LXX translator misread the word while translating
  2. The LXX translator had access to a better copy and our existing OT has the wrong word
  3. The LXX translator had the right copy but decided to interpret and did a bad job
  4. The LXX translator relied on a manuscript that contained a copyist error

I thought it might be interesting as an academic exercise to try to figure out which was the correct text. We know that the LXX translators did their work around the 3rd century BC. Our OT text is based off the Aleppo Codex, a Masoretic copy produced in the 10th century AD. Although much “younger”, it is considered the most reliable and accurate copy of the OT Hebrew text in existence (even more accurate than the DSS) for reasons that I can’t go into in such a short post. In any case, I felt I needed an older witness besides the Aleppo Codex to verify who got it right. As it happens, among the Dead Sea Scrolls are various fragments of Isaiah (4Q60 etc.) and a complete scroll of Isaiah (1QIsa). This scroll is kept in the Shrine of the Book in Israel and the actual manuscripts have been photographed and put on line, which was great news for me! While the DSS were written around the 2nd century BC, the sources would have dated even further back and so we have a source that is over a thousand years older than the Aleppo Codex. So what does the Great Isaiah Scroll say in Isa 28:16? It says “hasten”.

This means that it is unlikely that the LXX translators had a copy that was correct and everyone else got it wrong. More likely, the translator made a mistake in reading the text, or that the copy he was working off had a copyist error. This is what the DSS Great Isaiah Scroll for Isa 28:16 looks like. The red box highlights the word “yachish” (hasten).

isa2816dss

This is Isa 29:22 from the same scroll where I have highlighted the word “yevosh” (ashamed).

isa2922dss

It is easy to see how a mistake might have happened, and why reliance on the LXX poses particular problems when these errors are inherited by the NT writers.

How was Paul’s Hebrew?: Gal 3:16

In some of the discussions following my previous posts, the point was made that Paul was fluent in both Hebrew and Greek as a serious student of Scripture and a man of “great learning” (Acts 26:24). While I do not doubt that Paul probably used both Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic, my reading of Paul is increasingly leading me to the conclusion that he was predominantly a Greek speaking Jew. For starters, in just about all of his citations of the OT, he drew upon the LXX. This could be explained by the fact that he was addressing a primarily Greek speaking audience in a Hellenised world.

While there is much we could speculate about his background as Saul of Tarsus (in modern day Turkey) and his educational background, that would serve little useful purpose. What I would like to look at is how this “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil 3:5) handled the Hebrew texts. Specifically, let us look at Gal 3:16 (NKJV):-

Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.

The context of this verse is Paul making the case that the promises made to Abraham prefigured Christ. He builds his argument around the fact that the word “seed” was used in the OT promises, as opposed to the plural “seeds”. So, for example, Gen 26:4 (NKJV) says:-

And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.

On the surface of it, this seems to be a plausible, if a little novel, line of reasoning that Paul is employing here. If the promises were made to a single “seed”, who would that have refered to? For Paul, Christ was the best candidate. Had it been “seeds”, then Israel might have fit in better. Where we find a problem is with how this argument was constructed – it was predicated upon the Greek distinction between the singular σπέρματί (Greek:spermati – seed) and the plural σπέρμασιν (Greek:spermasin – seeds). When we look at the LXX translation of Gen 26:4, it reads:-

καὶ πληθυνῶ τὸ σπέρμα σου ὡς τοὺς ἀστέρας τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ δώσω τῷ σπέρματί σου πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ταύτην, καὶ ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς

The underlined bit translates to the seed (singular) of you (singular)” and this is exactly in line with Paul’s argument. The Hebrew text, however, presents a slightly different story.

וְהִרְבֵּיתִ֤י אֶֽת־זַרְעֲךָ֙ כְּכוֹכְבֵ֣י הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְנָתַתִּ֣י לְזַרְעֲךָ֔ אֵ֥ת כָּל־הָאֲרָצֹ֖ת הָאֵ֑ל וְהִתְבָּרֲכ֣וּ בְזַרְעֲךָ֔ כֹּ֖ל גּוֹיֵ֥י הָאָֽרֶץ

Here, the relevant phrase “in your seed” is found in one Hebrew word – בְזַרְעֲךָ֔ – that transliterates to “b’zerakha”. This breaks down into three components:-

“b” meaning “in”
“zer” (or “zera”) meaning “seed”
“akha” meaning “your” in reference to Abraham

The thing about “zer” or “zera”, though, is that this word in the Hebrew does not distinguish between the singular or the plural. It’s a bit like the word “sheep” in English where both the singular and plural are the same word “sheep”. “Zera” is just like that in Hebrew – there are no words to distinguish between the singular or the plural of “seed”. For example, in Gen 47:19 (NKJV) we have:-

Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants of Pharaoh; give us seed, that we may live and not die, that the land may not be desolate.

The word “seed” used here is obviously plural from the context – they were not asking Pharaoh for one seed but many seeds. The Hebrew word for “seed” here is “zera”, the same case as in Gen 26:4. Likewise, in Lev 27:16 (NKJV) we have:-

“If a man dedicates to the LORD part of a field of his possession, then your valuation shall be according to the seed for it. A homer of barley seed shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver.”

The “seed” here is again clearly plural from the context and in the Hebrew it is the same “zera” as used in Gen 26:4. You simply cannot argue that “zera” is singular or plural based on the word itself just as you cannot do that with the word “sheep” in English. In practice, you would have to rely on the context to determine if the singular or the plural noun was intended. In the context of Gen 26:4 (NKJV), it appears that “in your seed” sounds like a reference to the multiplied descendants, and is therefore plural in meaning. Even if you choose another passage such as Gen 22:17-18 (NKJV), you see the same sort of plural context:-

Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.

Notice that the referents here are the many descendants that Abraham will have. The pattern “… your descendants … your descendants … your seed …” should strongly make it clear that “seed” here is plural because the Hebrew for “descendants” is in fact “zera”. This means that the verse could just as well have been translated:-

Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. In your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.

Just in case you still need convincing, look at Gen 13:15-16 (NKJV) to see how “seed” was understood within the Abrahamic promise:-

… for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever. And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered.

Here it is even clearer that “zera” (translated “descendants” here) is plural. It just doesn’t get any clearer. I should mention that in all these cases, where our English translations read “descendants” or “seed”, the LXX renders it as the singular σπέρμα (meaning “seed” in the singular). The NKJV and most English translations used the plural word “descendants”, showing that the translators understood that the context suggested a plural “zera”. What this means is that contextually speaking, “zera” should be plural even though the Hebrew word itself does not differentiate between the plural or the singular. That said, Paul wasn’t making his argument based on the context but on the morphology of the word.

Now, if we assume that God spoke to Abraham in Hebrew rather than Greek, Paul’s argument should center about the Hebrew usage of the word “zera” and the entire argument he used in Gal 3:16 would fail. Had he even considered the Hebrew word “zera”, he would have known that the distinction he relied upon did not appear in the Hebrew and his entire line of reasoning would fall apart. Even if we should take the context of Gen 26:4 into account, you would still not arrive at a reading that yields a singular “seed”. How then could this expert of the Torah and master of the Hebrew language overlook such an obvious (in the Hebrew at least) mistake? That’s what I’d like to know.

Just so we are clear – I do not disagree with the substance of Paul’s argument. What I find problematic is his “exegesis” of Gen 26:4 and his making a distinction that isn’t there in the Hebrew and using that false distinction as the basis of proof-texting to a Greek speaking audience who most likely wouldn’t know any better. So what options do we have here concerning Gal 3:16? They are (MCQ):-

  • He really didn’t know what the Hebrew text of Gen 26:4 (and similar verses) said and was relying on the LXX.
  • His mastery of Hebrew wasn’t good enough to realise the problem with the word “zera”.
  • He knew the OT and was good in Hebrew but decided to make up a non-existent distinction.
  • He forgot what the Hebrew rendition was or made a blunder?

I’m open to other options you might come up with to help rescue Paul from this conundrum.

For the sake of completeness, there is an argument that Gen 22:17 might allow for a singular “zera” because of the genitive suffix for the word “enemies”. Gen 22:17 (NKJV):-

… and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

The Hebrew for this bit goes:-

וְיִרַ֣שׁ זַרְעֲךָ֔ אֵ֖ת שַׁ֥עַר אֹיְבָֽיו

transliterated and literally translated we get:-

v’yirash            zarakha             et shaar  oyevav
and’possess  seed-of-yours     gate     enemies-of-his

Specifically, because of the “v” suffix in “oyevav” which makes it “enemies of his” (as opposed to “oyevahem” which would become “enemies-of-theirs”), it has been suggested that this would indicate that the preceding (antecedent) “seed” must be seen as singular. This seems like a plausible save for Paul. Then again, when we look at how this exact same phraseology is used in the subsequent Gen 24:60 (NKJV):-

And they blessed Rebekah and said to her: “Our sister, may you become the mother of thousands of ten thousands; And may your descendants possess the gates of those who hate them.

Here you have the exact same phrase in Hebrew with “soneav” (meaning “haters-of-his”) at the end instead of “oyevav” in Gen 22:17. Once again, you have the “v” suffix but here it is obvious that it is plural because the number “thousands of tens of thousands” is given, taking away the ambiguity in “zera”. What this means is that the “v” suffix does not automatically imply a singular antecedent as can be shown from its usage in Gen 24:60. Note that in both Gen 22:17 and Gen 24:60, the English translators unanimously rendered the words with a plural genitive, ie. “their enemies” and “of those who hate them” rather than “his enemies” and “of him who hates them”.

Ahhh… another over-lengthy over-technical post. I best end this here!

Inspired eisegesis: Eph 4:8

In my previous post, we looked at where Paul had possibly arrived at an unorthodox position as a result of reliance on the LXX. Fortunately, it was not a real deal breaker – in the end, one was still to be kind to our enemies whatever the motivations might be. From a pragmatic point of view, it got the job done even though the supposed “biblical justification” failed. To be sure, this wasn’t the only instance where Paul went off the rails when citing the OT in his arguments. Of course, in all fairness, he probably didn’t have the tools and references that we have today. Nevertheless, it still remains a rather interesting curiosity that challenges us on how we see the writings of the NT. In this post, we will look at another one (or two) such instances, beginning with Eph 4:7-11 (NKJV):-

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore He says:

“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers …

I have left out verses 9 and 10 for brevity but let us look at the above verses. These should be pretty familiar verses because of the important place they occupy in the teaching of the so-called “five-fold ministry” of the church. Paul was making the point that Christ, having been resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven, gave gifts to men – in particular the five-fold ministries. In order to back-up his argument, Paul partially cites Psalm 68:18 (NKJV) to make that connection between Christ’s ascension and the giving of gifts. The problem, though, is that he misquoted the verse. Psa 68:18 (NKJV):-

You have ascended on high,
You have led captivity captive;
You have received gifts among men,
Even from the rebellious,
That the LORD God might dwell there.

Even without going into the Hebrew (or the LXX in this case), it is clear to see that Paul had mis-remembered Psalm 68:18 where it says that the Lord, in his ascended state, received gifts among men rather than gave gifts to men. It is obvious from the context of Ephesians 4 that Paul totally understood it as the Lord giving gifts (and thus not due to copyist error) – completely opposite from what the Psalmist wrote. The Hebrew word לָקַ֣חְתָּ (laqachta) is explicit in the direction of the gifts and leaves no room for misunderstanding or confusion of the meaning.

So here we have an example where Paul based his argument upon a mis-remembered OT verse. There is no squirming out of this one easily. Fortunately, it is not of great significance because the OT citation isn’t needed to make the point that Christ gave us gifts – a point that can be made in other more legitimate ways. It does show, however, that Paul does get his OT wrong at times. He got the broad strokes right, but sometimes gets the details (and exegesis) wrong.

Just in case this wasn’t explicit enough, here’s a bonus example from Hebrews 8:7-9 (NKJV):-

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.

The following verses continue in the citation of Jer 31 which you can verify for yourself. The underlined words are where the discrepancy lies. Jer 31:31-32 (NKJV) reads:-

Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.

So how did the author get the idea that God disregarded faithless Israel? You guessed it – bad LXX translation. This is what the passage reads in the LXX, Jer 31:31-32 (LXX Brenton-English):-

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they abode not in my covenant, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord.

In this case, the writer of Hebrews actually correctly cited the LXX but the LXX contained a mistranslation of the original Hebrew. Once again, this isn’t really that significant as long as we’re looking at the broad strokes.

In addition to misquotations, Paul also quotes the OT out of context at times. Take Rom 10:5-8 (NKJV) for instance:-

For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.” But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach)

Here Paul is trying to contrast a righteousness that is through the law, and that which is through faith. He argues that the righteousness that is through faith “speaks this way” and then cites Deut 30:14 (NKJV) which goes:-

But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

This seems alright on the surface until you read the rest of Deut 30:11-14 (NKJV) and discover that it has a completely different context. Deut 30:14 is talking about the LAW being something that can be performed, that isn’t too difficult to achieve or to attain. In other words, Deut 30:11-14 was in fact making the opposite case than Paul was making. God was saying that the people should obey his commandments (Law) and that these commandments aren’t hidden in heaven that one needed to ascend into it, nor unreachable beyond the sea. Rather, “the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.” Paul, however, makes a completely different case and turns it into a verse about the “word of faith”. If anyone were to make such a case today, they would be shot down for using the bible out of context, and they would be right.

And yes, there are still other instances where Paul does this. In many of the cases, he mangles the original OT meanings and gives it a different or even opposite meaning. One might ask – why does Paul do this and why didn’t anyone point it out? Well, for one, Paul was writing mostly to Gentiles and they were pretty ignorant of the OT texts. In fact, most of the uneducated Jews may not even know the OT well enough to catch these errors, especially when they heard it in a reading. Secondly, Paul’s heavy reliance on the LXX means that he inherited the translational errors inherent to the LXX. These sometimes got incorporated into his own pastoral and doctrinal teachings. Thirdly, Paul was a Pharisee and he might have been used to “Midrashic interpretation” which, in summary, allows a Rabbi to pretty much say anything he wants without regard to the meaning of the OT text being cited. Here is how it is explained by David Stern in this essay (pg.1865):-

The scholar Michael Fishbane, who has exhaustively studied these and similar cases in the Bible, has described them as part of a larger phenomenon which he calls inner-biblical exegesis … Although most of these examples are not, strictly speaking, exegeses … These include the tendencies to harmonize conflicting or discordant verses; to reemploy and reapply biblical paradigms and imagery to new cases; to reinvest “old” historical references with “new” historical contexts …

That’s just a very scholarly way of saying that “Midrashic interpretation” basically makes up stuff that isn’t there. This is (still) a feature of Rabbinic Pharisaism and Paul might have been used to it. That, of course, doesn’t make it right but it might explain this penchant of his. What it does not do is legitimise the practice. This shouldn’t surprise us, though, because Paul was, after all, human like us and prone to eisegesis as we are.

All in “Al”, to heap or not to heap coals: Prov 25:22

Another public holiday, another linguistic write-up.

In his exhortation to the Roman church, Paul advises them to be peaceable and not to seek revenge. The reason he gives is through the citation of two separate OT verses, Deut 32:35 and Prov 25:21-22, suggesting that God will eventually exact vengeance upon the unjust and their kind acts towards the “enemies” will only compound the injustice and thus multiply the eventual judgement upon them. In other words, be nice to your enemies because in so doing, you’re making it worse for them. Rom 12:19-20 (NASB) says:-

Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”

Now, off the bat, this should come across as a little strange considering all that Jesus had taught – the forgiveness of our enemies from the heart – as opposed to the hope for their eventual punishment (although this was certainly a popular thought in the Jewish mind for their enemies.) Are we really to be kind towards our enemies for the sake of their eventual punishment? The citation Paul used came from Proverbs 25:21-22 (NKJV) which goes:-

If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; For so you will heap coals of fire on his head, And the LORD will reward you.

This seems to justify what Paul had intended in “leaving room for the wrath of God” but for a little problem in the text. Specifically, the word translated “heap” in our English translations is the word חֹתֶ֣ה (Hebrew:choteh) which actually means “take” or “snatch”. The relevant part of the verse reads (R-to-L):-

כִּ֤י גֶֽחָלִ֗ים אַ֭תָּה חֹתֶ֣ה עַל־רֹאשׁ֑וֹ

Transliteration and direct translation:-

ki    gecholim atah choteh al_rosho
for coals          you   snatch  on_his-head

As you might already see, we have a problem here with the agreement between the verb “snatch” and the preposition “on” (Hebrew:al). Normally a preposition “from” (Hebrew:me) would be used together with a verb like “snatch”. The LXX (from which Paul most likely quoted) translates the Hebrew “choteh” as the Greek σωρεύσεις :“heap” (or “pile up”) as well. Everywhere else this lexeme appears in the OT, however, it is translated as “take” or “snatch” or “pluck”.

Isa 30:14 (NKJV) – … a shard to take fire from the hearth …
Psa 52:5 (NKJV) – … and pluck you out of your dwelling place …
Prov 6:27 (NKJV) – Can a man take fire to this bosom …

The only reason why “heap” is used over against its normal meaning is because of this verb-preposition disagreement and preference was given to the prepositional direction. Here is where it might be useful to look into the history of the Hebrew language. Hebrew and its more ancient form – Paleo-Hebrew – belong to a Semitic language group that, while similar to, is distinct from the Akkadian cuneiform family. It does, however, share considerable similarity with the Ugaritic cuneiform (Northwest Semitic group) writing and there are suggestions that the Ugaritic cuneiform is a pre-cursor to Hebrew. In Ugaritic, the preposition “al” can mean both “on, upon, onto, over” as well as “from on”, meaning that Prov 25:22 can be translated (literally) as:-

For coals you snatch from-on_his-head, and Yahovah (will) complete/pay [shalem] you.

The meaning of this translation goes from one of adding to the wrath to one of defusing the wrath – the removal of angry coals from someone and runs along the lines of Prov 15:1 (NKJV):-

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Now, this, to me, sounds a lot more consistent with what Jesus taught and, more intuitively, something that God would reward. The motivation for doing good to our enemies takes a 180-degree turn along with the change in the handling of the preposition “al”. This also flows much better with the tenor of the rest of Proverbs, that of peacemaking rather than just tongue-biting while a vengeful fire burns within. Contextually, why would you want to heap coals of fire on someone who is (Prov 25:21) hungry and thirsty anyway? Wouldn’t it be far more prudent to take the opportunity to win them over by offering them hospitality here? Would not extending kindness to a needy “enemy” defuse the fiery coals of enmity? Prov 24:17 (NKJV) tells us not to rejoice or be glad in our hearts when our enemies stumble or fall.

It seems to me, then, that not only is this translation more viable linguistically by taking into consideration the normal meaning of “choteh”, it is also more sensible contextually and consistent theologically. Unfortunately, it raises another problem for us because Paul had cited it from the LXX which had lost this nuance and he had used the text in a way opposite from how the author of Proverbs most likely intended it to be. I think Paul got it wrong in so far as making room for God’s wrath.

In summary, here is what Jesus himself taught concerning our enemies in Luke 6:35 (NKJV):-

But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.

Go read the rest of it in Luke 6:27-36 (NKJV) on your holiday.