BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 23
February, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons
These verses from the Sermon on the Mount are generally taken in connection with Jesus’ earlier statement concerning adultery in the heart (vv. 27-28); the eye and the hand have obvious relevance to the sin of adultery. At the same time, most commentators admit that the principle of avoiding occasions for sin is applicable outside the arena defined by the seventh commandment. John Murray’s treatment of verses 29-30 in Principles of Conduct may be taken as representative:
Obviously the lesson of verses 29, 30 has relevance to every sin. The thought is that, however precious an asset may be in itself, if this asset becomes the occasion of our falling into sin, we must be prepared to renounce it rather than be the victim of the sin of which it is the occasion. . . . If the alternatives are the retention of something that is itself good and sin, then we must on all accounts sacrifice that good thing rather than fall into sin. Nothing of earthly possession is too precious to dispense with if sin is for us the inevitable cost of retention (p. 167).
Reading these verses as specific and hyperbolic applications of the principle of self-denial is unobjectionable. Yet, for several reasons, it is likely that Jesus had something else in mind as well. In brief, it seems that Jesus is teaching not only the principle of self-denial, but more precisely He is making an application of the Biblical principle of the lex talonis, the "law of retaliation."
First, it is fitting to the context and structure of this portion of the Sermon that Jesus should bring up the question of the lex talonis. Matthew 5:21-47 is structured in a loosely chiastic manner: vv. 21-26 match vv. 43-47; vv. 27-30 match vv. 38-42; and vv. 31-32 match vv. 33-37. Jesus clearly brings up the lex talonis in verses 38-42, and, since verses 27-30 form the matching section, they must have some connection with the same theme. The link between these two sections is strengthened by the repetition of the illustration of the plucked-out eye (vv. 29, 38).
Second, the two organs that Jesus singles out here — eyes and hands — are both mentioned in the most extended Old Testament statements of the lex talonis (Ex. 21:24-25; Dt. 19:21). More specifically, the only Biblical law that requires a punishment of mutilation is Deuteronomy 25:12, in which a woman who mutilates her husband’s combatant has her hand split. This appears to be a specification of the lex talonis to an unusual circumstance. Jesus’ hearers, immersed in Deuteronomic law, would undoubtedly have picked up the reference to the mutilated hand.
Assuming I am correct that Jesus is alluding to the lex talonis in Matthew 5:29-30, what does it imply? Perhaps several things. First, it is important to recognize that the main intent of the lex talonis was to impose limitations on vengeance. That is somewhat analogous to what Jesus says here: Applying the lex talonis to one’s own body is preferable to losing one’s whole body in hell. If we punish ourselves in a limited way, we will be avoiding greater punishment in the eschaton. If we judge ourselves, we will not be judged (1 Cor. 11:31).
Without contradicting Murray’s treatment, this perspective deepens our understanding of self-denial. Contrary to many Reformed exegetes of the Sermon on the Mount, I do not believe that Jesus was primarily addressing Pharisaical misinterpretations of the law; misinterpretations of the law there certainly were, and Jesus’ teaching bears on them, especially in verse 43ff. But, in the main, the specific ethical questions treated in Matthew 5:21-47 are illustrations of how Jesus’ coming brings the fulfillment of the law (v. 17). Fulfillment involves not only confirmation, but perfection, completion, the bringing of something to its intended climax. Jesus’ teaching reveals the full reality of what the Old Testament law pointed to in a shadowy manner. Jesus’ teaching is not a replacement of the Mosaic law, nor does it contradict the intentions of the law; but neither is Jesus’ teaching simply a repetition of the law. Thus, in context, it would seem that the meaning of verses 29-30 is that self-denial is a New Testament fulfillment or form of the Old Testament principle of the lex talonis. (This fits, by the way, with the parallel passage, vv. 38-42, where, as Vern Poythress has pointed out, the retaliation required by the lex talonis is carried out against the victim!)
I should add that I believe that the lex talonis remains applicable in its original form within the sphere of civil justice. What I am saying is that the fullest implications of the law cannot be realized within the civil sphere. Though the principle may be applied in the civil sphere, it is only in the Church that the lex talonis finds its fulfillment.
It is also interesting that the lex talonis is applied here against stumbling blocks, "scandals," causes of sin, traps. In Matthew 18:1-10, Jesus repeats the same exhortation (adding the "foot"), again in the context of discussing "scandals." In Matthew 16:23, Jesus calls Peter a satanic stumbling block for trying to keep Him from bearing the cross; here, rebuking a scandal is closely tied to self-denial. In view of these passages, perhaps the logic of Matthew 5:29-30 goes something like this: Because scandals are obstacles to our dying with Christ, so the scandal itself must be removed. In union with Christ, we receive a circumcision of suffering, or, if something prevents us, that scandalous thing must be cut off.
There is perhaps another dimension of this as well. Being scandalized is the opposite of believing in Jesus. Scandals rob us of eternal salvation, and it is just that they be robbed of eternal salvation themselves. The punishment fits the crime; we must cast the offending member into outer darkness so that we may inherit life. Applying the lex talonis to our offending members not only delivers us from hell, but fulfills the justice of the law.
Jesus Christ is the stumbling block (1 Cor. 1:23). I do not, of course, mean that Jesus was guilty of sin, only that He was the occasion for the Jews’ sin. Appropriately, the lex talonis was carried out against Him: The One who was the occasion of the unbelief of many Himself was cut off. But in applying the lex talonis to His own Son, the Father was also bearing away sin, so that the same Christ who is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks, is to those who are called the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24).
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 22
February, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons
Matthew records that Jesus "withdrew" to Galilee to begin His public ministry there after He "heard that John had been delivered up" (Mt. 4:12). Matthew’s typically matter-of-fact style veils the truly remarkable character of Jesus’ withdrawal. Matthew has been presenting Jesus as the Messiah, the Seed of Abraham and Son of David (1:1, 16), Immanuel (1:23), the King of the Jews (2:2), God’s Son (2:15; 3:17; 4:3, 6), the One who baptizes with the Spirit and fire (3:11ff.) — in sum, as the fulfillment of all the Old Testament types and prophecies.
Yet, this Messiah spends a large part of His life in Galilee, Galilee of the Gentiles (4:15). The area known as Galilee was part of the land conquered under the leadership of Joshua, and was given to the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali. In the 8th century B.C., the land was invaded by the Assyrians, many of the inhabitants were taken into exile, and the region was repopulated with Gentiles. Despite an attempt in the second century B.C. to forcibly circumcise and convert the populace, it remained a religiously and ethnically mixed province. It was here that Jesus chose to concentrate at the beginning of His public ministry.
How could this be? Can anything good come out of Galilee? Matthew, writing as he apparently was for a Jewish audience, had to defend Jesus’ movements from the Old Testament Scriptures. He had to show that Jesus’ Galilean ministry itself was a fulfillment of prophecy. That is the purpose of Matthew’s quotation from Isaiah 9:1 in Matthew 4:15-16; these verses show that the Messiah was to be a light among the Gentiles of the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali.
But, as usual, Matthew’s use of the Old Testament raises difficult questions for the modern reader. True, Isaiah 9:1 mentions the land of Zebulun and Naphtali, but Isaiah 9:1 does not say anything about the Messiah’s traveling and living in that region. This objection can be answered rather simply. The Messiah is, after all, the true light (Jn. 1:9), and was expected to be a light specifically to the Gentiles (Lk. 2:32). In addition, Isaiah is obviously looking ahead to the coming Messiah in 9:6-7. Messianic prophecy is never far from his mind. It is, therefore, appropriate for Matthew to use Isaiah’s prophecy to justify Jesus’ movements into the land of Zebulun and Naphtali.
Perhaps, however, we can establish a deeper connection between prophecy and fulfillment. A look at the context of Isaiah 9 reveals that it is first of all a prophecy of Israel’s deliverance from the Assyrian oppression. The Lord promises to break the yoke of the oppressor through a bloody battle. The birth of the Child is prophesied in connection with this battle; this Child would become a mighty warrior to deliver Israel from her oppressors.
What does this context have to do with Jesus’ ministry in Galilee? In what sense is Jesus’ withdrawal into Galilee the fulfillment of a prophecy about the deliverance of Israel from Assyria? In order to understand this connection, we need to recall the context in Matthew’s gospel. Jesus’ withdrawal took place immediately after His temptation (4:1-11). Jesus, the Last Adam and the True Israel, was victorious in His conflict with Satan. The temptation was the beginning of Jesus’ campaign to conquer the enemy of His people, to deliver them from the slavery that God had justly imposed upon them because of their sins. Thus, His withdrawal to Galilee follows on His triumph over the oppressor. Having dealt an initial defeat to Satan, Jesus went into Galilee to announce His victory, and the coming fulness of the kingdom. Jesus’ conquest of Satan was the reality of which the Lord’s conquest of Assyria was the dim shadow.
Abominomianism – n. hatred of God’s law.
Abominomy – n. hatred of either (a) Theonomists, followers of Greg Bahnsen, or (b) theonomists, those advocating any kind of contemporary societal application of Biblical law.
Abdominomy – n. the result of the implementation of Jeremiah 15:16.
Ecclesiolupe — n. a Church wolf (Acts 20:29).
Ecclesiolupus — n. the generic term for Church wolves.
Ecclesiolupine — adj. wolfish behavior in the Church.
Ecclesiolupinicity — n.the phenomenon of wolfing in the Church.
Logogogue — n. a demagogue skilled at manipulating the meanings of words.
Minimillennialism – n. the theory of Max King and others that the millennium lasted only forty years, from A.D. 30-70.
Micromillennialism – n. the theory that the millennium is the Day of the Lord and happens all at once when Christ returns.
Peribwzw (Peribozo) — vb. Greek: "to clown around."
Povert — n. person who spends money on televisions, videocassette recorders, rental videos, and Nintendo games, but who owns no auto insurance and does not provide adequately for his family. Cf. also Poversion (n.) , Poverted (adj.).
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 23
February, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons
John Brown called this one of the most difficult passages in the entire epistle to the Hebrews, and Hebrews is no easy book. Several questions confront us as we read and meditate on these verses. First, in what sense did the Old Testament saints described in verses 4-38 not receive what was promised? What was it that they did not receive? And when, if ever, did they receive it? Second, what is the "something better" that God has provided for us? Do we already enjoy this something better, or is it something that we, like the Old Testament saints, are still embracing at a distance? Finally, and most critically, in what sense is it said that both Old and New Covenant believers are perfected together?
The first two questions can be dealt with simultaneously, for the answer to the first is precisely the "something better" that God has provided for us. What the Old Testament believers looked for but did not receive was that which God has provided now for us. What, then, is the something better? Invariably in the book of Hebrews, the adjective "better" is used to modify some provision of the New Covenant. We have a better priest, a better hope, better promises, a better covenant, because the heavenly things have been cleansed by a better sacrifice (7:7, 19, 22; 8:6; 9:23; 10:34; 11:16). In 11:40, therefore, the general phrase, "something better" (kreitton ti), refers to the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises and types in Jesus Christ. The "something better" is the New Covenant and all its benefits.
Verse 39, therefore, seems to be saying nothing more than 11:13, namely, that the Old Testament believers died before the fulfillment of the promises in Christ. God withheld the fulfillment of the promises from Old Covenant believers. But, on closer inspection, we realize that, unlike v. 13, verses 39-40 do not say that the patriarchs died without receiving the promises, but that they did not receive the promise until the something better had been provided to "us," the first generation of New Covenant believers. They were not perfected until "we" were perfected. That is, they did not receive the promise even after they had died.
What does it mean to say that the Old Covenant believers are not "made perfect" apart from us? The verb teleioo in the book of Hebrews follows in large measure the usage of the LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. As the article on teleioo in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament points out, the LXX sometimes uses teleioo not in reference to moral perfection, but in reference to qualification for or consecration to the office of priest (English trans., 8:80-84). In the LXX translation of Leviticus, the noun "priest" is modified by the adjectives christos ( "anointed") and the perfect participle of teleioo (cf. Lev. 4:5; cf. 21:10). The ordination formula "fill the hands" is translated in the LXX as teleioo cheiras (cf. 8:33; 16:32). The participle of teleioo as a modifier of "priest" carries the connotation of ordained, consecrated, or qualified: The "perfected" priest is consecrated to draw near to God in His tabernacle.
In the book of Hebrews, the verb is also used in this sense. Hebrews 7:19 tells us that the law made nothing perfect, but that with the coming of the Messiah, we have a "better hope," by which we draw near to God. The implication is that, though the Old Covenant types and shadows did not perfect, the New Covenant reality does perfect, with the result that we are qualified to draw near to God. The connection between the perfection wrought by Christ and our qualification for drawing near to God is even clearer in 10:1: "For the Law . . . can never . . . make perfect those who draw near," with the obvious implication that the New Covenant can make those who wish to draw near perfect. Hebrews 10:14 draws a close connection between perfecting and sanctification, which has to do with access to the presence of the Holy God: By offering Himself once-for-all, Jesus "has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified."
Turning back to 11:40, we are led to conclude that God withheld the fulfillment of the promise from the Old Covenant saints, with a view to fully qualifying both Old and New Covenant saints for entrance into God’s presence in Christ. This seems to imply that the Old Covenant saints never enjoyed full access to God, even after they had died. They continued in their fellowship with God after they had died, but it was the "better thing" that perfected them forever, and gave them full access to God’s presence. Before Christ ascended, the patriarchs were, as it were, in the "outer courts" of the heavenly sanctuary; in Christ, they draw near beyond the veil.
As surprising as this conclusion might seem, on reflection it can be seen to be completely in accord with the teaching of the epistle as a whole. The blood of bulls and goats was unable to cleanse the conscience, and thus was incapable of qualifying men to draw near to God. This was true of Old Covenant saints while they sojourned on earth (they did not have access to the tabernacle), and it was equally true of Old Covenant saints after they had died (they did not have access to the heavenly tabernacle). How could they have had such access, when there was not yet an ascended God-Man, not yet a Perfect High Priest? Surely, they could not gain access to God by virtue of their deaths; they had to await the death of the Son. It was not their blood that qualified them to enter the sanctuary, but Christ’s. Thus, Christ’s death not only opened a new and living way for those who were living on earth, but opened a new and living way for those who had already died in faith.
This conclusion may shed some light on some obscure New Testament passages. Though it hardly solves all the problems, it may illuminate Peter’s cryptic comments about Jesus preaching deliverance to those in chains (1 Pet. 3:18-22). It might also shed some light on Paul’s teaching that Jesus led captive a host of captives (Eph. 4:10). The Old Testament saints seem to be in view in Hebrews 12:23; they are the just men made perfect, not by their own deaths but by the death of the promised Seed. There is even a possibility that this understanding of Hebrews 11:40 may shed some light on the various passages that speak of martyrs in the book of Revelation, including perhaps 20:4. In addition, this might help to illumine the Old Testament passages that speak about the saints going down into Sheol (cf. Gen. 37:35).
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 23
February, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons
"Vanity of vanities", says the Preacher. "All is vanity". Life, we are told in the book of Ecclesiastes, is a repetitious, wearisome cycle; all that is and all that will be has already been. There is nothing new under the sun. What is crooked cannot be made straight, what is lacking cannot be counted. Life is grievous, absurd, a striving after wind, full of grief and pain. A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
And why is life vain, meaningless, terrifying, futile? Here again the Preacher is our guide. The great fact that renders life meaningless is the certainty of death. Wisdom is futile because "as is the fate of the fool, so also the fate of the wise" (2:14-15); "the wise man and the fool alike die" (2:16). Riches are vanity, because we "must leave it to the man who will come after [us], and who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool?" (2:18-19). Pleasure is vanity, for "even if the man lives a thousand years twice, and does not enjoy good things — do not all go to one place?" (6:6).
Indeed, death makes the life of man no better than that of a beast: "the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity" (3:19).
The futility with which death infuses our days is intensified by its randomness: "I have seen everything during my lifetime of futility; there is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his wickedness" (7:15). Death seems arbitrarily to overtake righteous and wicked alike. The Preacher goes so far as to say that a miscarried baby who never saw light is better than a man who dies in obscurity (6:3-4).
For the Preacher, death brings terror not only at the end of life, not only to those who are approaching their last days, but casts its terrifying shadow over the whole of life. Young and old, strong and weak, healthy and ill — all face an eventual but inevitable confrontation with death. Death renders every pleasure, accomplishment, and joy useless because death renders all these temporary. Men are like grass which sprouts anew: in the morning it flourishes, but in the evening it fades and withers away (Ps. 90:6). So says the Preacher, Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived.
These meditations seem hardly appropriate for an Easter sermon. The Easter Gospel is, after all, a gospel of life, joy, hope, and peace. It is the story of resurrection, new life, of immortality and victory. But if we have begun with a sobering reminder of life’s futility, it is because the Apostle Paul himself, in explaining the theology of the resurrection, introduces his subject with equally sobering thoughts. Paul himself uses that favorite term of the Preacher, "vain" (1 Cor. 15:14, 17), to describe the Christian’s condition if, as some believed, the dead are not raised: "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, and your faith also is vain"; and "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins" (v. 17).
So, the gospel of resurrection first points us to the fact of death; the gospel of joy to sadness; the gospel of hope to despair; the gospel of peace to violence; the gospel of the empty tomb points first to the cross; the gospel of forgiveness to sin. Whether we are justified in moving from a consideration of death into a consideration of new life, from sadness into joy, from despair to hope, depends entirely upon the truth of what Paul preaches. The world does not believe that Easter has anything particularly to do with truth. Like Pilate, the world is inclined to ask, What is Truth? Or, it defines truth in a way that excludes the possibility of resurrection. For our half-Christian culture, Easter, like Christmas, has become a time of sentiment, of vague and generalized good will among men, or an equally vague celebration of life in general. But the Bible presents the "Easter story" as the absolutely crucial turning point in history, a central dividing line among men. Easter is the celebration of what the apostles insisted was an historical event, an event that revealed the real meaning of life and death.
If the resurrection is a myth, if it is not true, then the Christian faith is vain, worthless, futile. If Christ is not raised, then the weary meditations of the Preacher provide the ultimate and final perspective on life. If Christ is not raised, "we are of all men most to be pitied" (v. 19). If Christ is not raised, we are foolish to be sitting here, spending our time in prayer and praise. If Christ is not raised, Paul admits, it would be reasonable to become a hedonist; "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." More than that, if the apostles’ preaching of the resurrection is false, then they are guilty of being false witnesses of God, and worthy of death.
But if the apostolic preaching of the resurrection is true, it cannot be ignored. No one can remain neutral to this great fact. No one can stand apart and assess it as an interesting "idea" to be debated among the sophists of Mars Hill. If Christ is raised, it is a fact that demands decision. And it demands a decision that embraces our entire life. If death is the fact that renders life meaningless, the resurrection is the hope that fills life with meaning and purpose. Where sin and the wages of sin abounded, there grace and resurrection life all the more abound. The resurrection of Christ demands from every man, woman, and child a whole-hearted, whole-souled dedication and consecration to the One who was raised. If Christ is raised, it is surely not enough for us to pay our respects to Him once a year, or even once a week. The resurrection of Christ demands a transformation of my entire life. The resurrection demands my soul, my life, my all.
The Church has always taught that the resurrection is to be integrated into the whole fabric of life. One of the ways this has been done is through the liturgy. Each Lord’s Day morning, the people of God gather in His presence for worship. Every member brings with him wounds suffered during the previous week. Here is a man who has just buried his wife. Here is another who has lost his job. Here is another who has been cut to the heart by an unkind word. The world they have experienced during the week is precisely the world described by the Preacher.
As they gather for worship, the very first words of many traditional liturgies are, "Christ is risen!" And the congregation responds, "He is risen indeed!" Across the ages, this affirmation answers the complaint of the Preacher: "Christ is risen!" It echoes and reverberates to the very heart of each worshiper: "Christ is risen!" It touches the wounds with its healing light: "He is risen indeed!" The wounds do not go away. Even after the resurrection, Jesus bore the marks of His suffering. But the resurrection transforms those wounds, it transforms every moment of life, so that each experience becomes a further step in the pilgrimage to the kingdom. As Luther said, all things serve the Christian, whether life or death, health or sickness, prosperity of poverty. The resurrection fills life is filled with meaning, purpose, light and joy. Because Christ is risen. He is risen indeed.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 22
February, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons
The Bible tells us that when God created the earth, He set up three zones of life. The first was the world itself. The second was the holy land of Eden. And the third was the Garden in Eden, God’s sanctuary.
God told Adam and Eve that every tree was for humanity’s food — every tree, without exception (Gen. 1:29). Earlier, however, God had told Adam (before Eve was made) that they were not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2:17). From these two facts, they could easily reason that the prohibition was only temporary. The Tree of Knowledge would be given them when they were ready. Meanwhile, they were to exercise patience. Patient faith is what they failed to manifest, however, and Adam and Eve were cast from the Garden Sanctuary.
This was humanity’s first fall into sin, a fall with reference to the God-man relationship in the Sanctuary. It was not our last fall, however. In theology, "the Fall" is the fall of Adam in the Garden, but that most significant Fall led to two other "falls," which show the outworking of the first and definitive Fall of man.
The story of Cain and Abel shows the second fall. After murdering his brother, Cain was cast from the land of Eden, the holy land, into a land of wandering. This was a fall with reference to the brother-brother relationship in the Land. Cain’s descendants matured the sin of fratricide into that of oppression by the power of the sword (Gen. 4).
The third fall of humanity is recorded in Genesis 5:1–6:8, which is a literary unit within Genesis (cp. 5:1; 6:9). Here we have the fall of the Sethites. Many today see the intermarriage in Genesis 6:1-2 as a reference to angels marrying men, but such an interpretation fails to account for the context of the incident, which is the record of the line of Seth. See also Matthew 22:30. If Genesis 6:1-2 does not record the fall of the Sethites, then what happened to them? The Sethites fell through the sin of intermarriage. Instead of witnessing to the Cainites, they joined them. As a result, they were cast from the world in the Flood. This was a fall with reference to the believer-unbeliever relationship.
Old Testament History
It is interesting to consider that Old Testament history as a whole displays in a "vague" way this same three-fold movement. Consider first the period of the Judges. Here it is primarily the God-man relationship that is in view, as Israel repeatedly falls into the worship of other gods. As a result, they lose the Sanctuary, the Tabernacle (1 Samuel 4). God had told them in Deuteronomy 17 that eventually they would be given a king, but they were impatient, and demanded a king before God was ready (Jud. 8:22; 9:1-57; 11:9; 21:25; 1 Sam. 8).
Consider next the period of the kings. Here it is the brother-brother relationship that comes to the fore, as Northern and Southern Israel break apart and live in continual tension. At the end of this period, because of their sins, Israel is cast from the holy land.
Finally we can glance at the post-exilic, or better the restoration period. Here intermarriage comes to the fore as a problem as we see in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi. Israel must learn to live among the nations, bearing witness before the emperors of this world, without the compromise of intermarriage. Because the old world fails to receive the truth, it is replaced with a new creation in the New Covenant.
Compare the three falls of King Saul. In 1 Samuel 13, Saul impatiently seizes the prerogative to offer sacrifice, worshipping God wrongly. In 1 Samuel 14, Saul offends against his brethren, and seeks to slay Jonathan. In 1 Samuel 15, Saul compromises with the unbelieving Amalekite enemies of God.
Compare also the progression in the book of Judges from Gideon to Samson. The early part of the Gideon story concerns idolatry (Jud. 6:1 – 8:27), but the later part, when Ephraim opposes him, and when his son Abimelech sets himself up as king, moves into the area of fratricide (8:1-3; 9:1-57). The story of Jephthah focuses on the brother-brother relationship, both as Jephthah’s brothers oppress him, and as he also has to deal with Ephraim (Jud. 11-12). Finally, the story of Samson is played out in terms of the opposition of evangelism (Samson’s gracious offer of a Godly marriage to the Philistine girl; Jud. 14-15) to the sin of intermarriage (Samson’s fall into sin with the enemy; Jud. 16).
In the book of Genesis, we find three heroes that show us how to live in a sinful world in terms of these three sinful tendencies. Genesis is organized in terms of clearly-defined sections marked out by the phrase "these are the generations of x." The story of Abraham is found in Genesis 11:27–25:18. The story of Jacob is found in Genesis 25:19–37:1. The story of Joseph is found in Genesis 37:2–50:26. There is no literary section devoted exclusively to Isaac; his story is linked with those of Abraham and Jacob.
We can see right away, broadly speaking, that Joseph is concerned primarily with the believer-unbeliever relationship, as he plays out his life in Egypt. Jacob is concerned with the brother-brother relationship, as he wrestles with Esau. Abraham is concerned with the God-man relationship as he interacts alone with God. Of course, all three themes are present in each case, but the focus shifts.
Abraham
The creation of sanctuaries receives much attention in the life of Abraham, although the temporary character of these altar-well-tree "oasis sanctuaries" shows that the Sanctuary is not yet restored to the earth (Gen. 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18; 21:22-34; 22:9). Abraham is pictured as leading others in worship. The major theme of his life is patience, as God makes him wait on the promised son (Heb. 6:12-15) — though on one occasion Abraham did impatiently seize forbidden fruit (with Hagar).
The focus of Abraham’s life, and of Adam’s fall, is on God the Father. Abraham is set up as the human father par excellence, and this is because he lived in interface with God the Father. Seven times God appeared to him, taking the initiative each time, and each time Abraham obeyed God’s commands (Gen. 12:1-4; 13:14-18; 15:1-21; 17:1-27; 18:1-33; 21:12-14; 22:1-19). This is what it means to live in God’s sanctuary, and to be a true son of the Father.
Included in the story of Abraham is the story of Isaac’s early years, when he has the role of promised seed and sacrifice. Here also the priestly, sanctuary focus is preeminent.
Jacob
Being a member of God’s holy army receives attention in the life of Jacob. Contrary to many expositors, the Bible tells us that Jacob was a "perfect" man from his earliest years. This fulfills God’s command to Abraham: "Walk before Me and be perfect" (Gen. 17:1). Genesis 25:27 says that Jacob was a "perfect" man, though translators, convinced that he was not such, render this as "smoothe" or "peaceful." But did God tell Abraham, "Walk before Me and be smoothe"?
Jacob wrestled with the unregenerate Esau even in the womb, so he was on God’s side even at that early stage of life! Esau despised God’s covenant, but Jacob loved it (Gen. 25:28-34 — notice that it is Esau, not Jacob, who is condemned in the text). Jacob not only had to wrestle with his brother Esau, but with his father Isaac, who was sinfully determined to thwart God’s command that Jacob should be the heir. In a strange land, Jacob wrestled with his relative Laban, who repeatedly cheated him.
Thus, wrestling with sinful brothers, yet without sin, is a major theme in the life of Jacob. Abel was killed by Cain. Jacob learns how to avoid being killed by Laban and Esau. While Christians will disagree on whether Jacob was always right in how he proceeded (perhaps like Abraham he, too, fell on occasion), we should be able to agree on the overall theme.
Wrestling with our sinful brothers is something God brings to pass to strengthen us. Jacob found this out at Peniel. Doubtless, when he was attacked in the dark Jacob initially thought Laban had come back for him, or that Esau had come for him, or even that blind Isaac was seeking to kill him. But it turned out to be God who was wrestling with Jacob, not to harm him, but to train him as a warrior in His holy host (Gen. 32:24-32). God was pleased to let Jacob win the victory over Himself, as a sign that Jacob had become a worthy wrestler (v. 28).
The theme of God’s host is enhanced by the fact that only in the history of Jacob do we find references to God’s angelic host (28:12; 31:1). It is the Son, the Angel of the Lord, who is Captain of that host. It is also interesting to notice also that unlike Abraham, Jacob and his family often are pictured as initiating wrestling with God in prayer (29:33; 30:22; 32:9-12).
The focus of attention in the life of Jacob is on God the Son. Wrestling with evil, and ultimately wrestling with the God who providentially sends evil things our way in order to strengthen us, is what it means to be a true brother of the Son of God. As a result, Jacob found some purchase in the holy land, as Abraham found places of sanctuary. Even so, his occupation of the land was only temporary, for the land had not yet been fully given to God’s people.
Joseph
Finally we come to the story of Joseph. God never initiates a conversation with Joseph, nor are we ever shown Joseph praying to God (though unquestionably he did so). Here it is the believer-unbeliever relationship that comes to the forefront of attention. The sons of Seth resisted the Spirit (Gen. 6:3), but Joseph yielded to Him (Gen. 41:38, which literally says, "in whom is the Spirit of God"). Neither altars nor the land are in focus in the story of Joseph; rather, the story if played out on the field of the world itself.
If patience before the Father is important for Abraham, and if wrestling next to the Son is important for Jacob, it is service to others that is important for the Spiritual man, Joseph. It was because of his excellent service to his father that Joseph was invested with a glorious robe of many colors, though the envious brothers stripped this robe from him (Gen. 37:3, 23). It was because of his excellent service to Potiphar that Joseph was invested again, though the wife of Potiphar stripped this robe from him (Gen. 39:12-18). Finally, it was because of his excellent service to Pharaoh that Joseph was given the robe of authority over the entire world of Egypt (Gen. 41:42).
Joseph was tempted to lie with the wife of Potiphar, but unlike the sons of Seth, he resisted the sin of intermarriage. He remained righteous in his relationships with the unbelievers, and this resulted in their acceptance of his leadership. In fact, a careful reading of the text indicates that Pharaoh and all his people were indeed converted to the worship of Joseph’s God. We see them blessing God’s people, rejoicing in their happy providences, and finally we see Pharaoh on his knees asking Jacob’s blessing (Gen. 47:10). Thus, if Joseph eventually married an Egyptian woman, it was only after Egypt had converted (Gen. 41:38-45; on v. 38 see above).
What does it mean to be a man governed by God’s Spirit? How are we to relate to the world of unbelief? It is the story of Joseph that shows us. Joseph was ready to serve, but not ready to sin. Such service is typified by his becoming the replacement baker and cupbearer to Pharaoh, and to the entire world (Gen. 40; 41:9-13, 46-49; 44:2). Joseph served bread and wine — the food of kings — to the entire world! (See Gen. 41:57; 42:2.) As with Abraham and Jacob, however, this condition did not endure. God had not yet given the world to the saints.
Summary of the Patriarchs
Here are three sons: Isaac, Jacob, Joseph. They show what it means to be God’s son in the three zones of life. The story of Abraham and Isaac focuses on the priestly dimension of sacrifice, where the field of action is the sanctuary, the duty is to guard, and the sin is sacrilege (stealing from God). In sociological terms, this is the locale of the Church.
The story of Jacob focuses on the kingly dimension of wrestling with God, where the field of action is the land, the duty is to rule, and the sin is fratricide and oppression. In sociological terms, this is the locale of the State.
The story of Joseph focuses on the prophetic dimension of proclamation, where the field of action is the world, the duty is to serve and counsel, and the sin is intermarriage. In sociological terms, this is the locale of Mission and Trade (service).
Jesus
We can follow up this brief study by considering our Lord’s fulfillment of these types, for He was the Son who fulfilled all that the other sons typified. In the wilderness, confronted by Satan, Jesus was tested in these three areas also. We can consider this in two aspects.
First, as the Son of God, and as God’s Holy Wrestler against ultimate sin and evil, there is a close relationship between Christ and Jacob. Jacob first had to wrestle with Esau, whose gamey food was preferred by sinful, blind Isaac. Just so, Jesus was first tempted to turn stones into bread. Jacob second had to wrestle with sinful Isaac, who was determined to set Esau on high over everyone else (Gen. 27:29). Just so, Jesus was secondly tempted to cast Himself down from the pinnacle of the Temple, and then be restored. Finally, Jacob had to wrestle with Laban, who was determined to prevent his acquiring dominion and wealth. Just so, Jesus was tempted to receive all the nations of the world from Satan’s hand. Jesus had indeed come to feed men, to be worshipped by men, and to rule men — but He would not receive such things from Satan, but only from His Father. Just as angels met Jacob after he returned to the land after his three wrestlings (Gen. 32:1), so angels met Jesus when He returned to the land after wrestling with Satan (Matt. 4:11).
Second, as the True Patriarch, Jesus fulfilled the meaning of the lives of Joseph, Jacob, and Abraham. Sharply in focus in Joseph’s life was feeding bread to the hungry world. Satan tempted Jesus to do the same. Sharply in focus in Jacob’s life was the question of who would win the wrestling match, and emerge as a member of God’s victorious host. Satan tempted Jesus to trust the angelic host, as their Captain, by casting Himself down. Sharply in focus in Abraham’s life was the promise that he would be the father of many nations, and heir of the world, if he worshipped God alone. Satan tempted our Lord to receive the world from him by worshipping him.
The Father has now given Jesus the kingdom He refused from Satan’s hand. In union with Him we have the kingdom, and we are commissioned to take it to the world. In the lives of the three heroes of Genesis we can see models of how to do this.
From Abraham we see that it is patience and obedience before the Father that will bring the favor of God and gospel dominion, so that we become fathers of many nations. Impatience, disobedience, and idolatry will not work.
From Jacob we see that it is wrestling with God in prayer next to the Son that will bring our wayward brothers into line, as Isaac, Laban, and Esau eventually made peace with Israel. Wrestling through violence instead of prayer will not work.
From Joseph we see that it is true service to others, with bread and wine, under the guidance of the Spirit that will convert the world. Compromise will not work.
Thus, we can receive the blessing of Abraham: May the Lord bless you and guard you.
We can receive the blessing of Jacob: May the Lord make His face to shine upon you and bestow riches upon you.
And we can receive the blessing of Joseph: May the Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you world peace.
Amen (Num. 6:24-26).
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 3, No. 2
February, 1991
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1991
By James B. Jordan
In our survey of Biblical chronology we have arrived at the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which provide chronological information for the period after the return from exile, the Restoration Period of Old Testament history. The question we begin to address in this essay is whether the Artaxerxes of these books is the same person as Darius, a question we shall answer, contrary to modern opinion, in the affirmative.
Before getting into this question, however, it will be of some help to consider the actual content of these two books — or are they one book that has been divided in half? Some evidence from the ancient world, such as the Talmud, indicates that Ezra and Nehemiah were originally one book simply called Ezra.
In fact, each book can stand alone, but they both have the same overall structure and outline, so that they are like twins. Ezra is concerned with holiness in the sanctuary, while Nehemiah is concerned with holiness in society. Ezra focuses on the Temple and its ethical boundaries; Nehemiah focuses on the city and its physical boundary (the wall).
Both books have the same outline. In each we begin with the decree of God’s appointed sovereign, a decree that authorizes the reestablishment of God’s kingdom (Ezr. 1-3; Neh. 1:1 – 2:16). In each book this is followed by a time of opposition, as enemies try to prevent the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra) and wall (Nehemiah), but in each book God’s people emerge victorious and the project is completed (Ezr. 4:1-6:15; Neh. 2:17 – 6:19).
After the completion of the project, there is a formal covenant renewal, and associated with this are other events. In Ezra, the covenant renewal is followed by Ezra’s visit to Jerusalem bringing spoils from the gentiles to adorn the Temple (Ezr. 6:16 – 8:36). In Nehemiah, the covenant renewal is accompanied by a reorganization of the people and of their leaders (Neh. 7:1 – 13:3).
Virtually every time the covenant is renewed formally in the Old Testament, there is immediately a fall into sin. The first instance of this pattern is seen in Genesis 2-3, the next in Genesis 9, another in Genesis 15-16, again in Exodus 24 + 32, again in Leviticus 9-10, again in 2 Samuel 7 + 11, and again in both Ezra and Nehemiah. The "Fall and Renewal" in both books concerns the sin of intermarriage, the same sin committed by the Sethites before the Flood (Gen. 6; Ezr. 9-10; Neh. 13:4-31).
The Chronological Problem
The chronological problem in Ezra-Nehemiah boils down to this: On the one hand, the name lists in these two books lead us to expect that all the events in them took place in the reign of Darius; while on the other hand, the text calls the Persian emperor under whom Ezra and Nehemiah lived by the name "Artaxerxes," and Artaxerxes I (Artaxerxes Longimanus) reigned many years after Darius. We can resolve this problem one of two ways. The first is to strain the information given in the name lists in order to make it fit, this approach being the common one today. This gives us a long chronology for Ezra. The other way of resolving the problem is to hold that "Artaxerxes" in Ezra-Nehemiah is simply another name for Darius, giving us a short chronology. The long chronology is the establishment view today among both unbelieving and evangelical commentators. The short chronology has always been favored by Biblical chronologists.
Because this is a complicated matter to discuss, let alone resolve, we shall take more than one article to deal with it. In this essay we shall begin to examine the internal evidence in Ezra-Nehemiah, evidence that points clearly to a short chronology. Later we shall take up the arguments against the short chronology, by looking at the names of the Persian monarchs as given in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.
Nehemiah and Mordecai
In Ezra 1-2, we read that immediately after Cyrus’s decree (536 B.C.), a group of exiles returned from Babylon to begin work on the Lord’s Temple. Among these were "Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai" (Ezr. 2:2). Nehemiah 7:7 gives the same list: "Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahamiah, Mordecai." Who is this Nehemiah who returned with the first group of exiles? Most expositors hold that he cannot be the same as the Nehemiah who wrote Nehemiah, because the latter Nehemiah was still alive over 100 years later. We must ask, however, is this interpretation makes sense. Was Ezra trying to confuse his reader by mentioning some other Nehemiah in Ezra 2:2? More, was Nehemiah trying to confuse us by mentioning some other Nehemiah in Nehemiah 7:7?
If we look at Nehemiah 3:16 we read about "Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, official of half the district of Beth-zur." This is clearly another Nehemiah, and that is why we are told who his father was. Nehemiah the governor carefully distinguishes this Nehemiah from himself. Surely he would have done the same in Nehemiah 7:7, if that Nehemiah had been someone other than himself.
We ought to assume that the Biblical writers were trying to communicate, not confuse. The reference to "Nehemiah" in Ezra 2:2 and Nehemiah 7:7 should be taken as strong evidence that the short chronology is correct. Nehemiah returned with the exiles and was present for the initial altar building under Joshua and Zerubbabel. At some later date he returned to Persia to serve King Darius/Artaxerxes.
Notice also that Mordecai is mentioned in Ezra 2:2 and Nehemiah 7:7. In the absence of any other qualifier, we should assume that this is the Mordecai, the great and renowned Mordecai of Esther 10:3. This identification would shorten the chronology as far as the book of Esther is concerned, and indeed would tend to identify Esther’s Ahasuerus as Darius. (For a possible side-light, see Nehemiah 2:6.)
Nehemiah 10 and 12
In Nehemiah 10 we are given a list of the priests and Levites who signed the covenant renewal document prepared by Nehemiah (Neh. 9:38). The names on this list are identical with those who returned to Jerusalem at the time of Cyrus’s decree. If the long chronology were correct, there would be a 91-year gap between these two events. According to the short chronology, there are only about 34 years between the two events.
Those who returned with Zerubbabel Those who signed with Nehemiah
in the first year of Cyrus in the 20th year of Artaxerxes
(Nehemiah 12:1-9) (Nehemiah 10:1-12)
Priests
1. Seraiah Seraiah
2. Jeremiah Jeremiah
3. Ezra (Azariah)
4. Amariah Amariah
5. Malluch (Malluchi) (Malchijah)
6. Hattush Hattush
7. Shechaniah (Shebaniah) Shebaniah
8. Rehum (Harim) Harim
9. Meremoth Meremoth
10. Iddo –
11. Ginnetho Ginnethon
12. Abijah Abijah
13. Mijamin Mijamin
14. Maadiah (Maaziah)
15. Biglah Biglai
16. Shemaiah Shemaiah
17. Joiarib –
18. Jedaiah –
19. Sallu (Sallai) –
20. Amok –
21. Hilkiah –
22. Jedaiah –
Levites
1. Jeshua Jeshua
2. Binnui Binnui
3. Kadmiel Kadmiel
4. Sherebiah Shebaniah
5. Judah (Hodijah, cp. Ezr. 2:40, 3:9)
6. Mattaniah –
7. Bakbukiah –
8. Unni –
(and 12 others)
Of the 8 Levites who are mentioned as returning with Zerubbabel, 5 are mentioned as signing the covenant with Nehemiah. Of the 22 priests who returned with Zerubbabel, 15 signed the covenant with Nehemiah. It is quite natural that 20 out of 30 men who returned with Zerubbabel in the first year of Cyrus should still be alive 34 years later. It is not reasonable to suppose that they would be alive 91 years later.
Modern commentators get around this problem by saying that the names in Nehemiah 10 are family names, not personal names. That is, they are the names of the priestly courses established by the men living at the time of Zerubbabel, not the names of individuals. This is a wholly gratuitous assertion without any foundation in the text. First of all, a number of the names in Nehemiah 10:1-27 correspond to the personal names found in Nehemiah 3. Secondly, if family names or names of priestly courses are in view, then the two lists should be identical, which they are not. Of course, if it is a proven fact that the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is Artaxerxes Longimanus, then some such explanation of Nehemiah 10 becomes necessary, but as we are seeking to show, there is good reason to suppose that the Artaxerxes in Nehemiah is in fact Darius. Therefore, Nehemiah 10 can stand without procrustean interpretations being forced upon it.
(to be continued)
