BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 3
April, 1989
Copyright 1989, Biblical Horizons
Psalm 137 is widely regarded as one of the meanest of the imprecatory psalms. Certainly as we read it it is seems to be a song of pure vengeance. The exiles in Babylon, in grief over the judgment that Babylon has brought upon them, pray for the destruction of that great city.
There is a real problem with this psalm, however. It lies in the fact that God had instructed these exiles to pray for and seek the peace of Babylon. Jeremiah had written to them: "And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the LORD for it; for in its peace you will have peace" (Jer. 29:7).
It appears that the author of Psalm 137 has rejected Jeremiah’s message. He is not praying for the peace of Babylon but for her destruction. Certainly it is clear from Psalms 58 and 109 and others that it is entirely proper to pray for the destruction of God’s enemies, but in this case God had expressly told the exiles not to pray this way. Is this a "carnal" psalm, authored by a rebel who has rejected God’s command?
I think not. Rather, I believe that the contradiction between the apparent sentiments of Psalm 137 and the letter of Jeremiah should force us to take another look at the psalm, and see if perhaps another interpretation can be found.
Let us assume that the author of this psalm has fully absorbed the perspective of Jeremiah. He knows that the destruction of Jerusalem was not ultimately caused by the Babylonian army, but by the sins of God’s people. He knows that the "Enemy" who destroyed the city was God, the Jealous Divine Husband. He knows that Jerusalem deserved everything she got. He agrees with Jeremiah’s Lamentations. Further, he knows that God wants him to pray for the peace of Babylon, and that means he is to pray for her conversion. Is it possible that, despite appearance, this is the theme of Psalm 137? I believe that it is.
First of all, the psalmist recalls how depressed and sad he and the other exiles felt when they arrived in Babylon. They found that they could not sing any longer, and they hung up their harps. Then, however, the Babylonians asked them to sing; yea, the Babylonians demanded that they sing.
What does this mean? It means that instead of forcing the exiles to sing heathen songs, the Babylonians wanted to hear God’s songs. It meant that the exiles were being given a wonderful opportunity to do evangelism.
How shall we sing the Lord’s songs in a strange land? How shall we do this evangelism? Well, first of all we point the Babylonians to God’s true Jerusalem. We tell them that the skills of our right hands and of our tongues come from God’s city. We tell them that God’s city must be exalted above every city of man. When God’s city of Jerusalem played the harlot and made herself the city of man, God destroyed her. We tell the Babylonians about this.
Second, we tell the Babylonians that God is a God of judgment. Since we may not curse Babylon, we curse Esau. Every time God brought a Gentile army against Jerusalem, the Edomite vultures gathered to delight in her destruction and to worsen the disaster. This is the theme of the prophecy of Obadiah. In terms of the Biblical pattern, the primary party responsible for the sacking of Jerusalem is always God’s own wayward people. In each case, an army of Gentiles with Edomite fellow-travellers is used by God to bring judgment upon Jerusalem. Then God turns around and brings judgment upon the Gentiles and the Edomites, because they sacked Jerusalem with ill-will, rather than with righteous zeal for the true God.
God’s judgment comes in two forms. One form is judgment unto utter destruction, but the other form is judgment unto resurrection. In the case of Edom, the prophecy is always of judgment unto utter destruction. In the case of the Gentiles, the prophecy of usually of judgment unto repentance and resurrection. That is the case here as well.
The key to understanding the prophecy "against" Babylon in Psalm 137:8-9 is to remember who the Rock is in the psalter. The Rock is God. Dashing the children’s heads against the Rock is an image not of utter destruction but of salvation. (This is a great verse to preach on when doing an infant baptism.) Either a man falls upon the Rock and is saved, or the Rock falls upon him and crushes him (Luke 20:18). (In Psalm 137:9 "rock" is singular, not plural, contrary to the old King James and the NIV.)
The psalmist prophecies that Babylon is to be destroyed, just as Jerusalem was. This is inevitable. But what kind of destruction will it be? Utter destruction or destruction unto resurrection?
"Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!" Who is the one who will repay Babylon? It is God Himself. The psalmist wishes for Babylon the same thing that happened to Jerusalem. Yes, the city was destroyed, but the people were saved. The people repented. Eye for eye, the destruction of Babylon will have to be one that issues in tears of repentance and salvation.
The Godly man realized that in spite of the horrors of her destruction, it was indeed a happy day when Jerusalem was destroyed, because it was that event that provoked repentance. Just so, it will be a happy day when the children of Babylon are "dashed" into union with the Rock of Salvation.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 3
April, 1989
Copyright 1989, Biblical Horizons
In the Levitical law, the priests received two particular portions of each peace offering: the "wave offering" of the breast and the "heave offering" (or better, "contribution") of the right thigh. The purpose of this essay is to attempt to determine the reason why the second of these, the thigh, should be given to the priest.
The word translated "thigh" in the passages discussed below is shoq. According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Tes- tament, "When shoq refers to a man’s body it designates the lower part of the leg, the shank from the knees downward. When shoq refers to part of an animal’s body it designates the upper, thicker part of the leg." The word yarek is used to refer to the upper part of a man’s leg (cf. Gen. 32:25, 32).
Shoq is used in the Mosaic law only with reference to the thigh of the peace offering. In Exodus 29:22-25, the right thigh of the ram of "filling" was to be burned with the peace offering, and the breast was to be given to Moses. Similarly, Leviticus 8:25-26 says that the right thigh was burned as an offering by fire at the ordination of the Aaron and his sons, and we are told in verse 29 that Moses took the breast for himself. In Leviticus 7:29-34, by contrast, the breast was to be shared by all the priests, while the right thigh was given to the officiating priest. And in Leviticus 9:21 and 10:14-15, the breast and thigh are said to belong to the priest, and must be eaten in a clean place. Exodus 29:27 specifically tells us that the breast and thigh of the ram of ordination was consecrated, but it does not say that they were eaten. Verse 28 seems to be a parenthetical instruction that, with the exception of the ram of ordination, the priests should receive the breast and thigh from every peace offering.
In other words, the right thigh of the ram of ordination was burned, but subsequently, the priest who offered the peace offering received the right thigh as his own. Perhaps we should understand that the Lord Himself and Moses were the officiating priests at the ordination of Aaron, since He and Moses received the priest’s portions.
The thigh was given directly to the officiating priest as a contribution (the mistranslated "heave offering"), so that it was for him and his family. The breast was given to God by the ritual of lifting it up and receiving it back again (the mistranslated "wave offering," which was actually lifted up, not waved). The things given to God were shared by all God’s special servants, the priests. Just so, in the ordination peace offering, the contribution-thigh was given to God, the officiating Priest, and thus turned into smoke as His "food" (Ex. 29:22-28). The offering-breast was also given to God, but was shared by all the other "meta-priests," who in this case were God and Moses. In any case, it is clear that the breast and right thigh were thereafter given to the priests. [For a discussion, see James B. Jordan, "Incentive Dynamics in the Tabernacle Corporation," Biblical Economics Today 11:1 (Dec./Jan. 1988).]
The cultic status of these offerings is pinpointed in Leviticus 10:14-15. The priests had to eat the breast and thigh of the peace offering in a clean place. In contrast to the leftovers of the grain offerings, the thigh and breast did not have to be eaten in a holy place (cp. Lev. 10:12-13; 2:10). The thigh and breast were "holy" but not "most holy" (cf. Nu. 6:20: breast and thigh are "holy for the priest"). This distinction between the grain and peace offering is consistent with the fact that some of the peace offering was eaten by the lay worshipper (Lev. 7:11-18). A final relevant priestly passage is Numbers 18:18, which compares the meat of the firstborn, which belonged to the priest, to the meat of the breast and thigh.
The word for "breast," chazeh, is used nowhere outside of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Shoq, however, is used in other connections. In Deuteronomy 28:35, the Lord threatens to strike His unfaithful people with boils on their knees and legs (shoq), and Samson struck the Philistines "leg on thigh" (shoq `al yarek). In 1 Samuel 9:24, Samuel calls attention to the fact that he has set aside the shoq for Saul, indicating at least that the thigh is a portion reserved for an honored guest and perhaps indicating something of the priestly aspect of Saul’s office.
Psalm 147:10 tells us that the Lord does not delight in the strength of horse or in the legs (shoq) of man, drawing attention to the connection between a man’s shoq and his strength. This verse seems to refer particularly to military strength (horses and legs = cavalry and infantry). Proverbs 26:7 says that the legs (shoq) of the lame are like a proverb in mouth of fools. In the Song of Songs, the groom’s legs are compared to pillars of alabaster set on pedestals of gold (5:15). Finally, in Isaiah 47:2 the virgin daughter of Babylon is told to that she will no longer be tender and delicate, but will be forced to work at millstones, to remove her veil, strip her skirt, and uncover her leg to cross a river. In verse 3, Babylon’s humiliation is described as an exposure of nakedness and shame.
How are we to put all this together? First, it is clear that the breast and thigh are associated with some characteristic of the priesthood. This is shown not only in the fact that the priests were exclusively permitted to eat the breast and thigh, but that the breast and thigh are compared to the firstborn, which also represent the priesthood. Moreover, the fact that the right thigh is given to the priest is significant. The priest of Psalm 110 sits, after all, on the right hand of God. Finally, in the background is the basic Biblical view that "you are what you eat," or, more precisely here, "you eat what you are." Priests eat priestly food.
This association of right hand and right thigh suggests that the right thigh might symbolize the authority and power of the priesthood. The association is strengthened by the fact that the groom’s thigh in Song of Songs 5:15 is compared to a pillar. The two pillars outside the temple represent the priest and the king. Thus, right thigh is associated with a pillar that is associated with the right hand of God. It is no surprise, then, that we find shoq associated with military strength in Psalm 147:10. The right thigh given to the priests was a sign that the priesthood was the strength of Israel and that the priest’s service was, by God’s appointment, the source even of Israel’s military victories (cf. 2 Chron. 20:1-30).
Proverbs 26:7 suggests more precisely the nature of the priests’ power. If the legs of the lame are like a proverb in the mouth of a fool, it can conversely be said that the legs of the strong are like a proverb in the mouth of a wise man, and that a man who speaks wisely is like one with strong legs. The priesthood therefore displays its strength, its "thigh-ness," by faithful and wise exposition of the Word (Mal. 2:7). The priest cannot speak wise things, however, unless he is eating the Word, and holding it in his mouth and heart. It is possible that shoq in Proverbs 26:7 refers to the thighs of a lame animal. If this is the case, it fits nicely with the Levitical prohibition against offering damaged animals as sacrifices. The thighs of a lame animal are like the words of fools, and are not to be chewed and eaten by the Lord’s priests.
As we have seen, shoq is used with reference to the legs of the groom of the Song of Songs. If the shoq is a symbol of the priesthood, this makes a great deal of sense. After all, the priests were Israel’s husbands and guardians. Alabaster, moreover, was used to build the temple (1 Chron. 29:2), and since alabaster is white, like the blossoms of Aaron’s rod, it is a fitting symbol of the glory and holiness of the priesthood.
In the New Covenant, Christ is our Peace, and we as His priests are permitted are permitted to eat His right leg, and take into ourselves His strength so that our legs become strong for our pilgrimage. In the New Jerusalem, we will be white-clad pillars in His temple.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 3
April, 1989
Copyright 1989, Biblical Horizons
The story of Jesus’ visit, early in His ministry, to the synagogue in His home town of Nazareth is recorded for us in Luke 4:16-30. You may remember that Jesus read from Isaiah about how the Messiah would preach the gospel, care for the poor, work miracles, and bring in the final year of Jubilee. Then Jesus said that He was the fulfillment of that Scripture. The crowd marvelled at Him, saying, "Is this not the son of Joseph?"
Then Jesus began to rebuke them, saying that they wanted miracles, but that He would not do them because a prophet is not honored in his home town. He reminded them that there were many widows in Elijah’s day, but that Elijah ministered to a Gentile woman. He reminded them that there were many lepers in Elisha’s day, but that Elisha had healed a Gentile leper. Those in the synagogue were enraged, and sought to kill Jesus, but He escaped them.
I have always assumed, and every commentator I can consult assumes, that when the crowd at Nazareth said, "Is this not the son of Joseph?" they meant Joseph the Carpenter, Jesus’ legal earthly father. The reason they asked this question was because they were astounded that this hometown boy would claim to be the Messiah. "You can’t be the Messiah," they were saying. "You’re Joseph’s boy. We know about you, and you’re one of us, not the Messiah."
Increasingly, however, I think that this is a totally wrong approach to the text. For one thing, Luke writes that they were "all speaking well of Him, and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from His lips; and they were saying, `Is this the son of Joseph?’" That does not sound like incredulity and rejection to me.
If we were to ask a conservative rabbi, "Who is the son of Joseph?" he would answer, "The Messiah." The phrase "Son of Joseph" does not occur in the Old Testament as a title of the Messiah, but it is easy to see how it could become one. Joseph saved his brethren, delivered Israel, and became de facto ruler of the world.
Psalm 77:15 says, "Thou hast by Thy power redeemed Thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph." Here the expression "sons of Joseph" clearly does not mean only the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, or even Northern Israel, but is a reference to all of Israel. Since the Messiah was the True Israel, He was also the Son of Jacob and the Son of Joseph.
With this insight, suddenly Luke 4 takes on a completely different, and I believe much more coherent, cast. The people in Nazareth were pre-disposed to think Jesus might be the Messiah. Messianism was all over the place at this time, because everybody who could add knew that Daniel’s seventy weeks were ending during these years. Even if the count was inexact, they knew the Messiah was due sometime soon. Additionally, they all knew that Herod had massacred all the children in Bethlehem thirty years previously because the Messiah had been born there, and thus they knew that the Messiah was now about thirty years old, the age to begin ministry. Moreover, according to Luke, everybody was expecting the Messiah because John the Forerunner had told them He was coming soon (Luke 3:15).
John was now telling people that Jesus was the Messiah. After His temptation, Jesus had returned to Galilee and was preaching everywhere, "and news about Him spread through all the surrounding district." He was "praised by all" (Luke 4:14-15).
It is in this context that Jesus arrived at Nazareth. Everybody turned out to the synagogue to see what would happen. They did indeed remember Jesus, and they certainly knew that He had been a perfectly faultless man all the years He had lived among them. Perhaps indeed He was the True Son of Joseph.
After Jesus read from Isaiah, we find that "the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed upon Him" (Luke 4:20). They waited breathlessly to see if Jesus would indeed claim to be the Messiah described by Isaiah. When Jesus fulfilled their expectations and made the Messianic claim, they did not reject it. Instead, as we have seen, they were excited and praised Him, marvelling at His gracious words. They said among themselves, "Could this, at last, be the Son of Joseph?"
Now, possibly this had a double meaning for the crowd, and perhaps Luke is playing on terms here. There is every reason to think, however, that Luke intended for us to see a reference here to the Joseph who stood before Pharaoh. The proof for this lies in what happened next.
Recall first the story of Joseph. Joseph was hated by and rejected by his brethren. As a result, he went to the Gentiles. Among the Gentiles he eventually found acceptance. Potiphar thought so highly of him that he rejected the lying testimony of his own wife and put Joseph over the prison that Potiphar was responsible for (Gen. 39:1; 40:3). At the age of thirty, which was Jesus’ age according to Luke’s testimony in this same context (Luke 3:23), Joseph stood before the Gentile world-ruler. When Joseph presented the gospel to Pharaoh, Pharaoh did not reject it, but accepted it wholeheartedly. He honored Joseph, and put him in charge of everything. (For extended argumentation proving the genuineness of Pharaoh’s conversion, see my book Primeval Saints, chapter 10; available from Biblical Horizons .)
Now let us return to the story of Jesus. As soon as the people recognize Him as the Son of Joseph, Jesus states that a prophet is not welcome in his own hometown. Where does this proverb come from? It is not found as such in the Old Testament, but again it comes from the story of Joseph. Joseph was a prophet, but when he told his dreams to his brothers, they rejected him, hated him, and tried to kill him. (When he interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams, however, Pharaoh welcomed him.) I know of no other Old Testament prophet who was rejected in his hometown as was Joseph.
Jesus goes on to say that His message will be rejected by the Jews but embraced by the Gentiles. Since they already have the story of Joseph in mind, Jesus reminds them of Elijah and Elisha, and how they too went to the Gentiles.
At this point, the crowd reenacts the behavior of Joseph’s brothers. They are filled with rage at His teaching, and seek to kill him. Like Joseph, Jesus escapes death at their hands.
The rejection of Jesus by Israel and the carrying of the gospel to the Gentiles is an important theme in Luke, and particularly in Luke’s second volume, Acts. Acts shows stage by stage the rejection by Israel of the ascended Christ, and His acceptance by the Gentiles. Like Joseph, Paul yearns to stand before Caesar (Pharaoh) and preach to him.
In conclusion, if we interpret the question "Is this the son of Joseph?" to refer to Joseph the Carpenter, we miss the larger biblical-theological thrust of this passage. Such an interpretation is out of context, both in theological terms, and in psychological ones. The crowd at Nazareth was fully ready to welcome Jesus as Messiah — provided He was the Jewish Messiah they had been looking for. When He really did turn out to be the Son of Joseph, they hated him as Joseph’s brethren of old.
(See also Biblical Horizons 4, The Son of Joseph, Revisited.)
