109:6–12 A Prayer for Vengeance?

109:6–12 A Prayer for Vengeance?

First Chronicles 18:4–5 is the fullest and best statement of what took place at this encounter. If this is true, the Chronicles figure of seven thousand charioteers, or horsemen, is no doubt the correct figure and the one that lies behind the transcriptional error of seven hundred in 2 Samuel 10:18. Note that some Septuagintal texts of 2

Samuel 10:18 agree with Chronicles. Furthermore, the forty thousand “foot soldiers”

of Chronicles is the correct reading, not “horsemen” as in Samuel, for the figure matches closely, as a rounded number, the twenty thousand plus twenty-two thousand foot soldiers given in 1 Chronicles 18:4–5. This seems to be the best solution to the problem.

The present Hebrew manuscripts for the books of 1 and 2 Samuel have more

transcriptional errors in them than any other book or combination of books in the Old Testament. From the preliminary checks seen in the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Samuel, the Greek translation of the Septuagint appears to reflect a much better Hebrew manuscript.1 [1 Some preliminary but as yet unpublished reports from the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran do indicate that at least some readings of the Dead Sea Scroll copies of Samuel are in agreement with readings previously found only in Chronicles. See Frank M. Cross Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran, rev. ed. (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1961), pp. 188–

91, and Ralph W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), pp. 42–50.<ql]

Another attempt to resolve this problem suggests that when Samuel talked about the

“[men of] chariots” or “[men of the] chariot divisions” (to which the seven hundred presumably belonged), he was speaking of a separate group of personnel from the (seven thousand) “charioteers,” but no evidence exists to support this distinction.

The discrepancy is a problem of the correct text of Samuel and does not support the thesis that the chronicler had a tendency to magnify numbers in order to glorify David.

21:1–2, 8 Why Was the Census a Sin?

God had commanded Moses twice to take a census in Numbers 1 and 26, yet in 2

Samuel David numbers Israel because God, angry with Israel, incites him to it; 1

Chronicles attributes the result to the influence of Satan on David. Are these contradictory passages an instance where error has crept into Scripture?

Let us first establish why census-taking could be sinful. In effect, the census acted as a draft notice or a mustering of the troops. Some conclude, based on 1 Chronicles 27:23–24, that David sinned by numbering those people under twenty years of age—

an illegal act. Others see the numbering as doubting God’s promise that David’s descendants would be as measureless as the sand and stars. The best solution is that it was motivated by presumption. God had given David no objective or reaon to go out to battle. Only David’s pride and ambition could have brought on such an act.

The and at the beginning of 1 Chronicles 21:1 in some translations seems to invite us to look at the conclusion of the previous chapter. First Chronicles 20:8 mentions that the giant’s descendants were among those whom David and his men vanquished. The connection could be that David, flushed with his successes, grew too big in his own eyes and opened the door for Satan to successfully tempt him.

This brings us to the second difficulty of this hard saying: Was it God or Satan who tempted David to sin? Satan is mentioned infrequently in the Old Testament. He was introduced in Job 1–2 and in the postexilic period in Zechariah 3:1. However, in both of these latter cases, the definite article is used; 1 Chronicles 21:1 does not use it. Even though the doctrine of the supernatural being named Satan was not well developed in the Old Testament, the appearance of Satan cannot be reduced to Persian dualism or one’s adversary in general. Even in the Garden of Eden there exists a hostile presence called “the serpent.” What is new in this passage is the formalizing of his name as “the adversary” or “opposer.” But the activities of the serpent and Satan make it clear that they are the same person.

How then does this relatively unidentified but never-absent personage play a key role in one version of David’s sin when God receives the dubious credit in another?

The thought that God instigates or impels sinners to do evil is incorrect. In no sense could God author what he disapproves of and makes his whole kingdom stand against.

How then shall we understand 2 Samuel 24:1, where God seems to instigate something which he will immediately label as sin?

God may and does occasionally impel sinners to reveal the wickedness of their hearts in deeds. God merely presents the opportunity and occasion for letting the evil desires of the heart manifest themselves outwardly. In this manner, sinners may see more quickly the evil which lies dormant in their hearts and motivates them to act counter to God’s will.

It is also true, according to Hebrew thinking, that whatever God permits he commits.

By allowing this census-taking, God is viewed as having brought about the act. The Hebrews were not very concerned with determining secondary causes and properly attributing them to the exact cause. Under the idea of divine providence everything ultimately was attributed to God; why not say he did it in the first place?

Since the number of variations here between Samuel and Chronicles are greater than usual and point to no clear rationale for emphasizing one set of facts over another, scholars suggest that Chronicles may represent the better and more dependable text tradition of the original Hebrew rather than that reflected in English versions of Samuel.

Although we should not overestimate the textual variants between Samuel and Chronicles in this chapter, some of the texts from Qumran’s Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that some of its Samuel readings agree with readings previously found only in Chronicles. This would bring more harmony to the differences among texts.

Almost all students of Scripture judge that Chronicles was composed during the exile or just after it. Therefore it likely was based on an earlier form of the Samuel narrative no doubt well known and widely used. Note the way that the writer of Chronicles linked his materials; it reflects a linkage explicitly made in 2 Samuel 24:1. There the writer of 2 Samuel 24:1 noted, “Again the anger of the Lord burned,” a reference to 2

Samuel 21:1–14, which also had to do with atonement for guilt. Accordingly, even though the chronicler omitted the material in 2 Samuel 23–24, he had a literary precedent for linking the materials in 2 Samuel 21 and 24. The selection of a site for the temple in Jerusalem marked a fitting climax to this phase of David’s activity.

Having shown that David did indeed sin and that Satan, not God, was to blame, that still leaves all Israel the victims of the plague God sent to punish the sin. But David’s subjects were as guilty as their king, according to 2 Samuel 24:1. Thus God dealt with all Israel through the act of the king who exemplified the national spirit of pride.

21:5 What Was Israel’s Population?

See comment on 2 samuel 24:9.

21:25 How Many Shekels for the Altar Site?

This is another of the alleged cases of the chronicler’s exaggeration, this time to magnify the temple by increasing the sale price for David’s altar (and eventually the site of the temple) from 50 shekels of silver (2 Sam 24:24) to 600 shekels of gold.

But the Chronicles text clearly and explicitly says that David bought “the site”

(Hebrew hammaµqoÆm), which included the whole area of Mount Moriah. Using the standard of one ounce of gold equal to $400 in modern currency, David paid approximately $100,000 for the site. Samuel, however, stated the price for the oxen and the threshing floor, a very small portion of the entire area. For that David paid a mere 50 shekels of silver. Some have noted that 600 is 12 times 50, a fact that might have been intended to imply national significance. The purchase of this larger area may have come later, after the initial purchase of the threshing floor and oxen used by David in the original sacrifice.

The distinction between the two purchases also helps explain why Araunah offered, at first, to donate to David the threshing floor. It is difficult to conceive that he would have been in a position to donate all of Mount Moriah, but he might well offer just the threshing floor.

22:14 Too Much Gold and Silver?

The figures stated for gold and silver raised by David to build the temple seem so high as to be beyond being credible. Furthermore, they stand in poor relationship to other figures given in 1 Chronicles 29:4, 7 and 2 Chronicles 9:13. What is the best explanation of this matter?

The total amount of gold and silver adds up to over forty thousand tons—a sum that boggles the mind even for one of the Caesars or Pharaohs.

Yet C. F. Keil supported these figures by saying that “in the capitals of the Asiatic kingdoms of antiquity, enormous quantities of the precious metals were accumulated,”

for he quotes from ancient documents to show that Cyrus obtained 500,000 talents of silver in his Asiatic campaigns alone.2 [2 C. F. Keil, The Books of Chronicles (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1950), pp. 247–48.] He concluded his discussion of these amounts by saying, “We cannot therefore regard the sums mentioned in our verse either as incredible or very much exaggerated, nor hold the round sums which correspond to the rhetorical character of the passage with certainty to be mistakes.”3 [3 Ibid., pp. 248–49. See also Alan R. Millard, “Does the Bible Exaggerate King Solomon’s Golden Wealth?” Biblical Archaeology Review 15, no. 3 (1989): 21–29, 31, 34, and Kenneth A.

Kitchen, “Where Did Solomon’s Wealth Go?” Biblical Archaeology Review 15, no. 3 (1989): 30, 32–33.]

We cannot use the figures given in 1 Chronicles 29:4, 7 as a means to determine the accuracy of those in the text we are examining. In 1 Chronicles 22 David makes the lead donation for the work of the temple, to which he then invited others to add in supporting the same project. These, then, are supplemental contributions beyond the major gift already promised by David.

The fact that Solomon received yearly only 666 talents of gold, or about 25 tons, has a bearing on this problem, of course. But that amount in 2 Chronicles 9:13 did not include the money brought in by the merchants and traders and the kings of Arabia and governors of the land (2 Chron 9:14). Therefore assuming something much in excess of 25 tons of gold per year, David could have collected in almost 40 years a considerable amount of gold, since he was capturing and looting all the neighboring kingdoms, while Solomon could only depend on the revenue that came from taxes and trade.

Therefore, it is quite possible that this is another error in textual transmission, for

which numbers were especially susceptible in antiquity. But so far there is no way to prove the case either one way or the other. The jury is still out on this problem.

2 Chronicles

11:2–4 This Is the Lord’s Doing?

After the ten northern tribes had renounced their allegiance to King Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, Rehoboam decided that he would force these renegades to submit to his sovereignty and to pay the taxes which were their reason for leaving. This would have pitted brother against brother in open civil war.

But God sent his prophet Shemaiah to intervene. Rehoboam was commanded in the Lord’s name to abandon his attempt at a military solution. Shemaiah’s surprising announcement seemed to oppose all God’s previous promises. The prophet’s assurance that God had permitted the incident sealed the revolt but left us with a dilemma: How could the division of a nation be God’s doing if he had previously promised otherwise?

Having David’s glorious kingdom divided into ten northern tribes and two southern tribes seemed contrary to every provision that God had so graciously given from the time of the patriarchs on. How could God apparently aid a cause that contravened his plan for Israel?

The Lord approved the revolt not as the author of evil or as the instigator of the rebellion but as the one who must chastise the house of David which had refused to walk in his ways. Solomon had flouted the will and law of God by taking scores of foreign wives. These wives had turned him from the Lord and exposed him to divine anger.

Rehoboam had only increased the guilt of the house of David. The tribes were already overwhelmed by taxation and unsatisfying treatment of their complaints. They had demanded that the burdens Solomon had placed on them be lightened, not increased.

Instead, Rehoboam exacerbated the situation by deciding to tax them further.

The ten northern tribes already disliked and resisted the theocratic rule of the house of David. While they correctly detected Rehoboam’s wrong attitudes toward his responsibilities as king, Rehoboam’s treatment did not justify their actions. They chiefly rebelled against the God who had selected the dynasty of David and the tribe of Judah as the royal tribe. Apparently they felt such rule did not represent enough of their northern interests; the taxation issue was as good a reason as any for seceding (see 1 Kings 12:19–24).

Here we meet another passage where human freedom and divine sovereignty seem opposed. This phenomenon is especially prevalent in Chronicles. Once again we must note that the biblical writers did not always take time to spell out secondary causes; for what God permits, he is often said to do directly since he is ultimately in charge. What the North intended as a revolt against the South, and thereby against the plan of God, God used first to punish the house of David for its sin and second to reveal the North’s sinful tendencies and spiritual bankruptcy. This latter fact is underscored by the number of northern priests and Levites who abandoned their pasturelands and property to

come to Judah and Jerusalem. The northern king, Jeroboam, had rejected their priesthood! With them came all those who “set their hearts on seeking the Lord, the God of Israel” (2 Chron 11:16).

See also comment on genesis 50:19–21.

11:20 Who Was Absalom’s Daughter?

In 2 Samuel 14:27 Tamar is spoken of as the only daughter of Absalom. Why, then, is Maacah also called Absalom’s daughter?

Tamar was named after Absalom’s sister, whom Absalom’s half brother, Amnon, had raped, but whom Absalom avenged by killing him. Later Tamar married Uriel of Gibeah. Their daughter was Maacah, who married King Rehoboam, and was the mother of the next king, Abijam. Thus Rehoboam’s wife Maacah was actually the granddaughter of Absalom, through Absalom’s immediate daughter Tamar.

The use of the word daughter to fit the concept of granddaughter is a phenomenon not unknown in Hebrew. See the similar usage in Genesis 46:15, where the “sons” of Leah includes grandsons.

18:18–22 Is God the Author of Falsehood?

See comment on 1 kings 22:20–22.

35:22 Pharaoh Neco Spoke at God’s Command?

Few incidents in the life of Israel and Judah are as sad as this episode. Rarely had one of the nation’s monarchs so genuinely desired to serve God. Even as Josiah began his reign at the tender age of eight, he had purposed to walk in the ways of David and not in the ways of his evil father, Amon, and grandfather, Manasseh.

It was Josiah who had started the great reforms in Judah. These were followed by the discovery of the Book of the Law when the temple was cleaned in the eighteenth year of his reign, 621 b.c. When at age twenty-six Josiah first had the law of God read to him, he tore his robes in grief and true repentance before God. Here was one of history’s great men. His heart was responsive to God, and he did not hesitate to humble himself before God (2 Chron 34:27).

But in 609 b.c., when this king with all his potential for furthering the kingdom of God was only thirty-nine, he was struck down by one giant act of foolish disobedience.

In 2 Kings 23:25–37 the catastrophe is partially explained: Even though Josiah had followed the Lord with all his heart, soul and strength and had obeyed the law of Moses so that there was no king like him, yet God did not turn from his great wrath against Judah. God would still destroy Judah because of King Manasseh’s sins and the superficial repentance of the people. Such an explanation softens the blow of the pending tragedy.

In the Chronicles account, however, no such didactic connection was included.

Instead, Josiah’s godly obedience alone introduces the tragic episode: “After all this, when Josiah had set the temple in order” (2 Chron 35:20). This would seem to stress that Josiah was devoted to the temple right up to the end of his life.

The scene for Josiah’s end was now set. The Assyrian king Asshur-uballit had established a new capital at Carchemish in 610 b.c. The Egyptians were interested in helping the Assyrians, for they feared that the emerging fortunes of the Babylonians would upset the balance of power in the Near East. Thus in the summer of 609 b.c. a great Egyptian army moved up the Palestinian coast to join the Assyrians in a great counteroffensive.

A phrase in 2 Kings 23:29 sometimes translated “Neco went up against the king of Assyria” is better translated as “Neco went up on behalf of the king of Assyria, to the river Euphrates.” When translated accurately, this verse illuminates Josiah’s reason for fighting Neco.

Josiah viewed Neco’s advance as a menace to his own designs for a reunited Hebrew state. Josiah thought that any friend of the hated Assyrians must be his enemy.

Therefore he boldly disregarded all prophetic warnings to the contrary and directly intervened, trying to block the Egyptian army from joining the Assyrians.

Amazingly enough, in this case the prophetic warnings do not come from one of Israel’s traditional prophets but from a pagan Pharaoh who warns Josiah to halt his attempt to meddle with his mission. Neco claimed that “God has told me to hurry; so stop opposing God, who is with me, or he will destroy you” (2 Chron 35:21).

Then follow the mournful yet amazing words of the inspired writer: “Josiah, however, would not turn away from him, but disguised himself to engage him in battle. He would not listen to what Neco had said at God’s command, but went to fight him on the plain of Megiddo. Archers shot King Josiah, and … he died” (2 Chron 35:22–24).

This is indeed one of the strangest statements in Scripture, which we would dismiss as Egyptian propaganda had not the inspired writer confirmed that God did use a pagan monarch to warn Josiah and assist the Assyrians.

God had spoken to pagan kings previously without implying that they had become prophets of Israel or converted to worshiping the one true God (see Gen 12:17–20; 20:3–7; and Dan 4:1–3). The instrument was not the focal point of the prophecy; its content was. God had also previously spoken through the mouth of an ass (Num 22:28–31) and would later speak through a profane high priest (Jn 11:51). But King Josiah did not perceive that God could use such an instrument as a Pharaoh.

In an act reminiscent of King Ahab, Josiah disguised himself and went into a battle he was not supposed to be in. The archer’s arrow found its mark, and Josiah was carried away to die.

But the plan of God was still operating. Josiah, it had been prophesied by Huldah, would be gathered to his fathers and “buried in peace” (2 Chron 34:28). His “eyes

[would] not see all the disaster [God was] going to bring on [that] place and on those who live[d] [there].”

The event was so tragic that Jeremiah the prophet composed lamentations for Josiah.

But in spite of these laments, the people marched relentlessly toward the destruction

that would take place within twenty-three years of Josiah’s death. In fact, not more than three years after his death, in 606 b.c., the Babylonians, whom Josiah seemed to favor, took the first Hebrew captives, including the prophet Daniel and his three friends. In 597 b.c. Ezekiel was taken into exile. Finally the city fell and was burned down, temple included, in 586 b.c.

For one major blunder, a leader’s whole career ended. Yet graciously the record did not dwell on this one sin. Instead it attributed most of the cause to his grandfather Manasseh. Furthermore, the account of Josiah’s life magnanimously ends not by underscoring the king’s final weakness and disobedience, but by recalling Josiah’s

“acts of devotion” or “his goodness” (2 Chron 35:26). God’s commendation was

“Well done, good and faithful servant.” Thus out of tragedy, God was still working his purposes. What seemed a horrible end for God’s faithful servant-king was in fact a reward. He was spared the horror of viewing the demise of everything the nation and God had built in Judah during the preceding millennium and a half.

36:22–23 Did the Pagan King Cyrus Believe in the God of Israel?

See comment on ezra 1:1–2.

Ezra

1:1–2 Did the Pagan King Cyrus Believe in the God of Israel?

Does the text of Ezra 1:1 imply that Cyrus was using these titles for Yahweh, engaging in the task of building the temple in Jerusalem and releasing those who wished to return from their exile to Israel, because he was a convert to the Lord God of Israel?

The oral proclamation (which was also recorded in writing) referred to here is the famous “Edict of Cyrus.” A similar inscription from the same king was found by Hormuzd Rassam’s excavations of Babylon in 1879–82, called the “Cyrus Cylinder.”

This clay, barrel-shaped artifact demonstrates that Cyrus made similar proclamations concerning other people’s gods, so very little can be gained from his use of such terms as “Yahweh” (here translated “Lord”), “the God [or god] of heaven,” or even that God

“moved on his heart,” other than the fact that this king had a knack for being politically correct long before this term ever came into vogue.

From the writer’s point of view, it was Yahweh who had moved the heart of Cyrus to adopt a policy of repatriating and erecting the houses of worship of those peoples whom he helped to repatriate. The heart of the king, regardless of his own religious proclivities, is in the hand of the Lord (Prov 21:1).

Jeremiah had predicted that Judah would be seventy years in Babylonian captivity (Jer 25:1–12; 29:10). Some two hundred years prior to Cyrus’s day, Isaiah had foretold that a man named Cyrus would both enact the policy of repatriation and aid in the reconstruction of the temple; indeed, Cyrus would be the Lord’s “shepherd” (Is 44:28; 45:1).

Judah was not the only nation to benefit from Cyrus’s enlightened policies; his generosity went to all his subjects alike, to judge from those archaeological records

that are left to us. Cyrus probably, like the other Achaemenidian kings, was influenced by Zoroastrianism. No evidence exists that he ever became a believer in the Lord God who revealed himself in Israel and Judah.

3:8 Why the Discrepancy in Ages for Levitical Service?

See comment on numbers 4:3.

4:2 Why Refuse Help to Build the Temple?

Why would the returned exiles refuse a sincere offer to help with the construction of the temple of God, especially from those who also claimed to be worshipers of the true God? It seems a bit extreme and peculiar to just flatly refuse any kind of assistance.

What was the reason for their firm denial?

The persons who offered help were probably from the area of Samaria, though it is not explicitly stated. The Assyrians had imported large numbers of newcomers from all over the empire into Samaria and northern Israel after the fall of the capital in 722 b.c., in a policy of fragmenting the cultures so that a chance for a coordinated insurrection was minimal. This infusion of peoples further diluted the already watered-down faith of the northern kingdom, as the various ethnic and religious groups brought their own gods and religions with them. Where isolationism did not exist for a displaced ethnic group, religious syncretism was the order of the day.

Now the offer of these people to help build the temple was not as innocent as it appeared on the surface. They did not have the same convictions, share the same allegiance to the Word of God, or worship Yahweh alone. Though they claimed to worship the same God as the Jews did, their acknowledgment of him was in name only, for they simultaneously worshiped other gods (2 Kings 17:33). Such syncretism was not compatible with the exclusive demands that Yahweh made on his people.

Zerubbabel’s refusal to accept help, then, must not be viewed as being sinfully separatistic or just plain mistaken. No doubt the leaders of the province of Samaria viewed the emergence of a new, aggressive presence in Judah, one that enjoyed the favor of the imperial government of Persia, as a threat. Hence their offer to help in sharing the costs and labor in building the temple would have entailed a certain amount of control in the temple itself. It would appear that the offer had more of the overtones of political power than of pure neighborliness. It was for this reason that Zerubbabel refused help from these who usually were their enemies.

10:2–3 Let Us Send Away All These Women and Their Children!

The issue of divorce is never a pleasant topic, for those who are affected by it or for those who must interpret what the Scriptures say about it. This text arouses the question of whether divorce is a morally proper corrective for apostasy. If so, how can this be squared with the outright statement in Malachi 2:16 that God hates divorce?

The marriage problems in Ezra 9–10 began in this way. In the seventh year of Artaxerxes (458 b.c.), Ezra led a second group of Jewish exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem, only to learn that a serious problem existed in the community that had

developed under Zerubbabel. Influenced by leaders of this new community, the priests and Levites, along with others in Jerusalem, had intermarried with the pagan population they had found living in the land. When Ezra learned this, he ripped his garments and pulled out his hair in horror and grief. He was dumbfounded as to what to do.

At the evening sacrifice, Ezra fell on his knees in prayer before God, confessing his shame and guilt on behalf of his nation. As he prayed, others joined him in weeping and prayer. Suddenly, Shecaniah, one of the sons of Elam, proposed a solution: the people would acknowledge their sin and make a covenant with God that all pagan wives be put away. Ezra apparently agreed that this was the mind of the Lord, and so an announcement was made that in three days the putting away would take place.

On that third day, the people stood in the rain as Ezra intoned these words: “You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel’s guilt. Now make confession to the Lord, the God of your fathers, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives” (Ezra 10:10–11).

Now according to the list in Ezra 10, only 113 had taken foreign wives (17 priests, 6

Levites, 1 singer, 3 porters and 86 laity). Since the total number of families was something like 29,000, the size of the problem shrinks under closer scrutiny to about 0.4 percent. Nevertheless, the issue was not size but the severing of Israel’s marriage covenant with God, which forbade God’s people marrying persons outside the covenant.

Even before Israel had entered into the land, they had been warned not to intermarry with the inhabitants (Ex 34:11–16; Deut 7:1–5). Such intermarriage would inevitably result in idolatry. Though there were many intermarriages throughout Israel’s history, apparently many of these involved proselytes. The outstanding examples, of course, are Ruth, Rahab and Moses’ Cushite wife. But many others cannot be explained as converts; they often appear to be tolerated and left in the midst of God’s people.

Ultimately, this was one of the factors that led to God’s judgment and the Babylonian captivity.

What did Ezra do with these wives? The word translated “to send away” or “to cause to go out” in Ezra 10:3 is not the usual word for divorce. Nevertheless, that is what appears to have happened. Even more surprising, their solution is said to agree with the law!

Divorce was permitted under certain circumstances in Deuteronomy 24:1–4. Could it be that Ezra unlocked the meaning of that mysterious phrase “for something unseemly, shameful” or, as the NIV [NIV New International Version] translates it, “he finds something indecent about her”? This could not refer to adultery, as the law provided the death penalty in that case (Deut 22:22). Thus it had to be something else that brought shame on God’s people. What could bring greater shame than the breaking of the covenant relationship and the ultimate judgment of God on all the people? Perhaps Ezra had this passage in mind when he provided for the divorce of these unbelieving wives.

There are many questions that remain. Were the ostracized children and wives provided for? Were any attempts made to win them to faith in the one true God? No direct answers are given to these and similar questions, perhaps because these matters

were not germane to the main point of revelation.

Those attempting to show that Ezra rendered a questionable decision say he lost his prestige and influence in the community as a result of this decision. However, when the chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah is restored to its proper sequence, according to the textual claims and the most recent historical studies, Ezra was once again before the public during the revival of Nehemiah recorded in Nehemiah 8.

Are we left then with an argument for divorcing unbelieving spouses today? No! In fact, 1 Corinthians 7:12–16 says that if the unbeliever is willing to continue living with the believer, then they must not divorce, for the unbelieving partner is sanctified by the believer! However, should the unbeliever finally and irremediably desert the believer, the believer “is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace” (1

Cor 7:15). The object is to win the unbelieving spouse to Christ. But when an unbeliever chooses to desert his or her partner and marriage vows, then reluctantly the believer may let that one go, that is, sadly accept the divorce, with the right to be married to another.

See also comment on deuteronomy 24:1–4; malachi 2:16; mark 10:11–12.

Nehemiah

8:8 Making Clear the Book of the Law?

The issue in this verse concerns the word here translated as “making it clear”

( mƒp÷oµraµsû). Some render it “to translate.” This would mean that the exiles who had returned from seventy years of captivity in Babylon had become fluent in Aramaic but had lost their ability to understand the text of the Law as it was read in Hebrew.

But if these Jews really had lost their knowledge of Hebrew, then why were such postexilic books as 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi written in Hebrew? If the writers of these texts wanted to reach the Jewish audience of the fifth and fourth centuries b.c., why would they have chosen to use an archaic language that the people no longer grasped?

Approximately one week after the returnees had completed the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 6:15; 7:1), the people assembled in the square in front of the famous Water Gate (Neh 3:26). There Ezra, the scribe, began a public reading of the Torah of Moses (Neh 8:1).

Although Ezra is not recorded as having had a major part in the fifty-two-day rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, he now appeared on the scene as a spiritual leader and as the reader of the Law of God. Ezra had led an earlier return of some fifty thousand Jews from Babylon in 458 b.c. Nehemiah had come later, in 445 b.c., as a civil leader leading an aroused populace to quickly rebuild the walls of the holy city.

It was the first day of the month of Tishri, the day designated as the Feast of Trumpets (Lev 23:24; Num 29:1). As specified by the law, this was a day of rest and worship. It was a time of preparation for the most significant day in Israel’s religious calendar, the Day of Atonement, celebrated on the tenth of Tishri (approximately our September/October).

The assembly included all men, women and children who could understand (Neh 8:2).

The meeting began early in the morning, at the break of day, and Ezra read until midday—approximately six hours! He spoke from a wooden platform that accommodated not only his pulpit but also the thirteen Levites who helped him in this work. Just how these thirteen men functioned is not altogether clear. Did they assist him in the reading of the Law, or did they split the people up into small groups from time to time to assist them in their comprehension of what was being read?

As the Book of the Law was opened, the people stood to show their respect for the Word of God. Prior to the reading, however, Ezra led the people in a prayer of praise to the Lord their God. The people responded with “Amen! Amen!” as they lifted their hands and bowed down in worship to the Lord (Neh 8:6).

At this point the problematic verse appears. What does mƒp÷oµraµsû mean? Does it mean “to translate”—in this case, from Hebrew into the cognate tongue of Aramaic—

or does it mean to give an exposition of the passage and make the sense clear?

The root from which this word comes, paµraµsû, has the basic meaning “to make distinct or separate.” It could refer to the way the words were distinctly articulated, or better still, to the Law’s being read and expounded section by section. The word paµraµsûaµ, a cognate of the term we are considering, was used by the Hebrew Masoretic scribes to speak of dividing the Pentateuch into paragraphs or sections for each reading. Therefore, we cannot agree that the Levites were mere translators for the people. They “broke out” the standard Pentateuchal sections and followed the readings with exposition, “giving the meaning so the people could understand what was being read.”

The motive for observing this Feast of Trumpets (or Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year’s Day) was the people’s thanksgiving for God’s gracious assistance in rebuilding the wall. This goodness of God led them instinctively to want to hear more of God’s Word. They stood by the hour to listen intently to that Word and to have it explained to them.

There is no need to wonder why so many postexilic books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew. The only alleged evidence that the Jewish returnees could not speak Hebrew is this one word in Nehemiah 8:8, and there are no linguistic grounds for thinking that it means “translating.”

Esther

4:13–14 Esther—For Such a Time as This

Why does the book of Esther, which so wonderfully illustrates the doctrine of the providence of God, never once use the name of God? And what does this strange saying in Esther 4:14 mean? The sentence contains a figure of speech known as aposiopesis—a sudden breaking off of what was being said or written so that the mind is more impressed by what is left unsaid, it being too wonderful, solemn or awful to verbalize. In English this figure is sometimes called the “sudden silence.”

Taking the last problem first, it must be noted that the last clause in Esther 4:14 is

usually understood to mean “Who knows whether you have not for a time like this attained royalty?” This makes very good sense, but it cannot be justified linguistically.

The sentence contains an aposiopesis, since the object of “who knows” is unexpressed.

It is incorrect to translate the verse with a conditional “whether … not” (as in the RSV

[RSV Revised Standard Version] , for example) rather than “but that.” The omitted clause in the aposiopesis would be “what might not have been done.” The resulting translation, with the suppressed clause now included, would be “Who knows what might not have been done but that you attained to royalty for such a time as this?”

“Who knows” can also be translated “perhaps.” On that rendering, Mordecai would have said, “Perhaps you have attained to royalty [to the dignity of being queen] for a time like this [to use your position to deliver your people].” Thus Mordecai’s speech contains an urgent appeal to Esther to use her high position to preserve her fellow Jews from destruction.

The absence of God’s name from the book must also be faced. Many interpreters rightly focus on the phrase “another place” in Esther 4:14 (“if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place”). This particular phrase is one of the most debated yet most crucial in the book of Esther.

Did Mordecai have another individual in mind? Or did he think that some other world power would arise to deliver the Jews out of this empire?

Surely the Greek “A” text, Josephus, and 1 and 2 Targums are correct in seeing in

“another place” a veiled reference to God, just as the New Testament uses “kingdom of heaven” as a circumlocution for “the kingdom of God” and as 1 Maccabees 16:3

uses “mercy” as a veiled allusion to God. Often in later Talmudic literature, the word

“place” ( maµqoÆm) would be used in place of the name of God.

Furthermore, the fact that Esther asked the community of Jews to fast on her behalf (Esther 4:16) indicates that she and they sought divine help. Moreover, faith in the providence of God and his hand in history is illustrated throughout the book. In Esther, the wonderful works of God declare his name; there is no need to spell out that name when his hand and presence can be detected everywhere.

8:11 Approval of Slaughter?

Some object to this part of the Esther story, stating that no ruler would issue such an arbitrary decree sanctioning the slaughter of vast numbers of his subjects, including many unoffending citizens. But surely this appeal is not based on history; these objectors have not read much about the extent or excesses of despotic power.

The real point is not the apparent injustice the Jews called for. Rather, it was the enormous unfairness of the king’s original agreement with Haman to annihilate a total race of people. Therefore, if blame must be laid at someone’s feet, it must be at those of King Xerxes’.

Some have attempted to build a case for the fact that Haman was a descendant of the Amalekites whom Saul had been instructed to annihilate under the divine decree of the

“ban.” No certain evidence exists to certify this connection, however.

Whatever his motivation, Haman weaseled out of the king this foolish decree:

“Dispatches were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces with the order to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews—young and old, women and little children—on a single day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods” (Esther 3:13). Apparently, according to the laws of the Medes and the Persians, once a royal decree had been signed and issued it could not be retracted.

The only recourse that Xerxes had left was to countermand his previous decree with one extending the same privilege to the Jews. In fact, most have noted that Esther 8:11

is almost an exact duplicate of the original decree in Esther 3:13.

The posture of the Jews was one of self-defense. Their enemies attacked them with a vengeance, as can be seen in the death of five hundred in the citadel of Susa alone.

While this is not an incredibly large number if the population of Susa was about half a million, it surely speaks of the danger the Jews faced as a result of the hatred Haman had fanned into existence. Had self-defense been denied the Jews, they would have been in deep trouble indeed.

The text consistently shows the Jews as morally superior to their oppressors. It records three times that the Jews did not take advantage of the royal provision to plunder (Esther 9:10, 15–16). Presumably, they also were allowed to put to death women and little children as well as the armed forces that came against them (Esther 3:13). This the Jews refused to do, in accordance with God’s law. Instead, the text expressly says that they put to death only men (Esther 9:6, 12, 15). As defenders, the Jews did not attack nonmilitary targets. They themselves were the subjects of the attack.

In all the provinces, with an estimated population of one hundred million, seventy-five thousand of the enemy were slain. No mention is made of even one Jew being killed.

(The Greek version of this same text puts the number at fifteen thousand slain.) If some object that Esther was bloodthirsty in asking the king for a second day of such atrocities and killings (Esther 9:13), the response is found in Esther 9:12, where Xerxes himself was concerned that the Jews needed to do more to protect themselves from oppression.

True, Esther is made of stern stuff, but her character is not one easily described as vindictive. Her request was only for an added day of self-defense, not additional days to carry the battle to their enemy’s doorstep.

See also comment on 1 samuel 15:18.

Job

1:1 Was Job Perfect?

See comment on genesis 6:9.

1:6–12 Satan in Heaven?

Several points arrest our attention as we read this well-known story about the trials of Job. Who are these angels (“sons of God”) who come to present themselves before

God in Job 1:6? And who is “Satan”? Can he be the same being the New Testament calls by that name? If he is, what is he doing appearing before God? Finally, why does God permit Job to be tested, since the New Testament book of James makes it clear that God tempts no one?

This passage gives us a glimpse of a most extraordinary scene in the invisible world. Its most surprising feature is the presence of Satan, whom we otherwise know as the Prince of Darkness. This seems such an astonishing and unusual event that we are led to think that the Satan of the book of Job cannot be the Satan of later Scriptures. How could he have anything to do with light and the presence of God?

A moment’s reflection, however, will show that there is no dichotomy between the Satan of the Old Testament and the Satan of the New Testament. There is profound meaning in representing Satan as appearing before God, for he is thereby designated as subordinate and in subjection to divine control. He cannot act on his own discretion or without any boundaries. He must receive permission from the Sovereign Lord.

It used to be fashionable in scholarship to regard Satan in the book of Job as a creation of the author’s fancy, due to the paucity of references to Satan in the Old Testament.

Others attributed the origin of a concept of a personage of evil to Persia, perhaps the character Ahriman. But there are no striking similarities between Satan and Ahriman, nor bases for conjecturing a link between them.

Satan is not the phantom of some author’s imagination or an import from an ancient Near Eastern culture. Neither is he an impartial executor of judgment and overseer of morality, for he denies everything that God affirms. He has no love toward God and is bent on destroying whatever love he observes, except self-love. He is more than a cosmic spy. He is the accuser of God’s people, the destroyer of all that is good, just, moral and right. And he is similarly described in the New Testament.

Who, then, are the “sons of God,” referred to as “angels” in the NIV [NIV New International Version] and other translations? This same phrase is used in Genesis 6:2

(though with a different meaning), Psalm 29:1, Psalm 89:6 and Daniel 3:25.

They are called “sons”—thus they are beings that came forth from God and are in the likeness of God. They appear to serve as God’s attendants or servants to do his will.

One of these creatures withdrew himself from God’s love and became the enemy of God and of everything that is holy, righteous and good. This one is now called Satan, because he “opposes,” “resists” or “acts as an adversary” to the will of God.

This agrees with 1 Kings 22:19–22, Zechariah 3:1–2 and Revelation 12:7–8, where Satan is pictured as appearing among the good angels. Thus the whole course of redemption as described in the Bible covers the same time in which Satan manifests his enmity to God and during which his damnation is completed. The other “sons of God”

are God’s angels who do his bidding and thus stand for everything opposite to Satan and his practices.

As for the testings of Job, of course it can be said that God tempts no one. But the tempter, Satan, must receive permission from God to carry out even his work of harassment.

The book of Job is as much about God being on trial as it is about Job being tested. It was God who called Job to Satan’s attention. But Satan scoffed, suggesting that Job

had his reasons for serving God so faithfully. Job was a special focus of God’s love and attention—that’s why he served God, charged the accuser.

Though the Lord gave Satan opportunity to do his worst, Job refused to curse God as Satan had anticipated. On that score, Satan lost badly and God was vindicated.

Job did fear and worship God “for nothing.” He had not been bribed or promised a certain amount of health, wealth and prosperity if he would serve God completely, as Satan had charged. It is possible for men and women to love and fear God apart from any special benefits, or even when their circumstances are not conducive to faith. Job demonstrated that point marvelously well.

2:1–6 Does God Put People into Satan’s Hands?

Does God really put people into the hands of Satan merely to prove that he is right?

And what about the suffering of the person in the meantime?

What God permits or allows is sometimes directly attributed to him. This is not to say that God is the author or sponsor of evil. The evil that came to Job could not be laid at the feet of the Lord just because he gave the go-ahead sign to Satan. Satan must take full responsibility for all that happened to Job. There were boundaries that were set by God, thus proving he still was sovereign and in control of the situation.

Satan had a cause or a reason for what he did; it was to discredit God and to ruin Job.

But God had other purposes in mind. He wanted Job to grow through this experience.

God was not at fault because Satan did not believe what he said about Job or about his relationship with him; Satan was the one at fault. God needed no proof for himself that he was in the right, nor did Job need proof from God; it was the Evil One himself who was deficient.

See also comment on isaiah 45:7; lamentations 3:38–39.

13:15 Job—Defiant or Trusting?

The King James rendering of this verse is one of the most famous lines from the Old Testament: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” However, this beautiful affirmation of trust, though retained by the NIV [NIV New International Version] , has largely been abandoned by modern translators. The RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] has “Behold, he will slay me; I have no hope.” This turns Job’s determination to defend himself into what one writer called “a futile gesture of defiance, which he knows will be fatal.”

This response by Job comes at the end of the first round of speeches and sets the scene for Job’s second round with Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar. This hard saying comes in the midst of a speech (Job 12–14) exceeded in length only by Job’s final speech in Job 29–

31. The verses surrounding the text exude trust that Job will be vindicated (Job 13:18).

He is prepared to defend himself and his ways, if need be, to God’s face (Job 13:15).

His principle is stated in Job 13:16: “No godless man would dare come before him!”

But that is just what Job claims he is not, “a godless man.”

With Job’s protests ringing in our ears, we may now attempt to understand Job 13:15.

Job is not saying, as many moderns claim, that he is going to stand up for his rights and have his say—even if it kills him! This view assumes Job cares less about life than about ending his suffering and having his prosperity back.

But the view violates the flow of the context. Job does expect, at least at this point, to be vindicated. The pessimism of moderns and the RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] just does not fit.

The chief translation problem is the verb, which can be translated “trust,” “wait,”

“hesitate” or “tremble.” But the mood of the context should help us decide which it is.

Whether Job’s confidence is expressed as one of waiting, hoping or trusting is not half as important as the fact that he is confident and expects full vindication.

How then shall we translate the apparently negative statement in the RSV [RSV

Revised Standard Version] ’s “I have no hope”? It is probably best handled as an assertative loµ> , which would be “certainly,” in place of the usual emphatic Hebrew lƒ. We conclude that the KJV [KJV King James Version] ’s rendering is the one to retain. To agree with the RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] would have Job staging a type of bravado similar to what his wife had advised: “Curse God and die.”

What does Job mean by the expression “Though he slay me”? It figuratively means

“No matter what happens to me, I still remain confident that I will be vindicated, for I know I am innocent and I know the character of God.”

14:7–14 Bodily Resurrection?

See comment on job 19:23–27.

19:23–27 Bodily Resurrection?

Here is a passage notoriously difficult to translate yet celebrated worldwide for its strong affirmation of faith in a bodily resurrection. Much depends on the authenticity and meaning of the central declaration, “my Redeemer lives.”

One point on which everyone can agree is that Job expected to “see God,” for he made the point three times. Nor did Job expect this visual experience to occur to a disembodied shade or ghost. His references to his skin, flesh and eyes make that abundantly plain. He even used the emphatic pronoun I three times in Job 19:27. It is clear that he expected personally to see God. But when?

Job was willing to stake his reputation on a future vindication of a permanent written record of his claims that he was innocent. Job wanted that record chiseled onto the hardest rock and then filled in with lead to lessen the chance that time or defacers would blot out the text.

One thing was sure, Job “knew that his Redeemer lives.” The one who would stand up to defend Job was called his goµ<eµl, his “kinsman-redeemer” or “vindicator.” This kinsman-redeemer basically functioned as the avenger of the blood of someone unjustly killed (2 Sam 14:11). He had the right to preempt all others in redeeming property left by a kinsman (Ruth 4:4–6). He also recovered stolen items (Num 5:8) or vindicated the rights of the oppressed (Prov 23:10–11). He was one who redeemed, delivered and

liberated.

In the Psalms, God was cast into this role of kinsman-redeemer (see Ps 19:14). God was that vindicator or redeemer for Job as well.

But when did Job hope to be cleared by God—before or after death? Apparently, as Job debated with his friends, he progressively lost hope in being cleared in this life (Job 17:1, 11–16). But vindication would come one day. Hence the need for a written testimony of his complaint. Job believed that even if a person were cut down in life just as a tree was, the tree and the person would share the same hope—that a “shoot”

would sprout out of the stump (Job 14:14). Even though it might take time (see “after”

in Job 19:25–26), he hoped in the end for God’s vindication.

In what state would Job be when that took place? Would he have a body or only a spirit, or would he be merely a memory? Job believed he would have a body, for only from inside that body (Job 19:26) and with his own eyes (Job 19:27) would he see God. He made the point that the experience would have a direct impact on his own eyeballs, and not on someone else’s eyes. Thus Job was expecting a resurrection of his body! It was this which lay at the heart of his hope in God and in his vindication.

If some complain, as they surely will, that this is too advanced a doctrine for such primitive times (probably patriarchal), I would respond that long before this, Enoch had been bodily translated into heaven (Gen 5:24). The fact that this mortal body could inhabit immortal realms should have settled the abstract question forever. Indeed, the whole economy of Egypt was tied to the expectation that bodily resurrection was not only possible but also probable. That expectation had functioned a full millennium and a half before Abraham went down into Egypt. Thus our modern complaints about bodily resurrections say more about modern problems than about ancient culture.

See also comment on genesis 5:23–24; 25:8; psalm 49:12, 20; ecclesiastes 3:19–21.

25:4–6 Man Is But a Maggot?

The words sting: “Man, who is but a maggot—a son of man, who is only a worm!”

The words, however, come from Bildad, not the inspired writer of the book of Job.

But Bildad was not all that original, especially in this final round of speeches by Job’s three “friends.” Many of Bildad’s best lines were pirated either from Job or from Eliphaz.

The first issue here is whether anything in this speech expresses God’s point of view. Is it revelation or only an accurate description of what took place, of no normative or prescriptive value? Second, one must ask if Bildad’s extreme position runs counter to the truth that humans are made in God’s image.

To the first question, most commentators answer that what is recorded is a true description or report of what Bildad said, but not normative teaching. This is acceptable until what Bildad says involves concepts that the author of Job or God reinforces in the book itself. Then we may be sure that those concepts too are normative for believers.

Bildad contrasted the imperfection of humanity with the majesty of God. In order to make his point, he modified the arguments of Eliphaz in Job 4:17–19 and Job 15:14–

16. Indeed, the clause “How can a mortal be righteous before God?” (Job 25:4) reproduced verbatim Job’s question in Job 9:2. The second part of the line in verse 4

again borrowed from Job in Job 15:14: “What is man, that he could be pure, or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?” Thus the question was an authoritative one, placing the allusion to humans as being compared to maggots or worms in its proper perspective.

This text must not be used to devalue the dignity or worth that God has placed in men and women. They truly are made in God’s image. But nothing can better portray the relative position of mortals when compared to God’s majesty than these references to individuals as grubs or crawling earthworms. The statement is not an absolute one but one of comparison. Nothing more vividly demonstrates the misery of man than Bildad’s statement. The psalmist shared this sentiment when he bemoaned on behalf of the Suffering Servant, “But I am a worm and not a man” (Ps 22:6).

In Bildad’s thought, as in Job 4:19 and 15:16, the emphasis falls on the fragility and the corruptibility of mortal beings. This is further emphasized by Bildad’s word choices for humans that stress weakness and their link to the soil.

The contrast is more striking after the soaring thought that God is on high, reigning above. The same sentiment is even found in an ancient Mesopotamian wisdom text which also wrestled with theodicy. It asked, “Was ever sinless mortal born?”

Job answered that question with divine authority, “No, especially when you place mortal man next to the brilliant majesty and the purity of the living God!”

31:1 New Testament Morality or Old?

It is commonly said that Jesus expanded or deepened the morality of the Old Testament. One example from the Sermon on the Mount is “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:27–28).

But how can that understanding of Jesus’ statement be accurate, given Job’s claim in Job 31:1? Note that Jesus did not in fact contrast what he said with what the Old Testament taught. If one carefully notes the language of Matthew 5, it contrasts what

“you have heard” with what Jesus said.

Since our Lord is the author of the Old Testament as well as the New, it can hardly be appropriate to see the two in opposition to each other, unless we assume that God can contradict himself. Instead, what is being contrasted is the oral tradition of the Jewish community of that day with the written and personal revelation of Jesus Christ. Thus, for example, Matthew 5:43 says that conventional wisdom dictated, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” Nowhere in the Old Testament can one find a verse supporting the second half of that bit of advice. This confirms that the opposition Jesus set up was between what passed for truth in the public mind (some of that being correct and some of it being plain wrong) and what God wants us to know and do.

But what of Job’s claim? Some contend, with a great deal of persuasive evidence, that he lived during the patriarchal age. But could a man living between 2000 and 1750 b.c.

have made as high an ethical statement as Job makes here?

Job clearly was concerned about more than external behaviors. He offered daily sacrifices on behalf of all his children, for he feared that they might have sinned inwardly (Job 1:5). Here, then, was a man who thought about his own internal intentions and those of others. Can we be all that surprised to learn that he had decided to shun not only all acts of adultery but also the wrong desires that form in the eye and the heart?

Desires arising from greed, deceit and lust were taboo in this man’s life. Coveting a woman was just as much a sin as the act of adultery itself. Both the desire and the act were culpable before God and renounced by this Old Testament man who “feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3).

The point made in Job 31:1 is repeated in Job 31:9–12. There Job once again denies that he has been guilty of adultery; he has committed no sinful acts and has in fact restrained all the drives that could lead to such acts. He rejected all inducements to adultery.

The obligation Job laid on his eyes is consistent with warnings in other wisdom literature in which “the eye” is seen as the source of evil impulses (Prov 6:17; 10:10; 30:17). The eye also is viewed as the seat of pride (Prov 30:13) and, in the Apocryphal wisdom books, as the source of sexual desire (Sirach 9:8; 26:9).

Job’s claim to have made a covenant with his eyes and a determination not to look upon or turn his thoughts toward an unmarried girl or another man’s wife corresponds well with Ben Sirach’s teaching (Sirach 9:5). Moreover, Job 31:3–4 makes it clear that he expected divine retribution if he failed, and that he would have to answer to God, not society, for any lapses in morality.

His covenant was no manifestation of moral heroism on his part, but a decision that was in accord with the Word of God. In fact, according to Job 31:4, Job realized that God saw everything; all of a person’s ways were open before the Lord. Again, this concept of God’s awareness of all a person does and thinks is echoed in other wisdom teaching (for example, Ps 33:13–15; 69:5; 94:11; 119:168; 139; Prov 5:21).

On these points there is very little difference between the moral expectations of the New Testament and those of the Old. The teaching of our Lord through Job’s book and the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are harmonious.

See also comment on matthew 5:28.

40:15; 41:1 Mythological Creatures?

Are these two monsters mere animals such as the hippopotamus and the crocodile, or are they mythological creatures? If they are mythological, what are they doing in a sober biblical account?

All who regard these two creatures as being literal animals, such as the Egyptian hippopotamus and crocodile, must admit that the description of them given in Job verges far on the side of hyperbole and is an exaggeration of their appearances and power. The name behemoth is a feminine plural Hebrew noun commonly used for animals or cattle. Even though it is a feminine plural word, all the verbs describing it here are masculine singular, thereby forcing us to treat behemoth with intensive force,

meaning “the beast par excellence.”

But is the alternative to regard them as pure mythology that has crept into the biblical text? No, it is quite conceivable that the text uses mythological terminology to present graphically the powers of evil. Similar mythopoetic language is used in Psalm 74:13–

14, which refers to the breaking of the “heads” of the monster t_annéÆnéÆm and the “heads” of Leviathan; here both monsters refer to the power of Egypt that was smashed when Israel crossed the Red Sea.

In Job 41:1 Leviathan is declared to be too powerful for mortals to handle; God alone can handle him. Neither can anyone capture behemoth (Job 40:24). Some scholars have guessed that Behemoth was the largest of all land animals, a mighty dinosaur, while Leviathan was the largest and fiercest of all the aquatic dinosaurs. Such animals may well have lain behind the spiritual applications.1 [1 Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Record of Job (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1988), pp. 111–25.]

When the Lord tells Job of his dominion over Behemoth and Leviathan, he merely illustrates what he has already said in Job 40:8–14. He is the one who has triumphed over the forces of evil. Satan has been proven wrong, though Job does not know about it. The forces of moral disorder, though veiled under mythopoetic language about ferocious and untamable creatures, are used here as a symbol of those who can only be handled by God behind the scenes on behalf of all who must suffer in ignorance of what is ultimately going on.

Therefore, the Bible does not give even tacit credence or approval to any pagan mythology; but it will borrow some of its terms and language to depict exotic aspects of the titanic struggle against evil and unrighteousness that goes on behind the scenes.

That is what is illustrated here in Job.

See also comment on psalm 74:13–14.

Psalms

5:5 The Lord Hates All Who Do Wrong?

How can a God of love and mercy be categorized as one who hates? Yet this verse (as well as Psalm 11:5) clearly affirms that God does hate wrongdoers, the wicked and all who love violence. What makes such a strong contrast possible?

Scriptural talk about God’s hatred involves an idiom that does not suggest a desire of revenge. Why would God feel any need for getting even, when he is God?

Our problem with any description of God’s displeasure with sin, unrighteousness or wickedness is that we define all anger as Aristotle defined it: “the desire for retaliation.” With such a definition of anger goes the concept of anger and hatred of sin as a “brief madness” or “an uneasiness or discomposure of the mind, upon receipt of an injury, with the purpose of revenge.” All such notions of hatred, anger and displeasure in the divine being are wide of the mark and fail to address the issues involved. Better is the definition of the third-century church father Lactantius: anger is “a motion of the soul rousing itself to curb sin.”

The problem is that anger can be dangerously close to evil when it is left unchecked

and without control. Who could charge God with any of these common human faults?

Thus we often object upon being told that God is angry with our sin and that he absolutely hates wrongdoing, violence and sin. Our concept of anger and our experiences with it have all too frequently involved loss of control, impulsiveness and sometimes temporary derangement. No wonder no one wants to link those kinds of thoughts with God!

But God’s anger toward sin is never explosive, unreasonable or unexplainable. It is never a force that controls him or a ruling passion; rather, it always remains an instrument of his will. His anger has not, therefore, shut off his compassion (Ps 77:9).

Instead, God’s anger marks the end of indifference. He cannot and will not remain neutral and impassive in the presence of injustice, violence or any other sin. While God delights in doing good to his creatures (Jer 32:41) rather than expressing evil, he will unleash his anger and wrath against all sin. Yet Scripture pictures his anger as lasting only for a moment, in contrast to his love, which is much more enduring (Ps 30:5). His love remains (Jer 31:3; Hos 2:19), while his anger passes quickly (Is 26:20; 54:7–8; 57:16–19).

Passions are not in themselves evil. Kept under control, they are avenues of virtue.

And our Lord is not without emotions just because he is God. In fact, divine anger ( ira Dei) has been sharply debated in the history of the church as the question of divine passibility (that is, God’s capacity to feel, suffer or become angry) versus his impassibility (imperviousness to emotion). Teachings issuing from Gnosticism (a philosophy that combined Greek and Eastern ideas with Christian teaching) forced the church to develop a doctrine of divine passibility—that God could indeed experience feelings, suffer, and be angry.

One Gnostic best known for his view that God never took offense, was never angry and remained entirely apathetic was Marcion. Marcion was expelled from the church and his doctrines were anathematized in a.d. 144. Tertullian, one of the church fathers, tried to answer Marcion on this point in his work Against Marcion, but he unfortunately concluded that God the Father was impassible while the Son was passible and irascible—that is, able to exercise anger. Tertullian, at this point, was more Platonic than scriptural. In the last half of the third century Lactantius wrote De Ira Dei (The Anger of God), arguing that passions and emotions were not bad in and of themselves. What was evil was not being angry in the presence of sin! Nonetheless, other church fathers, Thomas Aquinas and the Protestant Reformers all taught impassibility. Only in the last two centuries has impassibility been challenged again on biblical grounds.

God’s hatred of evil is not some arbitrary force, striking where and when it wishes without any rhyme or reason. Instead, his anger against sin is measured and controlled by his love and his justice. Expressions of his outrage against the evil perpetrated on earth are actually signals that he continues to care deeply about us mortals and about our good.

See also comment on nahum 1:2–3; malachi 1:2–3.

8:3 Poetic? Figurative? Historical?

See comment on genesis 1–2.

8:6–8 Exploiting Nature?

See comment on genesis 1:28.

11:5 The Lord Hates All Who Do Wrong?

See comment on psalm 5:5.

15:5 Is Charging Interest Permitted?

See comment on exodus 22:25.

16:8–10 Who Is “Your Holy One”?

Few psalms give rise to as many important methodological and theological questions as does Psalm 16. And few passages from the Old Testament are given a more prominent place in the New Testament witness about Jesus as the Messiah. In fact, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter made Psalm 16 the showpiece in his arsenal of arguments to prove that Jesus was the expected Messiah (Acts 2:25–33).

This opinion has not, however, been shared among all Bible scholars. Some protest that in Jewish exegesis Psalm 16 is not traditionally understood to refer to the Messiah.

It does not support the contentions the apostles built on it, argue many scholars; in particular, it does not predict the resurrection of Christ. These arguments are serious enough to warrant our considering this psalm among the hard sayings of the Old Testament.

According to its ancient title, Psalm 16 came from the hand of David. The particular events in David’s life that occasioned the writing of this psalm are not known, but three principal suggestions have been made: (1) a severe sickness, (2) a time when he was tempted to worship idols during his stay at Ziklag (1 Sam 30) and (3) his response to Nathan’s prophecy about the future of his kingdom (2 Sam 7). My preference lies with the third option, since it fits best with the messianic content of the psalm.

The psalmist has experienced a time of unbounded joy and happiness, knowing that he is secure under the sovereignty of Yahweh (Ps 16:1). The Lord himself is David’s

“portion” (Ps 16:5) and his “inheritance” (Ps 16:6). There is no good beside the Lord.

The psalmist reverts to the Hebrew imperfect tense as he begins to think and talk about his future and the future of the kingdom God has given him (Ps 16:9). David will rest secure, for neither he nor God’s everlasting “seed” (here called “Holy One,” h

\aµséÆd_) will be left in the grave. God has made a promise that his “seed” or “Holy One” will experience fullness of joy and pleasure in God’s presence forever.

One of the most frequently asked questions is whether this reference to not being abandoned in the grave expresses the psalmist’s hope for a future resurrection or his faith that God will watch over his body and spirit and preserve him from all harm on

this earth.

The answer hangs on the meaning and significance of the word h\aµséÆd_, “Holy

[or Favored] One.” H\aµséÆd_ occurs thirty-two times in the Old Testament, all in poetic texts; seventeen times it is in the plural and eleven times in the singular, and four times there are variant readings. The best way to render it is with the passive, “one to whom God is loyal, gracious or merciful,” or better, “one in whom God manifests his grace and favor.”

In Psalm 4:4[5] David claims that he is Yahweh’s h\aµséÆd_. Likewise, Psalm 89:19–20 connects David with this term: “Of all you spoke to your h\aµséÆd_ in a vision and said: ‘I have set the crown on a hero, I have exalted from the people a choice person. I have found David my servant [another messianic term] with my holy oil, and I have anointed him [a cognate term for Messiah]’” (my translation).

What else can we conclude but that David and Yahweh’s “Holy One” are one and the same?

As early as Moses’ era, there is a reference to “the man of your h\aµséÆd_ whom you [Israel] tested at Massah” (Deut 33:8; see Ex 17, where water came out of the rock at Massah as Moses struck it). The only “man” who was tested in Exodus 17:2, 7

was the Lord. Thus, h\aµséÆd_ seems to be identified with the Lord. Hannah also spoke of the coming h\aµséÆd_ in the phrase “the horn of his anointed” (1 Sam 2:9–

10)—a concept confirmed as being messianic by Psalm 89:17–21.

The seventeen plural usages should not present any problems to this interpretation.

The oscillation between the One and the many is exactly what is presented when all Israel is called the “seed” of Abraham, yet Christ is that “Seed” par excellence. The same phenomenon occurs with the words “anointed one,” “servant” and “firstborn.”

Each is used in the plural as well as the singular.

Thus the apostle Peter was fully within the proper bounds of scriptural interpretation in his treatment of Psalm 16. The man David did indeed die, but the h\aµséÆd_ was eternal. David himself was an anointed one, but the Anointed One was eternal and thus the guarantee of David’s confidence about the future.

David the individual went to his grave and experienced decay, but the ultimate fulfillment of Yahweh’s eternal promise did not cease to exist. He experienced resurrection from the grave, just as David foresaw under the inspiration of the Spirit as he wrote Psalm 16.

18:26 Does God Practice Deception?

See comment on exodus 3:18.

22:1 A Prophecy of Christ’s Passion?

Psalm 22 is one of the best-known psalms because the Passion narratives in the Gospels refer to it quite frequently. In fact, Psalm 22 was the principal resource employed by the New Testament evangelists as they attempted to portray the life, death and resurrection of Jesus to show that he was the Messiah.

Of the thirteen (some count seventeen) major Old Testament texts that are quoted in the Gospel narratives, nine come from the Psalms, and five of those from Psalm 22.

The best known of them all is the cry of dereliction, “Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani”

(Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34).

The problem is this: how do we move from the context of the psalmist to that of our Lord? In what sense were the psalmist’s words appropriately applied to Jesus as well as to their original speaker (who probably was David, according to the psalm’s ancient title)?

The psalm does not immediately appear to have been written as a direct prediction. In fact some claim that the psalm actually contains nothing that its human author or its original readers would have recognized as pertaining to the Messiah.

The psalm begins by expressing grief and suffering in what is known as the “lament”

form. In Psalm 22:22, however, the lament turns into a psalm of thanksgiving and praise for the deliverance that has been experienced. Structural divisions are clearly marked by the emphatic use of certain words: “my God” and “yet you” (Ps 22:1, 3),

“but I” (Ps 22:6), “yet you” (Ps 22:9) and “but you” (Ps 22:19).

What in this text forces us to look beyond David to a messianic interpretation, as the church has done for two millennia? One of the first clues is the strong adversative that comes in verse 3 with its reference to the “Holy.” This adjective may function as an attribute (“Yet you are holy”) or as a reference to the divine person himself, as in the NIV [NIV New International Version] ’s “Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One.”

If the second option, “Holy One” ( qaµd_oÆsû), is the correct rendering, as I believe it is, then it is interesting that this Holy One is further linked with the coming Man of Promise “in [whom the] fathers [Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others] put their trust” (Ps 22:4). From Genesis 15:1–6 it is clear that the patriarchs did not merely put their trust in God (as simple theists); they rested their faith in the “seed” promised to Abraham (in lieu of Abraham’s offer to adopt his Arab servant Eliezer). To this same Lord the psalmist turned for deliverance when he was beset by some unspecified suffering and anguish.

Yet the psalmist’s suffering was merely illustrative of the suffering that would come to the Messiah. What happened to David in his position as head of the kingdom over which the Lord himself would one day reign was not without significance for the kingdom of God. To attack David’s person or realm, given that he was the carrier and the earnest of the promise to be fulfilled in Christ’s first and second comings, was ultimately to attack God’s Son and his kingdom.

Small wonder, then, that this psalm was on Jesus’ mind as he hung on the cross. The so-called fourth word from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

and the sixth word, “It is finished,” come from the first and last verses of this psalm.

Not only is the first verse quoted in two Gospels, but Psalm 22:7–8 is clearly alluded to in Matthew 27:39, 43; Psalm 22:18 is quoted directly in John 19:24 and in part in Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24 and Luke 23:34; and Psalm 22:22 is quoted directly in Hebrews 2:12. The final verse, Psalm 22:31, is cited, in part, in John 19:30. No wonder this psalm has been called “the Fifth Gospel.”

I conclude that the God in whom David’s forefathers trusted—the Man of Promise, the

Messiah—is the same one to whom David now entrusts his life as he experiences savage attacks. And those attacks were only a foreshadowing of what the Messiah himself would one day face.

But there is really no despair here. Triumph was certain; the dominion of the coming One would be realized (Ps 22:28). Just as God sat down and rested at the conclusion of creation, there would be a day when the Lord would cry, “It is finished!” as redemption was completed. Yet even this would be only a foretaste of the final shout of triumph in Revelation 21:6 over the fulfillment of the new heavens and new earth:

“It is done.”

John Calvin observed, “From the tenor of the whole [psalm], it appears that David does not here refer merely to one persecution, but comprehends all the persecutions which he suffered under Saul.”1 [1 John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1845), 1:357.]

Though that is doubtless true, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit David went beyond the boundaries of all his own sufferings as he pictured the one who would suffer an even greater agony.

Yes, David did see the sufferings of that final one who would come in his life; but he also saw that the Messiah would emerge victorious, with a kingdom that would never fail.

37:25–26 The Psalmist Has Never Seen the Righteous Forsaken?

One wonders where the psalmist has been all his life if he has never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread. David must surely have seen good people in great difficulties!

But this misses the psalmist’s point. He did not question that the righteous may be temporarily forsaken, needy and poor. Rather, he observed that nowhere can it be shown that the righteous have experienced continued desertion and destitution.

David himself had plenty of opportunity to complain that God had forgotten him. For example, he had to beg rich Nabal for bread. Therefore, it is important to note that David carefully sets his statement in the context of life’s long haul, for he had been young and now he was much older.

Thus, what looks like desertion to those taking a short view of life is actually only a passing phase. A full trust in God will prove the reverse when life has been viewed from his perspective.

This acrostic psalm was designed to meet the very temptation assailing anyone in such dire circumstances. It contrasts what ultimately endures with the transitory. However, this does not mean God has not also provided, in some measure, relief even in this present life. As our Lord would later teach, those who seek first the kingdom of God will have all other things given to them according to their needs.

In fact, our Lord taught us to ask for our daily bread. Thus what is a command is also a promise. He invites us to pray for that which he wishes to give to us.

God does not abandon his people; he cares for them and provides for them. For those who have lived long enough in this world to see that God does finally right wrongs and

avenge gross injustice, the psalmist’s declarations ring true even if the short term offers many temporary exceptions.

If we are sure that God’s watch-care includes his concern for even the small sparrows, should we think he will allow his children to go unloved and uncared for in this present age? While some may experience a temporary sense of being forsaken, that cannot and will not be their continued experience.

If it be objected, as I have already conceded, that some wrongs and deprivations never appear to be righted in this life, two further points must be made. First, the truth expressed here is proverbial in form. Proverbs gather up the largest amount of experience that fits the case without pausing to speak to the exceptions or to nuance the general teaching with the fewer, but real, objections. Such is the very nature of proverbs and the way we must understand them. If we press contemporary or biblical proverbs into being exhaustive treatments of every topic they comment on, our teaching and practice will become simplistic and reductionistic.

Second, the psalmist deliberately mentions the second generation as being the recipients of God’s blessing. Thus, while some Third World peoples struggle with poverty, famine and starvation, out of the ashes of such real sorrow and pain often comes a whole new opportunity for the children who survive. The point is this: in the long haul, God does not forsake his own whether they have little or much; their children will be blessed!

44:23–26 Does God Sleep?

How strange is this accusation that the Lord may be sleeping and need to be aroused!

Other psalms, including Psalms 7, 35, 59, 73 and 74, also speak of God as sleeping or arising from sleep, just as other Near Eastern deities are said to do. But Psalm 121:4

asserts just the opposite: “Indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.”

Bernard Batto2 [2 Bernard Batto, “When God Sleeps,” Bible Review 3 (1987): 16–23, and “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty,” Biblica 68 (1987): 153–77.] has attempted to argue that in Near Eastern mythology to sleep undisturbed was a symbol of the supreme deity’s unchallenged authority. He further argued that the motif as applied to Yahweh expressed Israel’s belief in Yahweh’s absolute kingship. He could be counted on to

“awaken” and to maintain justice and order.

Batto’s explanation of Psalm 121:4 is not satisfactory; the sleeping deity image here, he counters, is turned around as an image of one who is ever vigilant, allowing not the slightest evil to be tolerated. Exactly; but which is correct? Or are we to have it both ways: Yahweh sleeps but he never slumbers? Furthermore, why is Elijah’s taunt effective when he mockingly suggests that the prophets of Baal should call louder to awaken him, for he is known to sleep at times? Surely Elijah is not reciting their theology approvingly.

Batto believes that the motif of divine rest is connected with the theme of sleeping. In this association of ideas, he may well be on to something important. Scripture does declare that as God concludes his work in creation he rests. Is it from this moment of leisure that he is now called to “awake” and act on behalf of the one in trouble? It is to

be noted that Psalms 7, 35 and 59 are all laments of an individual who is in dire straits.

But in each case they are confident that God will “arise” in time to vindicate them.

Thus there is an element of poetic license and the use of an anthropomorphism to describe God’s action.

Psalm 44 represents the believing community’s search for answers after suffering military defeats of national proportion. The problem raised was this: if the king and the people have been faithful to the covenant (Ps 44:18–22), then why was God unfaithful to his promise to deliver and defend?

There is no attempt here to give either a theological or a practical solution. In fact, this psalm is one of the clearest examples of a search for some cause or reason for national disasters besides deserved punishment by God for sin and guilt. The psalmist exclaims in exasperation, “Yet for your sake we face death all day long” (Ps 44:22). The wrath they experienced on this occasion had little to do with their sin but more to do with the spiritual battle between their enemies and the Lord they served. Theirs was a faith that went beyond any available evidences or handy theologies, but they continued to believe, to trust and to pray.

Accordingly, the psalm contrasts the glorious past (Ps 44:1–8) with some present disaster (Ps 44:9–16). God seemed not to have been with the army when they had gone out to battle (Ps 44:9). Israel’s defeat had made them a reproach and the scorn of their enemies (Ps 44:13–14). All this had happened even though Israel had not forgotten God (Ps 44:17–18); nevertheless, God had crushed them with a humiliating defeat (Ps 44:19).

In spite of all of this ignominy and shame, their prayer and hope still centered on the Lord (Ps 44:23–26). This prayer is phrased in military terms. The call for God to awake and to arouse himself here does not refer to sleep but to a military action similar to that in the Song of Deborah in Judges 5:12: “Wake up, wake up, Deborah! Wake up, wake up, break out in song! Arise, O Barak! Take captive your captives.” The same battle chant was used time and time again when the ark of the covenant was raised at the head of the procession as Israel went forth into battle: “Whenever the ark set out, Moses said, ‘Rise up, O Lord! May your enemies be scattered; may your foes flee before you’” (Num 10:35).

The prayer is for divine help in the crisis that may have continued even though the battle had been lost. Perhaps the same war continued. “Rise up and help us” (Ps 44:26), they cried in the psalm. But the final word of the psalm is the confidence that God would yet help them because of his unfailing love—that word of grace which occurs in the Old Testament over two hundred and fifty times and speaks of God’s unmerited lovingkindness, mercy and grace (Ps 44:26).

Therefore, this psalm does not contradict the psalm which assures us that our God never slumbers or sleeps. He does not! That God sometimes defers his punishments and extends apparently unwarranted tolerance to the wicked and their evil indicates to the superficial observer that God sleeps and needs rousing. But such divine long-suffering and mercy must not be confused with indifference or unawareness on his part. Furthermore, the language is not the language of weariness or slumber, but the language of a call for God to march forth to defend his holy name and his kingdom.

45:6 The Throne of God or Man?

How are the words “Your throne, O God” to be understood? In what sense could any mortal’s throne be connected with deity? And if it is a statement that applies to divinity, then in what sense can it apply to any earthly throne?

Not a few scholars, daunted by what they consider to be insuperable difficulties with the text as it stands, have suggested a long list of emendations, yet without any manuscripts to warrant such revisions and with no consensus of opinion as to which is correct.

It is clear that the ancient versions uniformly treat <ƒloµhéÆm, “God,” as a vocative (that is, as a noun of address—“O God,” as found in the NIV [NIV New International Version] ), even though it has no article attached to the divine name. <EloµhéÆm appears as a vocative with the presence of the article only once (Judg 16:28), but in fifty other cases there is no article present in the Hebrew.

Translators have been forced to concede that they must deal with the words that are before us in the Hebrew text. But since this phrase appears in such a succinct form of Hebrew poetry, at least five different ways of interpreting this phrase have been set forth.3 [3 See Murray Harris, “Elohim in Psalm 45,” Tyndale Bulletin 35 (1984): 65–89, for a detailed discussion of these alternatives.]

The RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] adopts a genitival relationship, suggesting possession or source: “Your throne of God,” that is, “the throne God has given you”

or “the throne established and protected by God.” Yet this will not work, since the word throne has two different kinds of genitives or possessives—a construction without parallel in the rest of the Old Testament.

R. A. Knox’s rendering, “God is the support of your throne,” is grammatically possible (as it uses <ƒloµhéÆm either as a subject or as a predicate, with the idea that God is the creator or sustainer of the king’s rule), but it runs into conceptual problems. Even in a book where bold metaphors are used, the concepts of God and of a throne are much too dissimilar to permit their easy linkage. How could any human throne belong to the category of divine beings (“is God”)? Furthermore, it is unlikely that words like

“is founded by,” “is protected by,” “is the support of” or “has divine qualities” can be extracted from the single Hebrew word <ƒloµhéÆm.

A third rendition adds the word throne a second time: “Your throne is God’s throne,”

or “Your throne will be a divine throne.” There is nothing wrong with the concept that a royal throne could belong to God, for that is expressed in 1 Chronicles 29:23 (see also 28:5; 1 Kings 3:28), where Solomon is described as sitting “on the throne of Yahweh.” But in those instances generally cited in support of this translation, such as

“its walls [were walls of] wood” (Ezek 41:22), there is an implied identity between the subject and the predicate. The second noun denotes the material of which the object was made or a characteristic it possessed. But God is neither the material of which the throne is made nor a characteristic it possesses.

The NEB [NEB New English Bible] renders this phrase “Your throne is like God’s throne.” But such a translation must assume the conflation of two idioms in Psalm 45:6, which are otherwise unattested anywhere else in the Old Testament. There are just too many words added to the text without foundation.

The best translation, and the one that has been supported by all the ancient versions, is

“Your throne, O God.” The KJV [KJV King James Version] , the ERV [ERV English Revised Version] , the RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] margin, the NASB

[NASB New American Standard Bible] , the NAB [NAB New American Bible] , the JB [JB Jerusalem Bible] , the NIV [NIV New International Version] , Knox and the Berkeley translation all translate the Hebrew in this way, as do many modern commentators.

To whom, then, does <ƒloµhéÆm refer? The king was not regarded as the incarnation of deity. Rather, he was “Yahweh’s anointed” and served as the Lord’s deputy on earth. This was particularly true of David, who stood in the promised line of the Messiah. He had been adopted as God’s “son” in 2 Samuel 7:14 (see also Ps 2:7; 89:26).

Yet he was more than merely elected by God. Since he was endowed with the Spirit of Yahweh, he exhibited certain characteristics that foreshadowed the coming divine rule and reign of the greater David, Christ Jesus. While allowance must be made for hyperbolic language in some of these psalms and in the ancient Near Eastern court, the court and throne given to David and his descendants are described in terms that suggest they exceed anything known previously or since.

However, lest we start attributing qualities of deity to mere mortals and not to the office, dynasty and kingdom that they represented, Psalm 45:7 reminds us that the extraordinary use of <ƒloµhéÆm in the preceding verse is not without qualification.

Yahweh was the king’s God; the king was not his own God! “Therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy,”

declares the psalmist with care.

The rendering “Your throne, O God” is the most defensible and most satisfactory solution of all. King David is addressed as <ƒloµhéÆm, but it was because of the promise he carried in his person from God, because of his office, his dynasty and the kingdom he had received as an inauguration of the final kingdom of God to which the Messiah would one day lay total claim.

49:12–20 Man Is Like the Beasts That Perish?

This twice repeated refrain (with similar, but not identical, words) not only divides the psalm into two major parts (introduction—Ps 49:1–4; first section—Ps 49:5–12; second section—Ps 49:13–20), but also introduces what appears to be an unexpectedly pessimistic statement comparing human death to that of the beasts! Thus the “riddle”

(Ps 49:4) that the psalm introduces is not the Samson type of riddle, but the riddle of life itself. What is the relationship of life to death? And is human life (and death) different in any significant way from that of animals?

Apparently, the psalmist was in the midst of some grave situation. In such times of despair, it was and still is all too easy to compare one’s own desperate situation with the wicked’s luxurious successes. These proud despisers of religion boasted of their riches and flaunted their wealth in the faces of the godly.

But did such success also ensure, as these arrogant sinners seemed to infer, that their wealth and privilege would carry over into the world after death? It was on that point that the psalmist began to get some perspective on the fears haunting him. Indeed, a

person’s wealth could not redeem his or her person, family or goods; mortals could not pay their own ransoms (Ps 49:7–8). When the wealthy sinner died, everything was left behind.

Therefore, in that sense death was the great leveler of all life, whether it was animal or human life. For everyone, the grave was the prospect, unless something else intervened. If money had been the criterion for gaining eternal life, then the rich should have achieved everlasting life. But that is patently incorrect, for neither one’s position nor wealth has yet to buy an escape from the grim reaper, death.

It is against this background, and only on this comparative basis, that we are warned that “man … does not endure” (Ps 49:12), that is to say, literally, “lodge overnight.”

Hence the text is ironic, for in searching for permanency through position or wealth, the realities of life assured no such guarantee. Death would cut down all beings, human and animal, without respect to influence, wealth or power.

To trust in one’s self or wealth, consequently, was highest folly. Old Testament wisdom literature expresses the opposite value, namely, the fear of the Lord. Not only was the fear of the Lord the beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7), it was also that which made possible the elimination of two possible fears found in this psalm: the fear of one’s enemies in times of affliction (Ps 49:5) and the fear of the advantage of wealth in the face of death (Ps 49:16–19).

But Psalm 49:15 gives the reassuring truth that “God will redeem my life [literally, my soul] from the grave; he will surely take me to himself.” In spite of the psalmist’s somewhat embarrassing position in the areas of power, position or finances, he had a confidence that money could not purchase. He knew the grave would not seal his doom and end his hope of any more life; it could only be the place from which God would rescue him and redeem him. There is no doubt that the word soul in this passage functions, as it does in so many, as the expression for the personal pronoun me.

If all men, women and beasts are led like sheep to the grave so that death feeds on them (Ps 49:14), doubtless a strong contrast has begun to set in already in the second half of verse 14. This contrast is completed in verse 15. God himself will step in and ransom those who fear him from the power of death and the grave.

There is more. God will “take” or “receive” those who so believe in him “to himself.”

This word to take or receive is more positive than it might first sound. It is an allusion to God’s “taking” Enoch to heaven in Genesis 5:24. Enoch no longer walked this earth after God suddenly came and took him to be with him. This clearly says that all believers will be resurrected and defeat death. This is a hope which exceeds any that even the rich and the mighty possess.

Psalm 73:24 expresses similar confidence: “You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will take me into glory.” The hope being held out here is the hope of the resurrection, just as it is offered in Psalm 49:15. Why, you ask, are the rich compared to the beasts if the text only contrasts the believer who fears God and the unbeliever who fears nothing since he or she has all the power money can buy?

In answer, those in positions of honor and wealth can be so brutish in their thinking and living that they may as well be animals. They are “without understanding” (Ps 49:20). It is for this reason that the psalm calls for “all … peoples” to “listen” (Ps 49:1) and to find “understanding” (Ps 49:3) unless, of course, they wish to be like the

beasts and brutes without understanding. In their death they too will be like the beasts: they will perish.

The lesson of the “riddle” is clear: Do not trust in yourself or your riches to save you or to give eternal life; only God can ransom you from the grave and take you to himself!

See also comment on ecclesiastes 3:19–21.

49:15 Life After Death in the Old Testament?

See comment on genesis 5:23–24; 25:8; 2 samuel 12:21–23; job 19:23–27.

51:5 A Sinner at Birth?

What does David mean by his being sinful at the time of his birth, indeed, from the time that his mother conceived him? Does he mean he was born out of wedlock, or that matrimony is evil, or is he teaching something else? How could David sin in the womb or at the time of his birth?

There is no hint here that David was born out of wedlock or that he had committed a particular sin as he was being born. His confession is that he is a sinner not only in act or deed, as his affair with Bathsheba painfully pointed out, but also by virtue of his nature. Original sin was present even before he was born and ever did even one act.

David confesses that he had a sinful nature that must be confronted by God’s righteousness and holiness.

See also comment on romans 5:12.

51:11–12 Who Is the Old Testament Holy Spirit?

Are we to suppose that the Holy Spirit of Psalm 51 is the same Holy Spirit to which the New Testament refers? Or is an understanding of the Holy Spirit too advanced for the state of revelation under the older covenant?

Few doctrines suffer more from neglect of the Old Testament data than the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Even those scholars who do consider some of the Old Testament evidence quickly summarize it and use it merely as a jumping-off point to address the main pieces of evidence, which are assumed to be in the New Testament.

However, if that is so, why is it that Jesus expected Nicodemus, in John 3, to know about the person and work of the Holy Spirit? Where could this “teacher of the Jews”

have gained such a doctrine if the Old Testament has such a paucity of teaching on this theme? There are only three uses of the complete expression “Holy Spirit” in the Old Testament: Psalm 51:11 and Isaiah 63:10 and 11. The most common Hebrew term is ruÆah\, appearing 378 times and translated variously as “wind,” “spirit,” “direction,”

“side” and some half-dozen other words.

It is the three major prophets who use the word “spirit” most often. The term ruÆah\ appears fifty-two times in Ezekiel, fifty-one times in Isaiah and eighteen in Jeremiah.

Particularly important is Ezekiel 37:1–14, which portrays the life-giving power of God’s Spirit in the Valley of Dry Bones. Only the Spirit of God can put life and spirit back into a nation, such as Israel, that has passed out of existence.

What, then, was the operation of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament? Did the Spirit in the old covenant come upon persons for a short period of time for a special task, while in the New Testament he indwelt the believer, as some have argued? If so, this assumes that the saints of the older covenant became members of the family of God merely by observing the rules and regulations of the Torah. But how could that be true in light of Jesus’s stern rebuke to Nicodemus before the cross, a rebuke that demanded a knowledge of the Spirit from the Old Testament alone? And how can that be made to square with the Old Testament’s demand for a heart religion—Jeremiah’s

“circumcision of the heart” rather than a mere circumcision of the flesh?

What did Ezekiel mean when, in Ezekiel 36:24–28, he pressed the necessity of a new heart and a new spirit, which was probably the passage that Jesus held Nicodemus responsible for? The Old Testament does teach of a personal Holy Spirit who brought people to faith in the Man of Promise who was to come in the line of Abraham and David—and the Spirit indwelt those saints just as surely as he indwelt believers in the New Testament.

In Psalm 51:11 David confessed his sin with Bathsheba. His desire was to have a clean heart and spirit before God. He feared that God might withdraw the indwelling presence and work of his Holy Spirit from him. What David desired was a “steadfast spirit” (Ps 51:10) to be renewed within him. He feared the removal of God’s Holy Spirit because he had drifted away from God as a result of his sin and decision to ride it out while Bathsheba’s pregnancy was in progress. At last he had confessed his sin, and now he found himself in deep spiritual hunger and desiring to be reconciled with God.

Some will object, “If the Old Testament believer already possessed the Holy Spirit, why was Pentecost necessary?” George Smeaton gave the best answer to that question when he affirmed, “[The Holy Spirit] must have a coming in state, in a solemn and visible manner, accompanied with visible effects as well as Christ had and whereof all the Jews should be, and were, witnesses.”4 [4 George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 2nd ed.

(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1889), p. 49.] Pentecost signaled a visible and mightier-than-ever manifestation of the person and work of the Holy Spirit. (See Joel 2:28; it was a

“downpour” of the Spirit compared to the previous showers.) This was the inception of the full experience of the Holy Spirit. After all, the Holy Spirit, like the Father and Son, had existed from all eternity. He did not remain bound and without assignment in the older era. But Pentecost did mark a fuller realization of what had been already in progress.

But certain New Testament texts do seem to imply that the Holy Spirit’s coming to indwell the believer is a brand-new feature of the gospel era. Especially relevant are John 7:37–39, 14:16–17 and 16:7.5 [5 For a fuller discussion of this point, see Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1987), pp. 135–41.] However, most will agree that in John 3:5–10, Jesus himself suggested that the Holy Spirit was operating in bringing salvation prior to Christ’s death on the cross. When Jesus taught his disciples how to pray, he said, “If you … know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Lk

11:13). Apparently, that gift was already available, even before Pentecost.

Of all the texts cited in this debate, the most important is John 14:17: “You know him, for he lives with [ para] you and is in you.” There is a strong manuscript tradition for reading the present tense of the verb to be (“is”) rather than the future tense (“will be”). The two forms, estai and esti, are very easily confused, but the present tense appears, as B. F. Westcott concludes, to be less like a correction and probably represents the more difficult reading. (Textual critics adhere to the principle of choosing the “more difficult” reading, since copiers of the text tended to “correct” the text to the simpler or more expected reading.) Thus the Holy Spirit already was with the Old Testament believer and present in all who believed.

The Holy Spirit did bring new life to those who believed under the old covenant and personally indwelt them. But just as Calvary was necessary even though Jesus’ life and work were anticipated in the Old Testament, Pentecost was necessary even though the benefits of the Holy Spirit’s work were already present in the Old Testament.

That is why David feared the possible loss of the Holy Spirit. Even if one of the ministries of the Holy Spirit was the gift of government—a gift that had been given to and then taken away from his predecessor King Saul—David appears to have been worried about more than the loss of his ability to govern in Jerusalem. He feared losing the indwelling comfort and help of the Paraclete himself. That would be tantamount to standing outside the presence of God.

See also comment on isaiah 63:10–11.

51:16–17, 19 Does God Desire Sacrifices?

It is startling to read in Psalm 51 that God does not wish worshipers to bring any sacrifices. When one considers the extensive instructions to the contrary in the book of Leviticus, what could the psalmist have had in mind except what appears to be a flat-out contradiction? Hadn’t God issued a command that sacrifices were to be brought to his house?

This text is not alone in posing this problem. A number of other texts appear to teach the same disavowal of sacrifices and other ritual acts, such as fasting. Some of them are 1 Samuel 15:14–22, Jeremiah 7:21–23, Hosea 6:6, Micah 6:6–8 and Zechariah 7:4–7. In each of these texts God appears to be spurning the external acts and rituals of worship, usually as expressed in sacrifices. But we will be mistaken if we assume that this is an absolute rejection of the acts of worship he had previously required under the Mosaic covenant.

Some have sought to relieve the tension produced by texts such as this one by saying that the instructions for the sacrifices came later; they were not, as a first reading of the text would suggest and as most conservative scholars have assumed, from the hand of Moses. However, this solution is too high a price to pay for a quick harmonization of the data. If the law had come later (in the fifth century b.c.), surely the writers, or even their editors and redactors (if such were involved), would not have been careless enough to ignore the fact that they had created a problem in the text. There must have been some other solution that was apparent to and understood by those earlier audiences.

Such a solution is to be found in the Old Testament writers’ constant pleading for the worshiper’s heart attitude to be set right. That is the precise point of these verses from Psalm 51 as well. What was the use of piling on sacrifices if they were not expressions of a spirit of contrition and genuine piety of life? God always inspects the giver, even in the Old Testament, before he inspects the gift, offering or praise. How can one who is unclean offer a clean sacrifice?

Psalm 51:16’s statement of denial is qualified by what follows in verse 17. The sacrifices of a broken and contrite spirit are the gifts God seeks as a prelude to any sacrifices of sheep, goats or bulls. One whose heart is repentant is never despised by God. Consequently, the sacrifices from such a one are prized, as Psalm 51:19 says,

“Then you will be pleased with the sacrifices of the righteous and whole burnt offerings, then they will offer on your altar bulls” (my literal translation).

The difficulty of these verses is not to be solved in the manner once fashionable (by dating the law to the fifth or fourth century b.c.), but by noticing the constant urging of God’s servants that the people give their hearts and their lives in deep contrition and brokenness of spirit before they observe feasts, fasts, sabbaths or sacrifices.

Isaiah, for example, demanded that the people stop their sacrifices, convocations, appointed feast days and prayers (Is 1:11–15); instead, he said, they must begin by coming before God with clean hands and a clean heart. If only the Israelites would first come and reason with the Lord, even if their sins were as red as crimson, they could be as white as wool; they had only to be obedient and willing (Is 1:16–18). Then God could accept their sacrifices, just as he accepted David’s sacrifices for his sin with Bathsheba after David repented. Rote religion can never substitute for purity of heart.

See also comment on genesis 4:3–4; 1 samuel 15:22; ecclesiastes 7:16–18.

55:15 Hate Your Enemies?

See comment on psalms 137:8–9; 139:20.

59:5, 10–13 Hate Your Enemies?

See comment on psalms 137:8–9; 139:20.

68:11 Who Proclaimed the Word?

Perhaps many will remember the great chorus from Handel’s Messiah based on this psalm. The loud acclamation rings out: “The Lord gave the word! Great was the company of the preachers.” What may not be so obvious is that this is a hard saying for those who believe all of Scripture restricts women from preaching. Two major issues have been associated with this text: (1) What was the word that was announced? and (2) Were the announcers women?

The first problem is the less difficult one. “The word” ( <oµmer) in this context hardly means mere news of the victory that had just been won. It is a divine word, either a promise (Ps 77:8) or a command with accompanying divine power (Hab 3:9), or else it is the word of God that is likened elsewhere to mighty thunder or a trumpet blast (Ps

68:33; Is 30:30; Zech 9:14).

The older commentators found in this word a reference to gospel preaching, probably because they linked this text directly with Isaiah 40:9. That meaning fits well the Isaiah context, but no direct reference to preaching the good news or gospel appears in this context.

It would be too reductionistic, however, to limit this word, as many unfortunately do, to a watchword in war. Now it is true that women were leaders of the songs of victory, and the feminine gender is used for announcers. It will be remembered that when Israel defeated Pharaoh, Deborah and Barak overthrew Sisera, Jephthah routed the Ammonites and David beat Goliath, the women went forth with a song of victory.

But a song of victory from God does not appear to cover all that this psalm talks about. It is used of the word of promise as well, and this is what opens this text up for a larger sphere of reference. Therefore, everything included in that word of promise was being communicated to a great host who would announce that word.

As mentioned before, the announcers of the good news ( hamƒb\asŒsŒƒroÆt_) appear to be women, for the Hebrew participle is in the feminine plural form. God placed his word in the mouths of his announcers; the word of promise and power in the face of a hostile world. As such, this word is very close to that of Isaiah 40:9 and especially Joel 2:28–29. These heralders comprised a great host of individuals. Surely this foreshadows what God would do at Pentecost and what he has since done all over the world through the great missionary force which has included so many women.

69:22–28 Hate Your Enemies?

See comment on psalms 137:8–9; 139:20.

73:2–12 Do the Wicked Prosper?

Psalm 73 deals with a problem that has often perplexed God’s people. Actually, it is a twofold problem whose parts are interrelated: why must the godly suffer so frequently, and why do the ungodly seem to be so prosperous?

Psalm 73 is one of the classic statements of this two-pronged question. In fact, so open is the psalmist about his own doubts that he allows us to penetrate deep into his inner being as he leads us to the very brink of despair over this most grievous problem. But he recovers just in the nick of time; he reorders his thinking about this problem and thus saves himself, and those of us who read his psalm, from falling over the precipice of despair. Like a number of other psalms, this one begins with the conclusion. The resolution of the problem ultimately comes not from a particular apologetic approach, but from the contemplation of the goodness of God (Ps 73:1).

The steps by which the psalmist, Asaph, arrived at his conclusion are also important.

Having started out right, he went astray as he looked around, but then he came back to God again. The difficulty is in how he came back. His journey almost led him into disaster.

Asaph has given us a most memorable picture of what the world calls successful

people: their position in life (“they have no struggles”), their health (“their bodies are healthy and strong”), their responsibilities (“they are free from the burdens common to man”), their arrogance (“pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence”) and their insensitivity to evil (“from their callous hearts comes iniquity”).

As if all of this were not enough, the psalmist heard these proud, wealthy, healthy people boast, “How can God know? Does the Most High have knowledge?” (Ps 73:11). Such blasphemy! “We don’t care what you say about God,” these folks boast.

“We are doing just fine without him or his help! Nothing goes wrong for us; look at some of you who claim God exists. If he does, then why are you not being helped?

Why aren’t you doing at least as well as we are?”

Such taunts are galling and hard to swallow. But let it be said that being perplexed or having doubts over this problem is not a sin; what is a sin is to forget God’s goodness and what we have learned in God’s house about the end of all such boasters. That would be to take the short view of a problem that must be considered over the long haul, and it leads to envy (Ps 73:3) and depression (Ps 73:16).

In order to get understanding, Asaph went into the sanctuary of God. Religion is not the opiate of the people; it is supposed to bring understanding (Ps 73:17). Such understanding can help us gain our footing once again.

What the prosperous, healthy, arrogant people do not realize is that they are standing

“on slippery ground” (Ps 73:18). They are not as free as they think themselves to be.

And all that they have is temporary, on loan from God.

Over against this precarious position rests the steadfast goodness of God, who holds his own by the hand (Ps 73:23) and guides them (Ps 73:24). “Afterward [he] will take

[us] into glory” (Ps 73:24).

The problem of the prosperity of the wicked and the suffering of believers is to be resolved in the goodness of the God who personally walks and talks with his own and who will ultimately bring us to be with him in glory. Contrariwise, the prosperity of the wicked is very short-lived when judged from God’s perspective. It is their feet that are on a slippery slope, not the believers’. Those who believe are gaining understanding of God’s goodness as they approach God’s house.

The wicked often do prosper, at least for the moment; but the righteous shall endure forever. And the righteous will always experience the goodness of God.

See also comment on psalm 37:25–26.

73:20 Does God Sleep?

See comment on psalm 44:23–26.

73:24 Life After Death in the Old Testament?

See comment on genesis 5:23–24; 25:8; job 19:23–27; psalm 49:12, 20; ecclesiastes 3:19–21.

74:13–14 Mythological Cosmic Conflicts?

It is not unusual, of course, to find imagery used in the Bible, especially in biblical poetry. But when that imagery seems to make use of mythological allusions, as does Psalm 74, we may wonder what it means. Is the Bible implying the reality of the mythological world? Or perhaps the imagery was already remote in time and function from its original connotations, so that the psalmist used it as casually as we use mythological names for the days of the week and for certain holidays, such as Easter.

In Psalm 74 the psalmist is attempting to convince God that he should intervene on behalf of his city Jerusalem, just as he had done in his victory over evil—perhaps, as some think, at the creation of the universe.

As he makes his appeal, the poet adopts language parallel to that used in mythical texts from Ugarit (a Canaanite language whose vocabulary and spelling are similar to those of Hebrew). Heavily influenced by the Ugaritic mythological parallels, many modern scholars assume that the allusion to splitting (or “dividing”) the sea refers to some primordial powers. But actually it could well refer to the division of the Red Sea (or better, “Reed Sea”) at the exodus. The name for “sea” is yaµm in Hebrew and Ugaritic, and thus the real and the mythological share the same word. Only context and usage can determine the difference.

Given the context of Psalm 74, with its references to multiple heads and to Leviathan, it may well be that the poet has borrowed the terms from their Canaanite and mythological background without in any way endorsing the myth. If God could part the waters at the exodus, think of what he could do for Israel in this time of need! This is the psalmist’s point.

In verse 13, God also is said to have “broke[n] the heads of Tannim,” another name for

“sea[monster]” ( yaµm). According to the Ugaritic text 67:3 (approximately 1400

b.c.), this monster had seven heads. Earlier Mesopotamian cylinder seals depict seven-headed dragons being attacked by the gods of that land.

God also “crushed the heads of Leviathan” (Ps 74:14). Leviathan appears only six times in the Old Testament, often as a figure for Egypt. In Ugaritic this monster was known under the name of Lotan, but it appears here in Psalm 74:13–14 with other beasts such as Yam and Tannin (Tannim).

If Leviathan must be made to correspond with a known creature, then the large aquatic animal known as the crocodile (Job 41) would probably be correct. Leviathan swims in God’s great and wide sea (Ps 104:25–26). He has a scaly hide (Job 41:7, 15–17) and fearsome teeth (Job 41:14). But whether the multiheaded Leviathan of Psalm 74 is one of the mythological creatures or a name from old myths for the contemporary crocodile is difficult to say. If the imagery is not from pagan sources, then the references to the “heads of Leviathan” may well be a historical allusion, an image for the corpses of the Egyptian troops that washed ashore after the Reed Sea closed over them.

I lean toward the view that these are words that originally had mythological associations but in their biblical context have been purged of all such overtones. They now function as words of hyperbolic force to suggest the kinds of powers that God is

capable of dealing with, and they particularly remind us of God’s marvelous deliverance at the exodus and the Reed Sea. The Bible makes reference to these images from the dead world of myth without giving the slightest hint of approval to this mythology, and without implying that the authors believed in it.6 [6 For more examples of the biblical use of such imagery, see Elmer B. Smick, “Mythology and the Book of Job,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 13 (1970): 101–8.]

See also comment on job 40:15; 41:1.

78:13 What Happened to the Red Sea?

See comment on exodus 14:21.

78:18–31 Punishment for Requesting Food?

See comment on numbers 11:31–34.

78:58 A Jealous God?

See comment on nahum 1:2–3.

79:6, 12 A Prayer for Vengeance?

See comment on psalms 137:8–9; 139:20.

82:1 God Presides Among the Gods?

It is surprising to find a biblical text appearing to acknowledge the tacit existence of gods rivaling Yahweh. The singer Asaph beholds Elohim presiding over a great congregation and rendering judgments before what the text refers to as “gods.” Does this perhaps unexpurgated passage confirm polytheism?

Before us is a courtroom. The matter before the court is the ever-present, nettlesome problem of the wicked and the injustices that seem to sweep along in their path.

In addressing the “gods” (in Hebrew, <ƒloµhéÆm), God is not acknowledging pagan deities or recognizing the existence of other supernatural beings like himself; rather, he is addressing the earthly judges and administrators of his law whom he has set up to represent him. Our Lord depends on these administrators, functioning as magistrates in the divinely ordained state, to bring a measure of immediate relief from the injustices and brutalities of life.

This usage of the word <ƒloµhéÆm is not as unusual as it might appear at first. Other passages refer to this class of Israelite rulers and judges as God’s representatives on earth. Exodus 21:6, using the same word, orders the slave who voluntarily wishes to be indentured for life to be taken “before the judges.” Likewise, Exodus 22:8 advises the owner who complains of a theft, even when no thief has been found, to “appear before the judges.” Using the same word, the psalmist affirmed in Psalm 138:1, “I will praise you, O Lord, with all my heart; before the ‘gods’ [better rendered ‘rulers’ or

‘judges’] I will sing your praise.”

Therefore, it should not be altogether surprising that Psalm 82:1 should use this same word to refer to the executive or judicial branches of government—or that scholars have translated the word as “gods” in the past. In fact, Psalm 82:6 makes the case crystal clear by making all believers who “are sons of the Most High” to be “gods.”

In John 10:34, when accused of blasphemy, our Lord appealed to Psalm 82:6 by saying, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’?” In so doing, Jesus was demonstrating that the title could be attached to certain men “to whom the word of God came” (Jn 10:35), and therefore there could not be any prima facie objections lodged against his claim to be divine. There was a legitimate attachment of the word

<ƒloµhéÆm to those people who had been specially prepared by God to administer his law and word to the people.

Ever since Genesis 9:6, God had transferred to humankind the execution of his personal prerogative of determining life and death and had instituted among them an office that bore the sword. God had transferred the exercise of his power to these subordinate “gods” without thereby divesting himself of ultimate say.

↑ Back to top