The purpose of this paper is to offer an interpretation of Exodus 19 – 20:21 based on the relevant historical, sociocultural, and grammatical contexts.  This passage has been selected because it serves as a pivotal passage in the cannon and as the climactic event in the narrative of the people of God in the Hebrew Scriptures.  Moreover, the themes introduced here echo throughout the canon and provide a foundational leitmotif for biblical theology.

For the sake of simplicity, the textual analysis section is presented in a verse-by-verse commentary style.  Unless otherwise noted, all quotations of Scripture are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Holy Bible.

Author

Numerous theories have been proposed regarding the composition of the Pentateuch, the analysis and finer nuances of which are beyond the scope of this paper.  Suffice it to say, the present author assumes essential Mosaic authorship for the passage at hand while acknowledging the likelihood that later editors/redactors may have had some impact on the text as it progressed toward its final form.

Literary Analysis

This text provides a significant turning point in the narrative of Exodus.  In it God reveals the purpose for His redemptive act of liberating the Israelites from their Egyptian captivity, reveals Himself in a powerful new theophanic form, communicates immediately with the people, discloses their intended vocation, and enters into a covenant relationship with them.

Isbell also notes the repetitive literary theme of “evidence-requirement-response,” which spans both chapters (in fact, he sees thematic repetition in chapters 19-24).  This begins with the evidential citation by Yahweh of what He has done for the people in history, proceeds to the divine requirements incumbent on the people, and culminates in the explicit response of Israel to the requirements set forth (55-58).

The passage contains of variety of literary genres, including narrative prose, poetry, and apodictic law.  Thematically, it also includes strong echoes of the creation motif of Genesis 1 and 2 as well as a foreshadowing of the later cultic practices of Judaism (the latter topic will be explored in the Biblical Theology section of this paper).

Textual Analysis

19:1-3a – Childs sees the opening verse as a superscription to the following chapters.  He also notes בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה (rendered “on that very day” by the NRSV) is indicative of the profound moment of the event, that it is “marked as a special day to be remembered” (366).  The text also indicates that three months after their departure from Egypt, the Israelites entered the wilderness of Sinai and encamped before the mountain of God.

While much scholarly debate revolves around the geographical location of this mountain, the best we can conclude at present is that the data for the precise determination of the location is insufficient (Wells 229).  More important than location, however, is theological significance.  The author is not concerned with describing the locale or any distinguishing physical characteristics of the mountain.  On the contrary, the only thing that makes this mountain special is that it is the place where God has chosen to manifest His presence in a unique way.  As Davies puts it, “What is more important than the location of the encounter… is the transcendent relationship so depicted” (40).

19:3b-4 – Childs points out that vv. 3-8 contain an “elevated style of the prose, which approaches poetry in its use of parallelism and selected vocabulary” (366).  Davies has also identified several characteristics which are indicative of poetic style, including parallelismus membrorum, paratactic syntax, and metaphorical imagery (37).

With the declaration, “You have seen…”, God indicates that the Israelites now possess experiential knowledge of Him.  While the people had an intellectual knowledge of Yahweh during their Egyptian captivity, they now know Him in an experiential way through the events of the Exodus.  The Exodus has been accomplished and God has brought the people to Himself for the purpose of establishing His covenant with them.  Davies notes that the phrase, “וָאָבִ֥א אֶתְכֶ֖ם אֵלָֽי ” is without parallel in the Hebrew Scriptures.  This highlights the inherent tension in the passage as God not only accompanies the people on their journey, but is also the goal of the journey (41).  Not only has God manifested Himself through powerful deeds in delivering the people from captivity and leading them to Sinai, He now will display His presence in a new way, heightened by His proximity to the people.

19:5-6 – Here we find that creation language continues to influence the narrative.  As Adam was charged to keep (שׁמר) the garden, so the Israelites must keep (שׁמר) God’s covenant.  If they do so, the Israelites will enjoy a special relationship with Yahweh: 1) they will be His special/personal/treasured possession (סְגֻלָּה); 2) they shall be a kingdom of priests (מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים); 3) they shall be a holy nation (וְג֣וֹי קָד֑וֹשׁ).  Theologians have long recognized that Adam’s role in the garden was one of priest/king as he served and tended/worshipped in the garden sanctuary while functioning as God’s vicegerent in the created order (Dumbrell 55-61). Walton also expands this idea to the cosmic level as he sees the creation account as essentially God’s ordering of the cosmos through the assignment of functions/functuaries (38-71). Consequently, the phrase “in the image of God” (בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים) conveys not only the fact that man is made in the moral/ethical image of God, but also implies function.  Hence, Adam’s function in the garden sanctuary (which he of course forfeited in the fall) was to serve as God’s priest/king.

Now that the Israelites have come to the mountain of God, man is once again in the immediate presence of God and is charged with the same function that Adam surrendered through sin: they will be a kingdom of priests.  Moreover, as Adam was holy before the fall, so the Israelites will be a holy people before their God if they live within His covenant.  By living within the circumscription of the covenant, the people will avoid “eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”  Finally, that they are to serve as God’s priests indicates their role as mediators between God and the other nations (Carpenter 762).

Isbell makes the interesting case (also grammatically supported by BDB 225) that תִּהְיוּ־לִ֛י  (היה followed by preposition ל) has the force of “become” and therefore, since it is conditional, speaks of Israel’s potential to become God’s special treasure and kingdom of priests if she indeed obeys God’s voice and keeps His covenant.  Accordingly he writes, “So what is described here is not privilege but responsibility, and specifically the requirement that Israel serve as the priestly example of holiness among all nations of the world” (57).  Following this line of reasoning, what appears, at least prima facie, to be a quid pro quo proposition is instead a conditional definition (Davies 42).

19:7-8 – Moses returned to the people, specifically to the elders, to report his conversation with Yahweh and it is implied that the elders relayed the information to the people, for “all the people answered together.”  The response of the people is profound: they agree to the covenant before its stipulations had been revealed.  At first glance, this may appear to have been a rash decision, after all, they couldn’t have known what it was they were agreeing to.  On the other hand, the reaction is in response to what God has done for them in history and is indicative of faith.  In other words, they don’t need to read the “fine print” because they have had a unique encounter with the Almighty and find themselves (at least for the moment) in a place of trust and belief.

19:9a – “that the people may hear”  – the people have not only witnessed God’s mighty deeds in history, they will now hear His voice as He speaks with His servant Moses, the purpose being to foster trust in Moses as the prophet of God, and as will become evident later, to test the people (cf. 20:20).

19:9b-15 – It is somewhat enigmatic that Moses would report the words of the people to an omniscient God, nonetheless, he returns to Yahweh to explain the people’s response.  Israel is not yet holy, therefore they must prepare for their encounter with a holy God.  Accordingly, God directs Moses to consecrate the people over the course of the next two days.  The process of consecration involves the washing of their garments and abstinence from sexual relations.

It is interesting to note that no sacrifice of atonement is involved in the consecration process.  Moses had told Pharaoh that the Israelites must journey into the wilderness that they may offer sacrifices to the Lord (Ex 10:24-26), moreover, Exodus 29 explains that the offering of sacrifice is an integral component to the rite of consecration for priests.  Since Israel is to be a kingdom of priests, one would expect some sort of sacrifice to be part and parcel of the consecration of the people for this most holy event.  However, the offering of sacrifice would not occur until the ratification of the covenant in chapter 24.

The mountain is holy space and may not be desecrated lest God’s holy presence consume those who are unauthorized to be in His presence.  If anyone should disregard this injunction, they were to be killed from a distance (stoned or shot with an arrow) lest the offender spread his contamination to the rest of the community (Carpenter 770).  However, when the people hear a long blast of the trumpet they are permitted to draw near to the mountain.

19:16-25 – The theophany now takes place.  This is a most momentous occasion in the history of Israel; as Carpenter explains, “This theophany influenced Israel’s theology and history nearly as much as the exodus event throughout her history” (775).  Accompanying the theophany is a variety of meteorological, aural, and seismic phenomena.  The experience was at once awesome and terrifying to the people.  Upon hearing the sound of the שֹׁפָ֖ר the people drew near to the mountain.  This of course raises the question of who was blowing the שֹׁפָ֖ר?  Since the sound appears to be emanating from the mountain and people were prohibited from that locale, it would seem logical to assume that angelic beings were responsible for the sound, but the text itself gives no explicit indication.

Because “the Lord had descended on it in fire,” the mountain was encased in smoke and was trembling.  In reference to this event (and in an attempt to harmonize Ex 19:20 with 20:19), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan suggests that the reason for the trembling of the mountain is that God had in fact “made the heavens incline down to it,” in effect creating a literal, physical meeting point between heaven and earth, thereby triggering the seismic phenomenon (Houtman 195).  This exegetical gloss indicates the extent to which this event was indelibly etched upon the minds of the Hebrew people.

19:21-25 – Here we have an interesting disturbance in the flow of the narrative as God repeats the instruction to Moses to warn the people not to come up to the mountain “lest they break through to the Lord to look and many of them perish.”  Clearly, the people were not yet familiar with the implications of the holiness of God and the danger of being in His immediate presence.  This, of course, foreshadows what has yet to be revealed, that man cannot gaze upon the Lord and live (Ex 33:20).  Moreover, it indicates that God is not a God of disorder (cf. 1Co 14:33) and He will be approached only on His own terms and only in the manner which he prescribes.

Moses, however, objects on the grounds that the people have already been warned and the motif of “Moses’ resistance to God” (which begins in chapter 3) is developed (Childs 370).  While Moses likely viewed the warning as redundant, this is yet another example of God’s grace and loving care for His people.  Accordingly, God insists that Moses follow His instructions but also tells him that Aaron should accompany him on his return.

Also of interest here is that God instructs Moses that the priests should be consecrated as well.  How this consecration differed from the general consecration of the people is not disclosed, but it is directed specifically to the “priests who come near to the Lord” (v. 22).  Since the formal priesthood had not yet been established it also raises questions about exactly who these men were and how they were serving in the priestly office.  Nonetheless, Moses returned to the people as instructed and conveyed God’s directives to them.  The people having been thus prepared are ready to receive the content of the covenant.

20:1-17 – The Decalogue is spoken by God directly to the people, not delivered through a human mediator (although as Carpenter points out, the sentence lacks an indirect object because the words are ultimately meant not just for Israel but for all humankind [789]).  As Adam heard the voice of God in the garden, now the Israelites hear His voice at Sinai.   While Moses is cast as the mediator of the covenant, this would not come until later, and then at the people’s request.  It is interesting to note that the commandments are spoken by God before they are written by Him on the tablets.  Although the laws are given in a covenantal context, as Carpenter points out, they are essentially transcultural and timeless; indeed they are laws given to humankind (787).  The commandments are apodictic in nature, the first four demonstrating how to love God, the balance demonstrating how to love people who are made in His image.

Although there are similarities between the Decalogue and other ANE law codes, there are no exact parallels (Wells 227).  Carpenter makes the astute point that this is simultaneously a legal text and a wisdom text, and if the Israelites were to live in accordance with these dictates it would demonstrate wisdom and understanding before the other nations of the earth (781; cf. Dt 4:5-8).   Moreover, it explicates the will of God which the people have already accepted and sets forth a moral/ethical profile of the “holy nation” (Childs 371).

20:1-2 – The statement of the Decalogue begins with a reminder of what God has done for the people in history by delivering them from Egypt and liberating them from the oppression of slavery.  At this point there appears to be a strong quid pro quo implication: I have done this thing for you, now you will do these things.  Consequently, God’s acts in human history deliver absolute moral/ethical implications for human beings; here they are explicated.  Isbell sees the repetition of the “evidence-requirements-response” motif spanning vv. 1-21 (58).

20:3 – “no other gods”­ – while Wells suggests this could be an assertion of henotheism (230), there is no reason to see in this statement an implication of the ontological reality of other gods.  Later biblical texts are quite dogmatically monotheistic (e.g., Is 44-45).  Although grammatical arguments are well taken, given the fact that the speaker is God, it would be logical to conclude that this statement is monotheistic in essence.  In fact, in light of Deuteronomy 32:17, the Israelites were already aware of the fact that to practice idol worship was to sacrifice to demons that were not gods.

20:4-6 – The prohibition against the manufacture of idols is the logical outworking of the first commandment.  According to Childs, Obbink suggested that this proscription was not in reference to images of Yahweh, but only to images of foreign deities.  However, the events of Exodus 32 would seem to clearly contradict this thesis.  Aaron fashioned the golden calf and attributed it explicitly to Yahweh (32:4-6).  When Moses returned to camp, his first order of business was to destroy the idol.  Thus, the idea expressed in this commandment is thoroughly aniconic (Wells 231).

It is also important to consider that Yahweh is the Creator God.  In other ANE cosmogonies, the gods did battle with preexisting matter in order to form the cosmos.  This is not so with Yahweh; He is the source of material origins and is consequently transcendent of the created order.  Nothing in creation has the potential to represent Him iconically.  Moreover, the only thing in the created order that does have the potential to represent Him is humankind, which He made in His image.  In other words, human beings are incapable of fashioning an image of God because God Himself has already fashioned man to serve that purpose.

Childs also observes that, “The prohibition of images is grounded in the self-introductory formula, ‘I am Yahweh’, which summarizes God’s own testimony to Himself” (409).  Hence , any image thought to represent Yahweh would essentially be a false witness to His character and attributes (ibid.).  Moreover, in its ANE context, this proscription harkens back to God’s revelation of His covenant name to Moses.  God will not be defined or controlled by names or images; God will be what He will be.

20:7 – Wells explains that this command is essentially legal and is given in regard to oath-taking (232), however, Carpenter and Childs explain that it is not so simple.  The crux of the issue is that linguistically, this commandment cannot be clearly identified with “swearing falsely” (Childs 411).  While it may carry these undertones, the meaning is not exhausted by false oath taking.  Childs concludes that the prohibition against misusing Yahweh’s name was meant to protect the divine name, “which of course was identified with God’s being itself” (ibid.).  This stands to reason and illustrates how this commandment is formally connected to the preceding one.  God has revealed Himself to the Israelites through His actions on their behalf, His words, and His name.  Just as He cannot be represented by an image, His name (which is a symbol of His character) must also not be abused.

Carpenter also explains that תִשָּׂא here carries the force of “bear” rather than “take” and thus means more than “not speak.”  In fact, it “includes a broad range of behavioral possibilities.”  Bearing his name before the other people groups in the ANE in any scandalous way “dishonored him before the nations” and had the ultimate effect of misrepresenting God (798).  This of course would have been a clear contravention of the priestly vocation God had called Israel to.  Essentially, properly bearing the name of God is one of the ways that human beings properly image Him.

This understanding is quite different from the interpretation of this command common in the church today.  Moreover, it is strikingly different from the application common in contemporary Judaism where we find a refusal to speak or write the divine name in any way.  This has even extended to the more generic name “God” which is typically written “G-d.”  Not only is this practice out of step with the meaning of the commandment, it also smacks of superstition.

20:8-11 – The gift of Sabbath is bestowed in the covenant framework.  The pattern of six periods of work followed by a period of rest is established in the rhythm of the creative work of Yahweh in the creation poem of Genesis 1.  Wells explains that this is totally unique in the context of the ANE (232-33).  The rest that was denied to the Israelites in Egypt is now gifted to them by their new Suzerain as an act of grace.

While most of the commands follow a negative formulation, the implementation of the Sabbath is formulated positively.  The primary concern is the positive act of keeping the Sabbath holy.  Childs notes that, “the major thrust of the command falls on the verb ‘to hallow’” indicating that honoring the holiness of the day is the incentive for desisting from labor (415).  Nonetheless, it would seem the real overarching principle behind this command is the emulation of God Himself as the people are called to image His behavior (Carpenter 801).

The Israelites have congregated at the foot of the mountain, which has been demarcated as holy space.  Now we see that holy time intersects with holy space.  Carpenter explains that “The ultimate rest for God’s people is realized when his presence dwells among them.”  This will happen in history as God’s presence comes to rest upon the tabernacle, and later in the temple, but preeminently in the eschaton (801).

20:12 – The directive to honor one’s father and mother is the second command to follow the positive formulation.  Honoring one’s father and mother likely should be understood as caring for one’s aging parents.  This commandment also has the promise of blessing for those who would keep it.  While Wells sees this as primarily a natural sociological outworking (233), the immediate context rather seems to indicate supernatural blessing.  This seems to be Paul’s understanding in the haustafeln in Ephesians (Eph 6:2-3).

Childs also observes that this command is frequently interpreted to mean that parents function as “visible representatives of God” in the household (419).  There is biblical warrant for this understanding based on the etymology of the Hebrew verb “honor” (כַּבֵּ֥ד).  This word has a significant semantic range, which includes concepts such as “make heavy” and “glorify,” and it is frequently used in Scripture with God as the object.  Consequently, children are to honor and reverence their parents as they honor and reverence God.

Carpenter also explains that the command to honor one’s parents after they have ceased to be productive from a socio-economic perspective makes “an important social and ethical assertion” by establishing the fact that one’s value in God’s society is not relative to one’s productivity (804).  Since the family unit is the fabric of society, establishing such principles creates a social structure that is healthy and stable.  Moreover, one’s attitudes toward God are exemplified in the way one treats those who are made in His image, especially the weaker or disadvantaged members of society.

20:13 – Murder was prohibited in virtually all human societies.  In Genesis we find that the prohibition against murder is preeminently based on the fact that human beings are made in God’s image (Ge 9:6).  This command deals specifically with voluntary homicide and does not include other types of killing (e.g., acts of self-defense, acts of war, capital punishment, etc.).  While other law codes in the ANE exhibit a stratification of justice based on the social standing of the parties involved, this is not so in biblical law.  All people are of equal standing and value before God because all are made in His image.

20:14 – Contrary to the contemporary understanding of adultery, adultery in this context refers to the act of a man having sexual relations with a woman who was the wife of another.  Stamm and Andrew explain that, according to the Hebrew idiom, “the man can only commit adultery against a marriage other than his own, the woman only against her own” (qtd. in Childs 422).

Deuteronomy would later expand the legal corpus related to the act of adultery, and Ancient Near Eastern law commonly addressed the issue.  A case in point is law #4 of the Laws of Ur-Nammu, “If the wife of a man, by employing her charms, followed after another man and he slept with her, they [i.e., the authorities] shall slay that woman, but the male [i.e., the other man] shall be set free” (Pritchard 524).  Deuteronomy, however places equal culpability on both adulterer and adulteress, prescribing capital punishment for both parties (Dt 22:22), a far more just and equitable solution, especially given the social standing of women in the male dominated, patriarchal societies of the ancient Near East.

Adultery was essentially a crime against the family that, like failure to honor one’s parents, had the potential of disrupting the stability of the society.  As Wells points out, one’s sons were the heirs of one’s estate.  Consequently, the ability to determine one’s legitimate offspring was critical (235).

20:15 – As with murder, theft is universally prohibited in virtually all human societies.  The verb in question (גנב) connotes an element of stealth but also can mean to “rob” or “deceive” (Holladay and Köhler 63) and likely included misappropriation, embezzlement, and the unfaithful disposal of a bailment (Wells 235).  Carpenter explains that this prohibition, is essentially grounded in God’s character and in the nature of His creation (808).

20:16 – To give false testimony is essentially a forensic issue which would result in wrongful prosecution (Wells 236).  Interestingly, here we find more threads linking back to creation as we find the serpent giving false testimony about God.  Of course, this was not yet a forensic scenario, however, the serpent deceived Eve by giving false testimony about the character of God.  The scene would quickly turn to a judicial setting, however, as God began to interrogate Adam and pronounced His judgment upon the man, the woman and the serpent regarding the sin that had been committed.  Adam would also attempt to mitigate his culpability in the situation by blame-casting (Ge 3).

Again we find the motivation behind this command being the reflection of God’s character.  God is the source of truth and it is impossible for Him to lie (Heb 6:18).  A society that reflects the image and character of God must be marked by honest speech and faithful testimony.

20:17 – The prior commands have chiefly dealt with physical manifestations of sin, but with the tenth commandment God moves from specific external manifestations of sin to the inward attitudes of the heart that supply sinful motive.  It is interesting to note that many of the prohibitions against improper human relations (e.g., adultery, theft, murder) would be avoided by guarding the heart against covetousness.  Additionally, coveting God’s position was at the root of the sin in the Garden.  In fact, the precursor to idolatry could be found in the coveting of a religious experience that is new or different from what Yahweh supplies.

While most of the items explicitly listed in the command against coveting are either persons (wife, servants) or animals (which may also be viewed as means of economic production), the one item that on the surface would appear to be a possession, your neighbor’s house, may in fact be a reference to his household/family (Carpenter 811).  While the prohibition of coveting extends to “anything that is your neighbor’s,” from the itemization it would appear that there may have been an emphasis on the coveting of relationships.

20:18-19 – The theophany was indeed an awe-inspiring spectacle to behold.  While the seismic and meteorological phenomena were frightening in themselves, it was the voice of God that was most fearful.  The people were terror-stricken by this encounter with God and requested that such an experience not be repeated.  Instead, they would have Moses serve as their mediator.  Hence, one of God’s purposes in the theophany was brought to fruition: that the people would believe Moses forever (Ex 19:9).

20:20 – Moses explains that the fear of God is a healthy thing designed to keep the people from sinning against Him.  There seems to be a play on words here as Moses tells the people, “Do not fear,” but then immediately proceeds to tell the people that God has come for the express purpose of testing them, “that the fear of him may be before” them.  While this may seem paradoxical in common English usage, it would appear that the author is using two different nuances for the Hebrew word ירא.  The first use relates to the subjective emotion of terror while the second relates to reverence.  It is this second usage that the wisdom literature calls its readers to, as the fear (ירא) of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov 9:10).  Childs explains that, “The fear of God is not a subjective emotion of terror, but the obedience of God’s Law.  The glory and holiness of God calls forth man’s fear (cf. Isa. 6), but the end is not the emotion, rather the deed” (373).

20:21 – That God, who is typically associated with light in Scripture, would be present in the “thick darkness” presents another apparent paradox.  The darkness would remind the people of the 9^th plague in Egypt (Carpenter 827), but would also harken back to creation once again where darkness was over the face of the deep, but God’s Spirit was present there, hovering over the face of the waters (Ge 1:2).  Moses alone draws near, and it is from within this darkness that he would receive the balance of the stipulations that would be referred to as the book of the covenant (Ex 20:22-23:33).

Echoes in the New Testament

The New Testament is replete with examples of allusion to the sequence of events in Exodus 19 and 20, but due to space we will focus on three such occurrences: 1Peter, Hebrews, and Galatians.  First of all, Peter brings Exodus 19:5-6 crashing into the New Testament in a completely new light as he applies it to the new Israel: the church.  As ancient Israel was to serve as a kingdom of priests and a people marked by holiness, so the church must do so today, endeavoring not to neglect the role of mediator to the nations.  What makes Peter’s appropriation of this text even more profound is that the epistle is likely addressed to a primarily Gentile audience.  While Peter’s Jewish contemporaries would have viewed God’s election and the events at Sinai in an ethnocentric way, Peter applies the entire event to the New Testament church, which was ethnically diverse.

The book of Hebrews is filled with explicit reference as well as allusion to the events at Sinai.  Here we will focus our attention on two occurring in the eighth and twelfth chapters.  In the eighth chapter, the author explains that the covenant made at Sinai has been replaced by a new and better covenant, with a new and better mediator: Jesus.  The covenant that supersedes Sinai is the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34, which the author explicitly cites.  The new covenant would deliver what the old was powerless to do, it would be written on the hearts of God’s people, hearts that were liberated from bondage to sin, hearts that not only knew the will of God but also had the power to do it (Bruce 190).

The twelfth chapter (vv. 18 ff.) also contains an explicit reference to Sinai and specifically to the terrifying events of the theophany.  The historical events of the Exodus are used in the apostolic era as models or parables of the Christian experience, both individually and corporately (Bruce 355).  Here the author invokes the graphic imagery of the Sinai theophany in his paraenesis to an audience of Christians who stand on the brink of apostasy, the main point being that to reject the gospel is to incur judgment from God that is more swift and terrible than disobedience to the Sinaitic covenant.  The author proceeds to cite Haggai 2:6 as he makes a connection with the shaking/trembling of the mountain at Sinai and interprets the prophecy in eschatological terms with a final warning that we approach God with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire (12:28).

Finally, we will consider Paul’s use of the Sinai experience in the fourth chapter of Galatians where fascinatingly, Paul interprets the Exodus text allegorically.  Sinai he relates to Hagar, which corresponds to the Jews who reject Christ and consequently continue in slavery under the old covenant.  Sarah, on the other hand, he relates to the heavenly Jerusalem which corresponds to the church and freedom from the Law (Gal 4:21-31).  This interpretation, of course, would have been incomprehensible for an unbelieving Jew, but it served Paul’s purpose very well as he was writing polemically against Judaizers to a Gentile audience.

Biblical Theology

It has long been observed that before the fall, the Garden of Eden served as a sanctuary (Dumbrell 57-61), and that creation itself functions as a cosmic temple (Walton 78-86).  What seems to be less obvious, or at least has garnered less scholarly attention, is that the Sinai experience of Exodus 19 – 20:21 has numerous tabernacle/temple parallels and may be seen as a foreshadowing of the later cultic practices of Judaism.

Several of these parallels can be easily identified: 1) The mountain is sealed off and protected as holy space and the presence of God resides there in a special and unique way, which is analogous to the later tabernacle/temple;  2) Moses alone goes up to the mountain and enters the thick cloud (functioning as the sanctum sanctorum), which is analogous to the entry of the holy of holies by high priest;  3) People are required to be consecrated before approaching God at the mountain which is analogous to the later consecration of priests as well as the consecration of implements used in the cultic practice; 4) The cloud rests on the mountain at Sinai, indicating the presence of Yahweh, as it would later come to rest on the tabernacle signifying the presence and glory of God (Ex 40:34 ff.); 5) The theophany in Exodus 19 is accompanied by the blowing of the trumpet, which is analogous to the later establishment of the feast of trumpets (Lev 23:23-25).  Other parallels no doubt exist, but this should be sufficient to establish at least a prima facie case that there is a strong likelihood that the events of Sinai served as a foreshadowing (or perhaps a model) of the development of later cultic practices.

Gowan, who clearly continues to be influenced by Wellhausen, suggests that, “Sinai may have been from the beginning… less a part of history and more a part of worship than the other traditional materials used in the Pentateuch” (174).  He arrives at this position because he believes the composition of the passage is based on a later redactor’s piecing together of liturgical fragments to create the account.  While Gowan seems to pick up on the cultic themes, his explanation is anachronistic at best and is more rooted in an attempt to defend the documentary hypothesis than to develop sound biblical theology.

It is also quite obvious that the creation account of Genesis 1-3 continues to echo throughout the book of Exodus.  In fact, creation (and subsequent re-creation) seems to be a foundational leitmotif not just of the book of Exodus, but indeed of the entire canon.  Part and parcel of this overarching creation theme is the complimentary theme of the restoration of the imago Dei.  God created a world and a people that was good, however, through the sin of Adam and Eve, humanity and the entire created order became infected and debased.  In the passage we have considered in this study, God is in the process of setting things right; redeeming a fallen people, taking them to Himself as a special possession, giving them the moral and ethical instructions that reestablish what it means to be made in the image of God, and assigning them a priestly vocation to live their lives before the nations in a manner that will bring glory and honor to Yahweh.

As fascinating as this theology is from a historical perspective, it is even more profound when we realize that the opportunity to encounter God and receive His law is not something that was simply fixed in a certain point of history, but is indeed available to each of us today.  In fact, the events of the Exodus provide a powerful matrix through which we see the progression of heilsgeschichte in the church age.   In other words, God is still in the redemption business, setting His people free from the oppression of sin, calling them into a new covenant relationship, and conforming them into the image of His Son, who is the perfect restoration of the imago Dei.

Conclusion

If Exodus is the highpoint of Old Testament theology, the theophany and covenant of Sinai is surely its apex.  No other event, not even the events surrounding the exile, has etched such an indelible impression upon Jewish theology and identity.  While God established various covenants with His people throughout history, the Sinaitic covenant is certainly viewed as the covenant.  That God would bind Himself into a covenant relationship with fallen human beings is a profound testimony to His love, grace, and faithfulness, and stands in stark contrast with the multifarious conceptions of “gods,” not only in the Ancient Near East, but also throughout the contemporary modern world.

What was begun at Sinai, was reiterated in the establishment of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ, and awaits its final culmination in the eschaton.  In the mean time, we live in the tension between the “already” and the “not-yet” aspects of the kingdom, and Moses’ words ring just as true today as the day he spoke them to his original audience, “For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him?  And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?” (Deut 4:7-8).

It remains for Christians today to function as God’s kingdom of priests and as a holy nation; not in some ill-conceived geopolitical manifestation, but as a people within a people, being called out to live their lives before the world in a way that displays knowledge of God and brings Him honor and glory, for as Hafemann put it, “the purpose of theology is doxology” (21).

Works Cited

Brown, Francis, and S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and     English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody:     Hendrickson, 1906.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Carpenter, Eugene. Exodus: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary. Ms.

Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. Louisville: Westminster Press, 1974.

Davies, John A. A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of

Israel in Exodus 19.6. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004.

Dumbrell, Scott. “Genesis 2:1-17:A Foreshadowing of the New Creation.” Biblical Theology:

Retrospect and Prospect. Ed. Scott J. Hafemann. Downers Grove: InterVarsity

Press, 2002, 53-65.

Gowan, Donald E. Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary.

Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

Hafemann, Scott J. “The Covenant Relationship.” Central Themes in Biblical Theology:

Mapping Unity in Diversity. Eds. Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House.Grand Rapids:

InterVarsity Press, 2007.

Holladay, William Lee, and Ludwig Köhler, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1971.

Houtman, Alberdina. “A Shocking Event: Targumic reference to the theophany on Mount

Sinai.”  The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honor of Cornelius Houtman. Leuven:

Peeters, 2006.

Isbell, Charles David. The Function of Exodus Motifs in Biblical Narratives: Theological

Didactic Drama. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002.

Longman, Tremper III. How to Read Exodus. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Pritchard, James B., ed.  The Ancient Near East Vol I: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures.          Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958.

Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Walton, John H. ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary. Vol. 1. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

I love this letter.  It is so filled with hope and joy.  When you read it, joy just oozes out of it.  But it is also filled with paradox.  What’s so paradoxical about the letter in general, is that Paul is writing it from prison and at the present moment, he doesn’t know what the outcome of his trial is going to be, in fact, he doesn’t even know if he is going to live or die.  Nonetheless, in the midst of seemingly dire circumstances, he writes an amazingly joyful letter to his friends in the church at Philippi.

Another reason I love this letter is that is presents several themes which cut sharply against not only the prevailing culture of Paul’s day, but also cut with surgical precision against the grain of contemporary American culture and values. This section of the letter is what Bible scholars call a travelogue.  A travelogue is just what it sounds like: a sort of travel agenda that would explain the author’s intention to visit the audience or to send emissaries to visit them on his behalf.

At first glance it may be somewhat tempting to look at a travelogue as simply logistical information that is fixed in history, and skip over it to get to matters that seem more practical or theological in essence.  But it occurs to me that nothing is in Scripture by accident, and nothing in Scripture is irrelevant.  If we are willing to do the work, there are some very profound theological principles here that we can apply to our lives in very practical ways.

So what is Paul doing here in general?  He is holding Timothy and Epaphroditus out as examples; people who exemplify the behavior he called the Philippians to back in v.4.  In fact, the rest of chapter two simply builds on this one verse.

• In vv. 5-11 he holds up Jesus as the archetype for this behavior, in that He emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, and dying on a cross for the benefit of others, for the benefit of those who would have faith in Him.
• In v.17 Paul offers himself as an example, as his life is potentially to be poured out for the benefit of the Philippians.
• Now he will offer two final examples in Timothy and Epaphroditus.
• Timothy: because of his genuine concern for the interests of Christ and the welfare of the Philippians.
• Epaphroditus: because he nearly died for the work of Christ.

19: “I hope in the Lord Jesus” – Paul approached everything with total deferment to the will of God.  Notice what he doesn’t say here.  He doesn’t say, “I am going to do this or that”, he doesn’t say “I am going to send Timothy to do this or that.”  He simply says, “I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon.”

Paul is a man who is absolutely yielded to the sovereignty of God and I think what he is touching on here is the attitude that James talks about in 4:13-16, “¹³Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— ¹⁴yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. ¹⁵Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” ¹⁶As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.”

Our culture tells us that we need to plan our work and work our plan.  When I worked in the corporate world, I had to formulate a 5-year career plan that my boss would evaluate and approve based on whether or not he thought my goals were reasonable.  In the kingdom of God, however, there is no 5-year plan because God doesn’t show us the end-game, he just shows us the next step and he asks us to trust Him to handle the end-game.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to suggest that it is wrong to plan, I just mean that our plans always need to take a back seat to God’s plan, because I can tell you from first hand experience time and again, God’s plan is better 100% of the time.  This can be a difficult thing to resign ourselves to because it means we are relinquishing control over our lives, but when you do this in earnest, the sense of overwhelming peace and joy that settles upon you and your household is beyond explanation.

20-22: So why does Paul want to send Timothy to them?  Because Timothy alone will be genuinely concerned about their welfare.  The idea is this: rather than being self-focused (looking out for number one), Timothy is the type of man who will look out for the interests of the real number one: Jesus Christ.  And to be concerned with the interests of Christ is to be concerned with the welfare of His people.  In fact, I am going to make a bold statement here: it is impossible to serve God without serving others.  Let me say it again: it is impossible to serve God without serving others.  There is no such thing as solo Christianity.  To be called into relationship with God through Jesus Christ is to be called into a community and a life of service to that community.

Timothy is one who serves others because of his concern for the kingdom of God.  And not only so, Paul uses a strong word here to talk about the type of service that he and Timothy have been engaged in.  The word comes from the Greek root δουλεύω – which literally means “to be a slave.”  This word almost always gets softened when it is translated into contemporary English idiom.  It is generally rendered “serve,” but that word doesn’t typically invoke images of slavery when we hear it today.

However, time and again Paul uses the language of slavery to talk about the ministry Christians are called to.  In fact, this is exactly how he identifies himself in the very first verse of the letter: “Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus.”  And this is exactly what all who follow Jesus should aspire to: a life as a slave of Christ Jesus in the service of God and His people.  Indeed, this is at the very heart of the gospel: to accept that Jesus is Lord is necessarily to acknowledge that I am His slave.

Now that cuts against the grain of American culture, doesn’t it?  American rugged individualism, the myth of the self-made man, the idea that I am the master of my fate and the captain of my soul: all utter nonsense.  All human beings are slaves, some just haven’t realized it yet.  All of us are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness; we are either slaves to the kingdom of God or we are slaves to the kingdom of darkness; there is no middle ground.

So what does it mean for me to be concerned with the interests of Christ?  First of all it means that I have to undergo a devastating shift in focus from the internal to the external and a devastating shift in hierarchy where I move from #1 to #3: God first, others second, and me third.

This being the case, if I am to keep myself in check, then I have to ask myself some tough questions.  Whose welfare am I genuinely interested in other than my own?  Am I really concerned about others, or am I just looking out for number one?  What do I sacrifice so that I can promote the welfare of someone else?  By the way, the sacrifice doesn’t have to be monetary, it can be any resource that we share with others, including our time.

 25-27: In 25-27, Paul uses a series of terms to describe Epaphroditus that indicate that he evidently held Epaphroditus in very high regard.  He called him my brother, my fellow worker, my fellow soldier.

• Brother – denotes his close personal relationship with Epaphroditus
• Fellow worker – συνεργός – where we get the English word synergy and denotes someone who has worked alongside Paul.
• Fellow soldier – a military term that is used to describe those who fight side by side.  Here of course, Paul uses the imagery to denote E.’s willingness to engage in the spiritual warfare that inevitably accompanies the advance of the gospel.
• Epaphroditus is not afraid of hard work.  He is the type of guy who will roll up his sleeves, get in the trenches, and do whatever God has asked of him.

 28:  Did you catch that?  Paul is awaiting the outcome of a trial in which his life hangs in the balance.  Depending on the outcome, he may be executed for being subversive, yet he is so focused on the welfare of others that he has no anxiety for his personal situation; his anxiety is for the Philippians.  Does the word selfless come to mind?

How many times are we so focused on ourselves and whatever predicament we may find ourselves in (or have gotten ourselves into) that we get totally overwhelmed with anxiety, with fear and apprehension about the future, a future that we have absolutely no control over?  Have you ever noticed that the most miserable people on earth are those who think only of themselves?

This type of anxiety is borne out of an internal focus: I am focused on me and my fear.  But Paul is speaking of another type of anxiety here, an anxiety that is the result of his intense focus on the needs of others.  He eagerly wants to relieve the Philippians of their state of worry over the welfare of Epaphroditus, which will in turn relieve him of his anxiety for the welfare and state of mind of the people in Philippi.

29: Timothy and Epaphroditus were a couple of special guys, so special in fact that Paul held them out as examples or models for the Philippians.  But just what made them so special?

• Preeminently that they have followed the example set forth by Christ Himself.
• They were servants of others
• They genuinely cared for God’s people
• Eager to serve in whatever way God may choose to use them (not glamorous)
• They were willing to lay down their lives for the kingdom of God and the advance of the gospel
• They were available

On account of these things Paul tells the Philippians to honor men like these.  What does that mean though, to honor them?  In general, honor refers to the public acknowledgment of a person’s worth, granted on the basis of how fully that individual embodies qualities and behaviors valued by the group.

So let’s bring this home to roost in our contemporary context, shall we?  What kind of things are valued and honored in contemporary American culture? Materialism (greed), power, sex-appeal.  The people who have these things are the people who are honored and celebrated in western culture.

In the kingdom of God, however, everything is backwards and upside down from the system of the world.  The world honors strength, the kingdom honors weakness; the world honors getting, the kingdom honors giving; the world honors vengeance, the kingdom honors mercy; the world honors individuality, the kingdom honors community; the world honors self-promotion, the kingdom honors humility; the world honors self-exaltation, the kingdom honors the exaltation of Christ.

The essence of kingdom living is simply this: to turn our focus inside-out.  To move the center of our attention from the self to the community, to be so concerned with others that we have no time to be anxious for ourselves.  To be so consumed with God’s will that our will ceases to be important, and falls into line with His.

In 1920 Eberhard Arnold wrote, “ Prophecy bears witness against all that is self-seeking, murderous, and anti-social; against all crime against life and community; against all gain through injury to another; against all luxury and affluence at the expense of those who suffer want; against violence and war…With this attitude, the first Christians remained everywhere ‘aliens’ and ‘foreigners’ within their society, citizens and ambassadors of a coming supra-political order.”

This supra-political order Arnold writes about, I proclaim to you as the Church, the manifestation of the kingdom of God on earth.  A kingdom that is counter-culture, a kingdom of slaves, a kingdom where God is first, others are second, and I am third.

Amen.

The text: Lk 18:9-14

[The Pharisee and the Tax Collector]
[9] He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: [10] “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. [11] The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. [12] I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ [13] But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ [14] I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

9 – So this parable is not so flattering to the Pharisees.  The funny thing is, the Pharisees were probably the ones he was actually telling this parable to.  Do you think His approval rating with the Pharisees was on the rise?  I think not.

10 – Pharisee – Who were the Pharisees?  The Pharisees were a sect within 1^st century Judaism whose name was derived from the Hebrew word parash meaning “to separate.”  According to Josephus, they were considered the most accurate interpreters of the Law.  They were resistant to the liberal currents of their culture, they studied the Law devotedly to determine the duties they owed to God, they believed in the supernatural and held firmly to the belief in one personal God who had revealed Himself through Scripture and was concerned with the welfare of His people and was personally involved with their destiny.  They believed in the existence of angels and spirits, they believed firmly in the resurrection of the dead, they believed in predestination as well as free will, they were politically conservative, and they were committed to teaching others their way of life.

The fact is, Jesus had more in common with the Pharisees than with any other 1^st century sect of Judaism.  Yet, interestingly enough, Jesus’ words to the Pharisees were harsher than his words to any other group or person.  He called them hypocrites, whitewashed tombs, blind guides, and children of hell.  Because of this, when we read the Gospels we tend to get a picture of the Pharisees as the bad guys.  Reality check: the Pharisees were the upstanding conservative Evangelicals of their day.  In fact, when we read the NT and we see the word Pharisee, we should insert our own name in the text and continue reading.

Tax collector – Tax collectors were some of the most despised people in Israel.  They were Jews who had contracted with the Roman Empire to collect the oppressive tax levied against the citizens of Judea.  Many times in the NT, the term “tax collectors” appears alongside the word “sinners” as in “tax collectors and sinners.”  They were typically dishonest extortionists who collected more tax than they were entitled to so they could line their pockets at the expense of the people.

So these two men, a Pharisee and a tax collector, went up to the temple, which was the central gathering place for God’s people, to pray.  In contemporary terms you could say two men, a conservative Evangelical Christian and a heathen sinner, went to church to pray.

11-12 – Now we get an inside look at the prayers of these two men and how they differ from each other.  The Pharisee’s prayer is couched as a prayer of thanksgiving: “God, I thank you that I am not like other men…”  But the truth is, this is not a prayer of thanksgiving at all, but a prayer of self-righteousness.  He begins by comparing himself to others.  Have you ever noticed that no matter how bad you have messed up, you can always look around and find someone who is just a little worse off than you are?  The Pharisee lists certain types of sin that are outward and obvious: extortioners, the unjust, adulterers, and then he looks around and sees the most obvious sinner standing next to him, a tax collector.

Have you ever noticed how tempting comparison is?  We compare ourselves with others all the time.  To put this whole thing in contemporary Evangelical parlance, perhaps we should use the term “spiritual maturity.”  This tends to be the badge of honor among church people today.  We are tempted to gauge our spiritual maturity by comparing ourselves with those whom we think aren’t quite as spiritually mature as we are.  We are also tempted to take responsibility for the spiritual maturity of others.  However, we need to understand that bringing someone else to spiritual maturity is not our job, but the Holy Spirit’s.  We can spur each other on toward maturity, but your spiritual growth is not my personal responsibility, nor is mine yours.  We must never submit to the temptation to sit in judgment of others, because all of us have logs in our eyes when we try to remove the speck from our brother’s eye (Mt 7:1-6).

In the next part of his prayer he begins to list some of the things that he thinks has earned him merit in the eyes of God: “I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all I get.”  In contemporary terms we might list similar things but we might also add some others: I teach Sunday school, I go to Sunday worship service and Wednesday Bible study, I sing in the choir, I work in the kitchen, I preach, I go on mission trips, I preach, I evangelize, etc.  While we may not actually be so bold as to actually pray these things, we all have probably thought things like this from time to time.  But we must be convinced in the depths of our being that, as Isaiah says, we have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are but filthy rags (64:6).

13 – Now notice how different the tax collector’s prayer is.  First of all, notice his posture; he is completely broken, completely humble, and stands off at a distance, unwilling to even lift his eyes toward heaven.  He simply beats his breast (a sign of sorrow, even broken heartedness), admits his sinfulness, and pleads for mercy.  (Cf. Psalm 51).

14 – Now, notice who it is that actually gains justification (a declaration of righteousness by God).  Is it the man who has seemingly done everything right?  No, it is the man who admits that he has done everything wrong.  This would have been not only shocking to the Pharisees in the audience, they would have been downright insulted.  They thought that they were the righteous ones, but Jesus told them flat out that they were the sinners and the despicable tax collector was in fact righteous because of his humility.

Again, to put this in contemporary Evangelical terms, the Pharisee has exalted himself by putting on his church face.  The tax collector on the other hand, has ditched the mask.  As St. Benedict, the founder of the Benedictine monastic order put it, the humble man is that man who “not only admits with his tongue but is also convinced in his heart that he is inferior to all and of less value” (RB 7.51).  We Evangelicals are fond of admitting our unworthiness with our mouths, but I wonder how many of us are quite so convinced of our unworthiness in our hearts.

In Monk Habits for Everyday People, Dennis Okholm wrote, “Only those who are humble enough to realize that God does not love us because something we have cultivated attracts his love, and only those who are humble enough to trust that God still loves them when they know how unlovable they are – only these can discover the love of God that itself determines our worth.”  While we may think we know this truth in our heads, we may be surprised to find that we don’t yet believe it in our hearts.

How do you react when others criticize you?   Do you respond with anger, defensiveness, and counterattack?  Or do you think, “Yea, you’re right, and in fact you don’t know the half of it”?  Until very recently, when someone I loved would criticize me my reaction would always be one of instantaneous anger, not because I thought I was perfect and beyond criticism, but because deep down inside I knew I was worthless and criticism of my failures made me feel like I was being despised by the one I love.  But Jesus healed me of this in a very profound way, and he can heal you too.

Now, let’s consider a couple more passages:

1Tim 1:15 –”The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” Among whom I am the foremost – Since Paul has gone to be with the Lord, I now claim this title for myself.  As Okholm put it, “I have more evidence of crime against myself than I have for any other human being.  My conscience accuses me directly of so much malice, whereas I know only by hearsay of the evil done by others.  To be humble before God is to know that I am blameworthy.”  In other words, one who is truly humble never tries to convince others of his humility; his humility is self-evident in his acceptance of sin-guilt.

Lk 7:47 – “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.”   This is one reason I am grateful that the sin in my life has been so blatantly obvious.  This may sound strange but it is true.  If it could be done wrong, I have done it and I have done it for all to see.  But may I just suggest to you that even if you have seemingly done everything right in the eyes of the church and the world, you still have sin in your life and sin that is less obvious is just as damning as sin that is conspicuous.  We must all realize that we are sinners who have been forgiven much.  Only then can we truly love much.

The purpose of this paper is to offer an interpretation of Ezekiel 37 based on the relevant historical, sociocultural, and grammatical contexts. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations of Scripture are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Holy Bible.

Historical Context

Ezekiel was born in a time where a major shift in geopolitical powers was taking place. Assyria conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C. and dispersed its residents throughout the Assyrian Empire while reducing Judah to a vassal state. However, Babylon, the new superpower of the ANE supplanted Assyrian dominance and Judah transferred its loyalties, becoming a Babylonian vassal under tribute (Thompson 13). When Jehoiakim withheld tribute from Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian army once again descended upon Judah, looted the treasure of the kingdom and the temple, and deported the social elite of Judah (including Ezekiel) into Babylonian exile, leaving only the poorest people behind (2Kgs 24:12-15). Ten years later Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and carried the rest of the inhabitants of Judah into exile.

Author

What is known of Ezekiel is confined to what is revealed about him in his writings. Ezekiel is identified as the son of Buzi who served as a priest and prophet. He was among those in the Babylonian exile and his prophetic ministry spanned from 593 to 571 B.C. (Thompson 10). His recorded prophetic ministry began in the “fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin” (Ezek 1:2-3) with the last recorded date being some 20 years later (Ezek 40:1).

Ezekiel has been the subject of no small amount of psychoanalytical and social critique. Due to his visions, some have concluded that Ezekiel was a deranged paranoid schizophrenic, while others have labeled him a misogynist due to his extended and sometimes graphic use of feminine metaphor in his portrayal of Israel as a harlot. However, Ezekiel’s writings seem to be more indicative of a mystic rather than a psychotic and we must not forget that Ezekiel wrote from and to a culture that had a much different view of the status and role of women (Thompson 8-10).

Audience

Ezekiel’s primary audience likely consisted of his fellow exiles from Judah and the people left in the land, but extended to embrace those of the communities of the larger Diaspora including the former inhabitants of the northern kingdom. In fact, as 2:3 makes clear, Ezekiel was sent to the “people of Israel,” which has all twelve tribes in view (Thompson 17). Moreover, as will become evident in the textual analysis of 37:15-28, Ezekiel’s message impacted both kingdoms. This indicates that although the people had divided, God continued to see His people as one.

Sociocultural Context

The Babylonian deportation policy was designed to serve a variety of political objectives: the dissolution of nationality; the removal of people of skill, wisdom and ability in order to avoid a political resurgence; to provide conscripts to serve in the Babylonian military machine; and to bolster the local economy. However, the Judeans maintained a distinct ethnic and social community even in the midst of exile. While they continued the external practices such as observation of the Sabbath and the performance of the rite of circumcision, unfortunately, their tendencies toward apostasy and idolatry were still maintained (Block 5-7).

One of the primary factors influencing the social context of the exilic community is that their theological presuppositions were being challenged by the very fact of exile. The Sinaitic covenant was seen as the high point of Jewish history and theology, and the land was seen to be part and parcel of the covenant; the temple was the dwelling place of God and was thus believed to be indestructible; and the Davidic covenant was seen to be uninterruptible. However, the people had been exiled from the land, the temple had been destroyed, the Davidic line had been severed, and Jerusalem had been destroyed. Block explains that this existential reality left the exiles in a state of “theological shock,” causing them to question the power and faithfulness of Yahweh (Block 7-9). One wonders, however, how the situation could have been so shocking for the community. Surely they must have realized that it was not Yahweh who had broken faith with them but vice versa. Given the extensive list of curses linked with covenant disobedience (Dt 28:15 ff.), and the fact that the curses culminated in expulsion from the land (Dt 28:63-64), their circumstances should have come as no surprise. Nonetheless, the people had reached a point of utter despair.

Literary Context

Genre, Structure, and Style

The book of Ezekiel fits squarely in the prophetic book genre and consists of collections of literary units appearing in three main sections: prophecies of judgment (1-24); oracles against foreign nations (25-32); and prophecies offering a message of consolation (33-48) (Hals 3-5). The last section is also referred to as restoration oracles.

Scholars find it challenging to determine whether to categorize Ezekiel’s writings as poetry or prose due to his extended use of narrative (Block 39). His style is first-person autobiographical (Block 20) and shows no internal evidence of having been written by his disciples, as is the case with some of the other prophetic books (e.g., Isaiah or Jeremiah) (Hals 3-5). Interestingly, although virtually the entire book is written in autobiographical style, the reader rarely has access to the inner workings of Ezekiel’s mind. His emotional reactions and personal assessments are rarely recorded and consequently, “the real Ezekiel is never exposed” (Block 27). Ezekiel’s pervasive autobiographical stance makes this book unique among the other works in the prophetic corpus (Thompson 21).

The book features prophetic proof sayings and prophetic word formulas (Hals 4-5). The prophetic word formulas include word-event speech markers (e.g., “The word of the Lord came to me”), citation formulas (e.g., “Thus has the Lord Yahweh declared”), and signatory formulas (“The declaration of the Lord Yahweh”). It also contains specific formulas of address where Ezekiel frequently uses the full title “the Lord Yahweh” and Yahweh addresses Ezekiel as “son of man.” Ezekiel also exhibits a variety of prophetic command formulas, theological formulas (“and they will know that I am Yahweh”), and the divine coercion formula (“The hand of the Lord was upon me”) (Block 30-35). Also peculiar to Ezekiel’s literary style are his extended narratives, distinctive vocabulary (including lexical and grammatical Aramisms and Akkadianisms), as well as the conspicuous absence of words or phrases common to other prophetic writings (Block 39-40).

Ezekiel also uses a literary device, known as “halving,” where the author presents an initial theme in an opening oracle which is followed by the development of a second theme and concluded with a “coda” which intermingles elements from both oracles (Thompson 21). Although chapter 37 contains two oracles of nearly identical length, there is no coda to tie them together, therefore, halving as Greenberg defines it is not a literary feature of the passage at hand.

Ezekiel’s style also reflects the use of waw plus perfect (reflective of waw-conjunctive) rather than the waw plus imperfect (waw-consecutive), which is a common construction in other biblical texts. This stylistic shift likely reflects late biblical Hebrew usage rather than Aramaic influence as has been commonly suggested (Block 367).

Textual Criticism

37:1-14

Block identifies a variety of textual issues in this passage (e.g., misvocalizations, gender disparity between subject and verb, possible occurrences of dittography, and possible glosses based on comparative readings from LXX and Syr.). However, these textual difficulties do not appear to affect the passage substantively.
Perhaps the most interesting textual issue appears in the translation/interpretive challenge presented by Ezekiel’s use of the noun רוּחַ which serves as a leitwort in the passage. This word can be rendered as breath, wind, or spirit (BDB 924-925). Due to this semantic range and Ezekiel’s frequent use of the word in chapter 37 (it appears ten times), the translator must make a judgment based on context, which carries an inescapable interpretive force. It also seems that Ezekiel purposefully manipulates the word in a variety of ways in this passage, which increases the complexity of the task of translation.

37:15-28

Most of the textual criticism of this literary unit revolves around the tendency of LXX to interpret the text rather than to literally translate it. Block notes that LXX and Syr. drop the second occurrence of מֶלֶךְ in v. 22, but explains this as a probable instance of haplography (407). For the purpose at hand we will leave the detailed discussion of manuscript and translation discrepancies to the experts in textual criticism and focus on the MT. Of interest is Block’s translation of בְּגִלּֽוּלֵיהֶם in v. 22, which he renders as “with their pellets of dung” explaining this to be an idiomatic expression for “idols” (407). While most translations simply render this expression, “with their idols,” Block’s translation is helpful as it brings out the fuller connotation of the “dungy” essence of the practice of idolatry; the lexical basis for which can be found in Brown-Driver-Briggs (165).

This literary unit also contains two significant leitwörter: אֶחָד (occurring eight times) and עֹולָם (which occurs five times in the latter section) (Block 394). אֶחָד (one) is significant in that the thrust of the passage deals with the divine act of the reinstatement of national unity for Israel while the significance of עֹולָם is found in the promise that this unity would exist in perpetuity.

Textual Analysis

Chapter 37 consists of two separate literary units: vv. 1-14 and vv. 15-28. The former unit is probably the most well known section of the book. For purposes of interpretation, the sections will first be analyzed independently and then we will explore the various ways in which they are interconnected.

37:1-14

This literary unit consists of two sections: verses 1-10 report Ezekiel’s vision, while verses 11-14 interpret the experience. The chapter begins with the formulaic statement “The hand of the Lord was upon me…” indicating the instantiation of a prophetic visionary experience (Blenkinsopp 170). In v. 1 we are introduced to the theme-word, רוּחַ, for the first time where we find it rendered as “Spirit” in the ESV. As mentioned above, the word is used several times throughout the passage with nuanced meaning. Block points out that the word carries at least three different nuances in this text: “agency of conveyance (v. 1), direction (v. 9c), and agency of animation (vv. 5-6)” (373). In this instance, בְרוּחַ יְהוָה functions as the agency of conveyance that carries Ezekiel to a specific valley where he beholds the awesome sight of a countless number of very dry bones. At first blush the valley seems to have been a place where some monumental battle has occurred and as Block points out, “the sight suggests the remains of a major catastrophe” (374). However, Eichrodt explains “The valley-plain, which has been a place where judgment had to be suffered, now becomes the place where Yahweh triumphs over death…” (507).

In v. 3 Yahweh initiates dialogue with the prophet by inquiring whether the scattered bones could be reanimated. Of course, Ezekiel knows that it is not at all common for the dead to return to life. Moreover, at this point in theological development in Israel there is no evidence of belief in the “postmortem survival of the individual” (Blenkinsopp 172). Some commentators suggest that Ezekiel declines to answer because he deems the question to be ridiculous. Blenkinsopp, however, points out that Ezekiel’s refusal to answer the question is rooted in the fact that the one who posed it is the author of life and he knows that “the power of God extends even into the realm of death.” Accordingly, in lieu of a direct answer to the question, Ezekiel simply responds that this is something that only God Himself could know (171).

In vv. 4-10, Yahweh also declines to answer the question directly, opting instead for demonstration. By issuing a series of commands to Ezekiel, the Lord uses him as His prophetic agent in calling the dead bones to life. The second occurrence of רוּחַ is encountered in v. 5, which the ESV translates as “breath.” This is reminiscent of the primordial act of creation where the lord forms the man from the dust of the ground and “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Ge 2:7). Jenson here notes the parallelism with the Genesis account as the bodies are first formed and then animated with the “breath of life” (282). Hence, רוּחַ functions as the “divine animating force without which no life is possible” (Block 376). Verse 6 also contains the purpose statement of the event: “And you shall know that I am the Lord,” a common theological formula in Ezekiel.

While vv. 4-6 function as Yahweh’s declaration of intent, vv. 7-10 are the narrative of the fulfillment of that pronouncement. Ezekiel obediently spoke the prophetic word to the dead and the bodies obediently responded to that word by reassembling skeletons, which were subsequently covered in flesh and skin. Nonetheless, although the bodies were reassembled, they were still inanimate. Consequently, Yahweh instructed Ezekiel to prophesy to the breath that it might come and animate the bodies. Once again, Ezekiel did as he was instructed, the breath responded, the bodies were resuscitated and rose to their feet, taking on the appearance of a vast army. This must have been an awesome sight for Ezekiel to behold as the process of death and decay, which for all practical intents and purposes looks to have been completed, has in fact been reversed, in effect constituting not just a reversal of the natural order of things, but a new act of creation!

Nonetheless, Ezekiel still has not been informed who the bones belonged to or what the interpretation of this tremendous event may have been. Verses 11-14 expose the reason for God’s momentous act as He elucidates the emotional condition of the people of Israel and their sense of existential hopelessness. In verse 11, Yahweh identifies the bodies as the whole house Israel and repeats the refrain of hopelessness that has been on the lips of the people. The people had been using the metaphor of dry bones to describe their condition of despair, concluding that they had been “cut off.” The Hebrew word rendered “cut off” is the Niphal first person, common, plural of גָּזַר, meaning to be cut off or destroyed (BDB 160), which is a common way of describing the dead, and pulls from the sentiment of Psalm 88:5, “like one set loose among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, like those whom you remember no more, for they are cut off from your hand” (cf. Is 53:8; Lam 3:54).

Yahweh responds to the people’s statement by instructing Ezekiel to speak a prophetic message of hope and restoration directly to them (v. 12). In this verse, Block sees a triad of responses on the part of Yahweh that corresponds to the triad of lament expressed in the despair laden saying of the people. Moreover, he suggests that the prophecy is a promise of restoration of the “deity-nation-land” relationship triad, which the people believed had been lost forever (382). There is also an interesting shift of imagery in the interpretation of the vision. While Ezekiel’s vision had been of the reassembly and revivification of bones that had been scattered on the surface of the ground, Yahweh now promises to open graves, draw the people forth, and bring them back to the land of promise.

In vv. 13-14, Yahweh also reveals that the purpose for this miraculous intervention is so the people will know that He is the Lord. He also explains that this will not be simply a physical revival but that there will be a spiritual component to it as well, as He will also put His Spirit (רוּחַ) within them as He returns them to the land. This, of course, is a reiteration of the promised insertion of the Spirit from the preceding prophecy (36:26-27), which also carries with it the promise of a new heart that will result in the renewal of the moral/ethical conduct of the people.

37:15-28

This section opens with the word-event formula, “The word of the Lord came to me…” which serves as a direct speech marker indicating the introduction of divine speech (Block 32) where God characteristically addresses the prophet as “son of man” (בֶן־אָדָם). This form of address is used 93 times in the book and serves to emphasize the distance between God and the human race (Block 30). Yahweh subsequently instructs Ezekiel to perform a prophetic sign-act, behavior portraying the deeds of God designed to elicit questions and blaze a path for prophetic instruction (Thompson 222). This sign-act involves Ezekiel inscribing on two pieces of wood the names of the tribes representing the southern and northern kingdoms respectively, and then joining them together, “that they may become one” (אֶחָד) (vv. 16-17).

In v. 18 we learn that the sign-act should incite the people to inquire about its meaning and in vv. 19-22, Yahweh reveals the interpretation of the event to Ezekiel in order that he might relay it to the people: He will gather the exiles from the northern kingdom, who had been deported and dispersed throughout the Assyrian Empire when Samaria fell in 722 B.C., and He will unite them with the exiles of the southern kingdom (Judah) when He restores them collectively to the land. Moreover, Yahweh will reunite them into one kingdom under one king (note the recurrence of אֶחָד). If the restoration of Judah prophesied in the first literary unit was hard for the Judahite exiles to believe, the gathering of those who had been scattered in the diaspora at least 150 years earlier would have been unthinkable; that they would be united together into one kingdom, under one monarch, after centuries of division would have been incomprehensible.

Verse 23 then sets forth the moral and ethical implications of God’s restoral of the people to the land. They will no longer engage in the practices that led to God’s judgment and their expulsion from the land. Their worship of idols will desist, as will the other detestable practices they have been guilty of. In fact, v. 24 explains that this will be the case because Yahweh Himself will save them and cleanse them, and their spiritual integrity will be restored. This verse culminates in the repetition of the covenant formula, implicit in the first literary unit but here made explicit: “they shall be my people, and I will be their God.”

In v. 24 we find that in addition to gathering the people from the diaspora, uniting them with the house of Judah, and restoring them to the land, Yahweh will also reaffirm the Davidic covenant by setting a king over them from the line of David. Block explains that this movement of God simultaneously upholds the permanence of His original promise to David and also discredits all of the past rulers who have made pretense to the throne, especially those of the northern kingdom (415). Additionally, as Yahweh’s Davidic king serves as shepherd over them, they will be enabled to carefully observe God’s law, they will dwell in the land forever, and they will be under His reign perpetually (עֹולָם) (v. 25).

This eventuality will culminate in the establishment of a unilateral covenant of peace (בְּרִית שָׁלֹום), which is initiated by Yahweh and will be everlasting (עֹולָם) (v. 26). In addition to returning the people to the land, God will once again set His sanctuary in their midst, but this time the situation will be everlasting (עֹולָם) (v. 27). Rather than seeing this בְּרִית שָׁלֹום as a new covenant, Block, finding corollary in Leviticus 26:1-13, explains that this is in fact a renewal of the Sinaitic covenant (420). The outworking of all of this is made clear in v. 28: not only will Israel know that God is the Lord, indeed all the nations will come to know that God is the one who consecrates Israel (מְקַדֵּשׁ).

Co-text

There are numerous thematic parallels among Ezekiel’s restoration oracles (chapters 33-36). 33:10 contains a lament saying similar in sentiment to the lament of 37:11. The condemnation of the “shepherds of Israel” in 34:1-10 is contrasted by the Davidic king who will serve faithfully as one shepherd over the people in 37:24. The collection of the scattered sheep in 34:11-24 is paralleled in the gathering of the diaspora deportees in 37:21. The covenant of peace in 34:25-31 is echoed in 37:26. The promise of the Spirit and the repatriation of the people is also paralleled in chapter 36.

Inter-canonical Echoes

Relating to 37:1-14

Genesis 2:7

As mentioned in the textual analysis above, there is a strong connection between Ezekiel 37:5 and Genesis 2:7 where God first forms human bodies and then animates them with His breath. Hence, resurrection in Ezekiel is connected to the creative act of God in Genesis and not only functions to reverse the process of death and decay (which is the result of sin in Ge 3), but also echoes the theme of God’s creative work moving to higher degrees of order as the scattered bones in disarray are reassembled from their arid state and animated through the life giving Spirit of God. There are also wider parallels in the creation account of Genesis 1 where inanimate matter responds to the spoken word of God, albeit in the Ezekiel account, God’s words are spoken through the prophet.

Exodus 6:5-8

This passage is reminiscent of Exodus 6:5-7 where God has “heard the groaning of the people of Israel” whom are suffering under the yoke of Egyptian slavery. Here God also declares His promise to redeem the people in a miraculous way and bring them into the land of promise in order that they might know that He is the Lord. In this passage God introduces the covenant formula, “I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God” (6:7). Accordingly, in Ezekiel 37:12-13, God twice refers to the exiles as “my people” (עַמִּי).

Daniel 12:1-3

This passage obviously fits into the resurrection motif apparent in Ezekiel 37. However, while the Ezekiel passage is related to national restoration, there is no such imagery present in Daniel as it deals solely with the eschatological resurrection of the deceased. Also, while the scope of resurrection is limited to the house of Israel in Ezekiel, we find that it extends to all of the deceased in Daniel, referencing a general resurrection of the righteous and the wicked as well as the consequent recompense due each: some are resurrected to everlasting life, while others are resurrected to everlasting shame and contempt.

John 20:22

Pretlove sets forth a compelling argument that John 20:22 can best be interpreted in light of Ezekiel 37:9-10. He essentially posits that when Jesus “breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’” He is identifying the disciples as the core of Israel, which is being resurrected to become a mighty army and thus bringing about the comprehensive restoration of Israel promised in Ezekiel 37. He also finds numerous connections between the ministry of Jesus and the prophecies contained in Ezekiel 34-37.

1Corinthians 15

In 1Corinthians 15, Paul deals with the topic of eschatological resurrection more comprehensively than anywhere else in the canon. In context, it would appear that some in the Corinthian church had made claim (suffering no doubt from an over-realized eschatology) that there is no future resurrection. Paul, however, takes great pains to explain that resurrection is not merely a figurative event in the temporal life of the believer, but that it is a very real and somatic event, which will take place in the eschaton. Moreover, in attempting to define the resurrection body (15:44), he explains that it is sown as a natural or “soulish” body (σῶμα ψυχικόν) and it is raised as a spiritual body (σῶμα πνευματικόν). Since both bodies are somatic, and hence material in essence, the modifiers ψυχικόν and πνευματικόν refer to what the soma is animated by rather than its composition (Wright, “The Meaning of Jesus” 120). Consequently, this powerfully comes to bear on Ezekiel’s triadic prophecy of tomb opening, bodily extraction, and animation by the Spirit, which has only been completely fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ and remains to be fulfilled in the eschaton for those who have faith in Him.

Relating to 37:15-18

Exodus 6:5-8

This passage is brought to bear on the latter literary unit in a more forceful manner, as the covenant formula is made explicit in 37:23, 27. Likewise, the liberation, redemption, and reconciliation themes resonate clearly in Ezekiel. Just as God freed the ancient Israelites from their Egyptian captivity, He now is not only freeing the Judahites from their Babylonian captivity, but is also liberating their northern kingdom counterparts from the diaspora.

Leviticus 26:1-13

Several Ezekelian themes are present in this passage including covenant obedience, abstinence from idolatry, the resultant blessing and peace in the land, the multiplication of the people, God’s dwelling in their midst, and the presence of the covenant formula. Clearly, this text plays an important role as Ezekiel echoes these topics in his oracles of restoration. More importantly, as Leviticus 26:1-13 was spoken to a unified Israel, the covenant renewal is promised to the reunited people.

John 14:27

Jesus’ promise of peace to His disciples echoes the covenant of peace (בְּרִית שָׁלֹום) theme in Ezekiel. Jenson defines “covenant” as “a pact between two parties, granted unilaterally by one of them but binding on the actions of both” (289). This seems to be exactly what is in view here as Jesus unilaterally bestows His peace on His disciples in a manner that suggests something which is at once permanent and binding as He declares, “Not as the world gives do I give to you.” Also, there appears to be an undercurrent of inaugurated eschatology, as Jesus restores the שָׁלֹום which was disrupted by the sin of Adam in Genesis 3.

John 17

Jesus’ High Priestly prayer is strongly reminiscent of the theme of unity present in the second half of Ezekiel 37. The leitwort “one” (εἷς) appears in this passage eight times, which coincidentally is exactly the same number of occurrences of אֶחָד in Ezekiel 37:15-28. That the unity of the people of God is an important theme in the entire canon cannot be denied. It is striking that the theme of unity (oneness) would be so dominant in this prayer of intercession offered by Jesus as He draws near to the crucifixion.

Revelation 21

The various themes of Ezekiel’s oracles reverberate throughout Revelation, but perhaps none resonate more deeply than the parallels between Ezekiel 37:15-28 and Revelation 21:1-3. The land grant theme is clearly present in the eschatological new heaven, new earth, and new Jerusalem. Moreover, the covenant formula is repeated for the final time in the canon as the promises of God are brought to teleological perfection. By way of contrast with Ezekiel, however, the temple (which Ezekiel took great pains to describe in the latter section of his book) is conspicuously absent in the eschaton (Rev 21:22). Also in contrast with Ezekiel where the nations simply come to know that God is the sanctifier of Israel (37:28), in Revelation the nations are present with the people of God, walking by the light of His glory (21:24).

Meaning and Theology

37:1-14

In the immediate historical context, this is clearly a prophecy to the exiles that they will be delivered from their captivity (symbolized by the imagery of death) and restored to their national homeland (symbolized by the imagery of resurrection). This prophecy then serves as a message of hope for reconciliation and restoration to the despondent dissidents and as a revelation of the character God. The people fear that they have been abandoned by God and are without hope; however, God will act in a decisive and miraculous way to bring life out of death and to demonstrate His covenant faithfulness, even in the midst of the apostasy of His people.

This, in effect, will bring about a new Exodus event, Exodus being a leitmotif that seems to be reiterated throughout the entire canon. As in the original Exodus episode, God will once again demonstrate His sovereignty and faithfulness with an outstretched arm to deliver the exiles from captivity in a foreign land and they will once again know that He is the Lord their God. Moreover, God continues to call the exiles “my people” (עַמִּי) implying that He is still their God, and indicating that the covenant relationship is still in force.

The question that continues to loom over this section of text, however, is “can this passage be properly interpreted as referring to eschatological resurrection?” Scholars disagree about the propriety of interpreting the passage in this manner. The heart of the issue seems to revolve around the idea that it would have been outside the scope of authorial intent due to the fact that belief in the postmortem survival of the individual had not yet been incorporated into the Israelite faith (Blenkinsopp 172). Eichrodt rejects the notion outright (509) and Block points out that various scholars have suggested that Ezekiel’s notions of resurrection were derived from Mesopotamian, Syrian, or Zoroastrian influences. Although Block disagrees with their conclusions, he attempts to demonstrate that belief in literal resurrection may have already been part of the Israelite tradition (383-387).

Whether or not this is the case, it seems an unnecessary exercise. The prophets were recipients of divine revelation and prior knowledge of, or belief in, certain concepts was not prerequisite to the reception of new revelation. Additionally, the insistence that there is only one valid interpretation of a passage overlooks the polyvalent nature of Old Testament prophetic writings. When attempting to reach the interpretive crux of the passage, it is not a case of “either national restoration or eschatological resurrection” but “both/and.” In other words, there is no reason why this prophecy could not simultaneously function both as the promise of national restoration of historical Israel and as the promise of a future eschatological, literal somatic resurrection. Moreover, as Jenson observes, the exiles were indeed returned to the land but there was no “remarkable outpouring of the Spirit” (284). Consequently, the prophecy was not completely fulfilled in history until the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost upon the new Israel that Jesus had reconstituted around Himself, which takes form in the church (Pate et al. 212). Thus proper interpretation of the passage changes fundamentally in light of the Christ event and its implicit reiteration of the Exodus motif. Finally, that Ezekiel 37:1-14 refers to eschatological resurrection as well to the metaphorical restoration of the exiled nation of Israel is supported in hermeneutical efforts throughout church history in the works of Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, et al. (Stevenson 121).

37:15-28

In this second literary unit, God has moved from the topic of national deliverance for Judah to national unity for the whole house of Israel. God promises that not only will the kingdom that had been divided since the days of Rehoboam be restored, but that once again a king from the line of David will occupy the throne of Israel and that this monarch will reign in perpetuity. The theological pillars which apostate Israel had rested upon in their hubris, and from which they derived a false sense of security, would be restored, albeit in a new way. The people would be redeemed and reunified, they would be restored to the land, the temple would be rebuilt, God would once again dwell among the people, the Sinaitic covenant would be renewed, and the Davidic covenant would be fulfilled.

We must at this point, however, ask ourselves if this was actually accomplished in history. Under Ezra and Nehemiah the people were liberated (to a certain extent), were returned to the land, the temple had been rebuilt, and the people had renewed the covenant (Neh 10). Under Herod the Great, the temple complex was even expanded impressively. However, Israel remained a client state of other geopolitical entities and there was no king on the throne of David. It is understandable how this eventuality gave rise to various streams of messianic expectation in the first century A.D.

Clearly the prophecy has not been fulfilled in the temporal history of ethnic Israel to date; hence it is best to see this oracle as preeminently eschatological, Christological, and ecclesiological in nature (Cf. Jenson 284). The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is the long awaited Messiah from the line of David. Consequently, the prophecy has either been fulfilled by Jesus (through inaugurated eschatology), or it remains to be fulfilled by Him in the future (in eschatological culmination) (Thompson 223). As will be discussed below, the latter is the more compelling alternative.

Cohesive Theology of the Units

While we have treated the two literary units of Ezekiel 37 independently throughout this study, there are several interesting points of connection between the two units that suggest a degree of cohesiveness between the oracles. First of all, just as we find the resuscitation of the dry bones taking place in two stages (reassembly of the bones then vivification through the Spirit), so the redemption of the people happens in two stages in the second literary unit (gathering the exiles then uniting them into one nation).

Second, there is an interesting parallel between the reassembly of the scattered bones in the first unit and the gathering of the scattered diaspora exiles of the northern kingdom in the second as Yahweh calls each from a state of death, decay, and chaos to condition life and order. Third, the covenant formula is implied in the first unit and is made explicit in the second reminding the people of God’s covenant faithfulness even in the midst of judgment for the people’s covenant infidelity. Fourth, both units hold out the promise of the repatriation of the people to the land, an essential component of the covenant relationship.

Finally, when taken as a whole, the thematic parallels (e.g., resurrection, land, covenant renewal, and a unified people of God) between Ezekiel 37 and Revelation 20-22 are too substantial to overlook. Consequently, while these themes find an impressive degree of penultimate manifestation in the inaugurated eschatology of the Christ event and the church age, the unified oracle of Ezekiel 37 awaits its ultimate fulfillment in the eschaton.

Contemporary Significance and Application

Only one question remains: How does one make application of this ancient text in a contemporary setting? With regard to the relevant contexts, there certainly is an enormous distance between Ezekiel’s original audience and contemporary readers of the text. Nonetheless, Ezekiel’s restoration oracles and their respective messages of hope speak to contemporary audiences in fresh ways; in fact, they speak to us in ways that would have been beyond the comprehension of the original audience. Moreover, in light of the Christ event, we are in a unique position to interpret Ezekiel’s prophecies with a higher degree of accuracy than could likely have been achieved by his original audience. Consequently, we may take several points of application from our study which should prove germane to Christian spiritual growth.

Running through the entire passage we find a consistent message of hope which may be applied in a variety of ways in contemporary settings. First, while we are all born into a state of exile (alienation from God on account of sin), God has set forth a plan of redemption through His Son in order that we might be liberated from slavery to sin, saved from our transgressions, and cleansed from all unrighteousness. Additionally, this act of cleansing is God’s work of grace in our lives and something we are unable to obtain without His divine intervention (37:23).

Second, God has inaugurated His kingdom on earth and set His Davidic King over that kingdom in the person of Jesus Christ. While there are numerous benefits available to participation in God’s kingdom in the present, we joyfully await the consummation of the kingdom in the eschaton and the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecies.

Third, while the indwelling of the Spirit promised in Ezekiel 37:14 was not fulfilled in historic Israel (at least until Pentecost), it is available to all who have faith in Jesus Christ and repent of sin. This indwelling of the Spirit brings about moral and ethical renewal, which in turn enables the believer to walk in God’s rules and obey His statutes (37:24; 36:26-28; cf. Ac 2:38).

Fourth, in this passage we receive the promise of resurrection and life everlasting. More importantly, due to the inaugurated eschatology of the Christ event, we see that resurrection is both a future hope and a present reality because God is busy working resurrection in our lives on this side of eternity. Certain aspects of our lives must die in order for us to be conformed to the image of Christ. But God is steadily at work, resurrecting these areas of death, bringing them to new life, and transforming something that had been full of death and decay into something beautiful as He redeems, recreates, renews, and transforms us (cf. 2Co 5:17).

Fifth, we have the promise of the restoration of omnidirectional peace and covenant renewal. While the state of perpetual שָׁלֹום was disrupted by the sin of Adam, resulting in death and destruction, God has made provision to restore omnidirectional שָׁלֹום (on the vertical axis between God, human beings, and creation; and on the horizontal axis between all mankind) through the Messiah. This reconciliation also allows us to enter into a new perpetual covenant relationship with God and makes us ministers of that covenant (cf. Jer 31:31-34; 2Co 3:4-6; 5:18).

Sixth, we find the hope of ecclesiological unity. As Thompson points out, the apostolic community saw the Christian community as the reconstituted core of Israel. Consequently, those who have faith in Christ are the heirs of the promises God made to Israel (223). Hence, the church is the primary recipient of the promise of unity among the people of God, a people gathered from among the nations and brought into a new kingdom (cf. Mt 28:19).

Seventh, we see the explicit promise of perpetual existence in the presence of God, as His dwelling place will be in the midst of the people forevermore (37:27). This clearly was not fulfilled in historic Judaism as the temple, rebuilt under Ezra and expanded under Herod the Great, was destroyed in A.D. 70. As noted above, a physical temple is conspicuously absent in the eschatological oracle of Revelation because the Father and the Lamb serve metaphorically as the temple (21:22). Nonetheless, given the fact that Jesus used the temple as a metaphor for His body (Jn 2:19-21), the temple has become a powerful metaphor to refer to the church and individuals within it (Thompson 224). Thus the church enjoys certain aspects of this reality in the present but looks forward to its culmination and immediacy in the eschaton.

You would have had to be living under a rock not to notice that the death of Osama Bin Laden was announced last week.  There was an amazing amount of drama and speculation in the moments leading up to the announcement.  I have to honestly say that as the news broke, my initial reaction was one of elation.  Something primal welled up from deep inside me and I immediately said, “Yes!  Finally he got what he deserved!  Justice is served!  But almost immediately I was convicted and my response changed.  All of a sudden I felt a different reaction, one in all honesty that confused me; one that I couldn’t really articulate.  The initial exuberance I felt was replaced by a sense of uneasiness and even of type of sadness.

The next morning I was watching the news and they started showing headlines from around the world like this:

Then I saw videos of Americans dancing in the streets, celebrating the death of Osama.  Then I saw numerous facebook posts by professing Christians celebrating his death.  When I saw all of this, I got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.  When I saw American people dancing in the streets in celebration, my mind immediately flashed back to the videos of Arabs dancing in the streets in celebration after the attacks of 9/11.  When I saw the facebook posts I began to wonder if this kind of celebration is appropriate for people who profess to be followers of Jesus.

“But wait a minute Fred, doesn’t the Bible say that God uses human governments as an implement of His wrath?”  Yes, absolutely it does.  In fact, the are numerous examples in the OT where God brings other nations into Israel or Judah specifically for the purpose of exercising His judgment against the wickedness of the people.

• Rom 13:1-5 – Clearly, the state can function as God’s implement of wrath.  The problem is, it is not always clear whenthis is actually the case.  In the historical context of this passage, who was the primary governing authority Paul was referring to?  Rome.  So can we deduce that every time Rome wielded the sword that it always resulted in an act of divine justice?I can think of at least one case when Rome executed a man and it was completely unjust.  In fact, Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent of any crime that would be deserving of death, but he ordered the execution of Jesus because of his own political fears.
• Even though we live in a country that is firmly committed to the separation of church and sate, have you ever noticed how the lines seem to so easily get blurred?  Have you ever noticed how in the American church we seem to overlay American politics on the kingdom of God?  Republicans and Democrats both have positioned themselves as the party of God over the years, for different reasons.  Republicans because they oppose abortion and gay marriage, Democrats because of their social justice agenda.  I would like to just point out that there is no political party or human government that functions as God’s representative on earth.
• If we are to understand the fullness of what the Bible teaches about vengeance, we have to put Rom 13 squarely within the context of Rom 12. Rom 12:14-21.We must never succumb to the temptation of seeing the enemy of the state as the enemy of the church, and even if the two do overlap (when the enemy of the state is in fact an enemy of the church), we must be diligent not to respond to enemies of the church in the same way that governments respond to enemies of the sate, because the Bible calls Christians to something that is radically different.

“So are you asking me to feel sorry for a guy who murdered thousands of innocent people?”  No, I am not asking you to feel anything.  I am just asking you if whatever you may feel is appropriate from a biblical perspective.

Why do you suppose that people love vengeance so much?  Why do we love to see bad guys get what is coming to them?  Is it because we are evil?  I would say that the fundamental answer to that question is “no.”  I think people love justice because God is just and we are made in His image.  The real question is, what should our emotional response be when people perish apart from Christ?

We love to see justice served.  But has it ever occurred to you that this is only the case insofar as it relates to others?  The paradox is, we demand justice for others, even while we plead for mercy for ourselves.  I don’t know anyone who wants to receive absolute justice for the things they have done.

So what is the appropriate reaction?  I think we need to gauge our reaction based on God’s reaction.  In other words, how does God feel when the wicked are destroyed?  Ezek 18:21-32.

God is absolutely just, yet He takes no delight or pleasure in the death of the wicked (Cf. 1Tim 2:4; 1Pet 3:9)

What then should followers of Jesus do?

• When we have one of those “Yes!  He got what he deserved!” moments, we need to ask ourselves this question: “Have I?  Have I gotten what I deserve?  Will I ultimately get what I deserve?”  You won’t like hearing this, and some of you may not even believe me, but just allow me to suggest that all of us have more in common with Osama Bin Laden than we do with Jesus Christ.  And without God’s grace on our lives, each of us would be perfectly capable of committing the same kind of atrocities that he has perpetrated against humanity; perhaps even worse.But that’s why the good news of the gospel is so profoundly good!  Because of our sins, we all deserve separation from God and an eternity of torment in hell.  But when we have faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus, when we receive Jesus as Lord and Messiah, we also receive forgiveness for our sins and are spared that fate.  In fact, not only are we spared the fate that we deserve, we are given one that we don’t deserve: resurrection to life everlasting and eternity in the immediate presence and glory of God.  If we take joy in the fact that we are spared what we deserve and given what we don’t, how can we possibly take pleasure and delight when others perish apart from Christ to suffer an eternity in hell?  Isn’t that the purest definition of hypocrisy?
• Rather than taking joy in the death of the wicked, shouldn’t we rather mourn them.  Shouldn’t we rather mourn the fact that they were deceived and deluded?  Shouldn’t we rather mourn the fact that they either rejected the gospel or never heard it?
• Mt 5:43-48– Here is the hard truth: if we are going to follow Jesus we must follow Him in treating our enemies the way He treated His enemies.  Rather than reviling and despising them we must pray for them, following in the footsteps of Him who prayed for those who nailed Him to the cross saying, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”Let me just encourage you this week to take time to pray for your enemies (enemies of both church and state), let me encourage you to pray for those who have not yet been changed by the life-transforming power of the gospel.Let us be thankful that by God’s grace we live in a country that affords us freedom to worship according to the dictates of our conscience.  More importantly, let us be thankful that God is just, but also let us be profoundly thankful that He has offered us an escape from the eternal justice we all deserve.

What exactly do we mean when we say “God is in control” or “Jesus is on the throne?”   Through the ages man has sought to understand the balance between free will and divine providence.  Is man truly free to choose the direction of his life or does God control the actions of each individual?  If God is completely sovereign, did He then create sin?  If we find ourselves in painful or uncomfortable circumstances does this always indicate that God is chastising us?  These are but a few of the questions that we will contemplate in this study.

Sovereignty and Providence Defined

The word “sovereignty” (from the Hebrew מלכות¹ denoting royal power or dominion²) is used to describe God only once in the NASB (Psalm 103:19), yet the concept of God’s dominion over all creation is implicit throughout the canon³.

The term sovereignty conveys “the supreme authority of God”⁴ while providence flows naturally from it as the out-working of God’s plan for all creation.  The universal providence of God is the basic assumption of all Scripture, and from a theological perspective the term denotes prearrangement more than mere foresight or foreknowledge.  By and large providence can be divided into two broad categories.  General providence includes the government of the entire universe.  Special providence, on the other hand, “refers to God’s particular care over the life and activity of the believer.”⁵ It is the latter aspect that we will focus on for scope of this study.

Mankind’s attempt to interpret the practical consequences of special providence has given birth to a wide range of theories which have found expression in systematic and dogmatic theological treatises.  On one end of the theological spectrum we find deism which teaches that after God created the world, he basically divorced himself from it and left man alone in the universe. ⁶ At the opposite pole we find determinism, the belief that each man’s actions and eternal destiny is arbitrarily controlled and predestined by God.⁷

Divine Providence in the Life of Abraham

The preeminent act of providence relating to Abraham can be found in the Abrahamic covenant, recorded in Gen 12:3.  In an act of grace, God entered into a unilateral covenant to take Abraham to a new land, make him into a great nation, bless him, and bless all of the families of the earth through him.  There was no stipulation or requirement of performance on the part of Abraham and there was nothing special about Abraham except that God graciously selected him for this unique relationship.

God also promised to be a shield to Abraham (Ge 15:1) and although he enjoyed this favored and protected status with God, Abraham occasionally had a tendency to doubt God and to fear for his life during his sojourns.  In chapters 12 and 20 we find occasions of lying and manipulative behavior by Abraham in situations in which he feared that he would be killed on account of Sarah’s surpassing beauty.  In each instance, rather than trusting God for deliverance, Abraham asked Sarah to say that she was his sister, rather than his wife, in order that he might live or even profit by this deceit (Ge 12:13, 20:2).

In the first situation, God intervened by striking Pharaoh and his house with plagues (Ge 12:17).  Although Scripture does not indicate exactly how Pharaoh came by the knowledge that Sarah was in fact Abraham’s wife and that the plagues occurred on her account, he nevertheless released her and evidently even allowed Abraham to keep the numerous gifts that were originally bestowed upon him as something like a dowry (Ge 12:16, 12:20).

In the second instance, after being informed that Sarah was Abraham’s sister rather than his wife, Abimelech, king of Gerar took Sarah as his betrothed.  This time there is no ambiguity about how the defrauded king obtained his intelligence.  God came to Abimelech in a dream and pronounced judgment on him for the deed that he was about to commit.  Interestingly, when Abimelech appeals to God’s justice on account of his innocent intentions, God explains “Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her” (Gen 20:6).

Once again God intervenes by saving Abraham from himself and Abraham is greatly enriched, it would seem, as an indirect result of his sin.  The purpose for God’s intervention in both of these stories is clear.  By allowing Sarah to become the wife of another man, Abraham endangered the fulfillment of the covenant.  Had the covenant been bilateral, God may very well have allowed Sarah to become the wife of one of these kings and Abraham would have faded into historical irrelevance.  However, the covenant was unilateral which necessitated divine intervention.

Divine Providence in the Life of Joseph

While Joseph was the second youngest son of Jacob, he was in fact the first son born to his most loved wife, Rachel.  Jacob loved Joseph more than his other son’s and his favoritism was quite evident to the brothers.  Joseph also was the recipient of prophetic dreams that indicated that his entire family would bow down in submission to him.  Genesis 37:2 also records that Joseph brought a bad report about his brothers to his father.  There is no indication that the report was false and since Jacob later sent Joseph to Shechem to check up on his brothers and the flock, it can be assumed that Joseph considered Jacob’s reports to be generally reliable (Ge 37:13 ff.).

These combined factors resulted in intense jealousy in the older brothers which ultimately drove them to conspire a murderous plot against Joseph.  His life was spared by the intervention of his eldest brother, Reuben, who intended to secretly rescue him from the malevolent plan of his brothers.  Reuben, however, arrives too late and Joseph is sold into slavery by the other siblings whereupon he consequently finds himself a vassal in Egypt in the house of Potiphar (Gen. 37:1-36).

God blessed Joseph while he was serving Potiphar and he became very successful.  This fact combined with his comely looks attracted the romantic attention of Potiphar’s wife who attempted to seduce him.  Being ultimately unable to persuade him, the wayward wife contrived a fabrication, claiming that Joseph had in fact attempted to seduce her.  Potiphar believed his wife and threw Joseph into prison (Gen. 39:6-23).

Whether from sheer conjecture or oral tradition, Josephus recounts in Book 1 of The Antiquities of the Jews, that the woman actually presented Joseph with the ultimatum that he either comply with her wayward desires and receive “greater advantages”, or else suffer “revenge and hatred from her.”⁸ Of course, there is no record of this dialogue in Scripture, yet one may logically assume that if the actual conversation did not take place, that Joseph at least had ample opportunity to think through the probable consequences of his continued rejection of her romantic overtures.  As the proverb goes, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” (there surely must have been an ancient Hebrew equivalent).

Nevertheless, being a righteous man, Joseph shunned the prospect of fleeting pleasure and temporal gain, and chose to endure imprisonment rather than sin against God by committing adultery.  This imprisonment lasted two full years, during which time God continued to bless Joseph.  He also orchestrated an opportunity for Joseph to interpret dreams which ultimately led to his being freed from prison and rising to a position of great prominence in Egypt (Ge 40:1-41:57).

Interestingly, both of these narratives follow a cycle of persecution, fabrication of a cover-up plot by the persecutors, and ultimate blessing and prosperity for the persecuted.  One can only imagine the thoughts that must have been running through Joseph’s mind during the periods of persecution.  At times he must have felt as if the potential of his life was ruined and that his youth was squandered.  Although God was with him during his imprisonment, there must have been bleak moments of fear and doubt during the two year duration.

Had it not been for divine providence, Joseph’s story would have been quite tragic.  Joseph probably would have died in prison while his brothers and father likely would have succumbed to famine.  However, the orchestration and interplay of these events is prodigious.  God used the sin of the brothers to lead the entire family to Egypt, while he subsequently used the sin of Potiphar’s wife to bring Joseph to a position of leadership which would ensure their security and allow the group to flourish during their sojourn.

Divine Providence in the Life of Samson

Judges 14 contains a very interesting, if not perplexing, example of the sovereignty and providence of God.  In direct violation of Deuteronomy 7:3, Samson asked his father and mother to get a Philistine woman for him as a wife.  Although Philistine women would eventually be his undoing, Scripture clearly states that at least this initial desire for a Philistine wife was the Lord’s doing “… for He was seeking an occasion against the Philistines” (Judges 14:4).

We must, however balance our interpretation of this event in respect of the additional light shed on this subject in the New Testament⁹.  James wrote, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” (James 1:13)  Deductively then, one of two possibilities exist.  Either Samson’s desire for a Philistine wife is directly attributable to God and ergo was not in violation of the law, or Samson’s lust originated from within, but was directed by God to this particular target.

Henry says, “It was not a thing of evil in itself for him to marry a Philistine.  It was forbidden because of the danger of receiving hurt by idolaters; where there was not only no danger of that kind, but an opportunity hoped for of doing that hurt to them which would be good service to Israel, the law might well be dispense with.”¹⁰ This premise, however, seems untenable in that Deuteronomy 7:3 is a crystalline directive, “…you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.”  Moreover, we find no example in the Old Testament where God allows the law to be temporarily dispensed with for some special purpose.  Henry seems to be attributing some sort of end-justifies-the-means utilitarian ethic or pragmatism to God which conflicts with what He has revealed to us regarding his character and justice (Dt 32:4, Ps 37:28, Is 30:18, Jn 5:30, et al.).  Additionally, if Samson, a leader among the Israelites, were to take a wife outside of his people, others would certainly be encouraged to do so, an act of which God says, “…they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods…” (Dt 7:4).

Conversely, the story related in Judges 14:8-9 in which Samson eats the honey found in the carcass of the lion, may well be a literary foreshadowing of Samson’s inability to control his physical appetites and thus an allusion to his unbridled urge for sex.  “The sweet honey foreshadows the charms of Delilah, who uses her psychological hold over Samson to destroy him.  Samson can resist and defeat lions, but not honey.”¹¹ The Philistines answered Samson’s riddle with an enigma of their own, “What is sweeter than honey?  And what is stronger than a lion?”  The solution to this puzzle must surely be the very feminine wiles that would ultimately result in Samson’s undoing.

If this is indeed the case, then Samson’s desire for exotic women originated purely within his flesh but was divinely directed to a Philistine target, rather than some other ethnic variety, in order that God might remove the Philistine yoke from the neck of His people.  In other words, it is conceivable that God neither caused nor prevented Samson from lusting after foreign women, but providentially directed his passion to a Philistine woman rather than one of some other ethnicity in order to further His plan for the deliverance of His people.

Free Will

Squaring human free will and responsibility with the sovereignty of God has always been a challenge for the finite mind of man.  Over the centuries, Jewish thought seems to waver on the issue.  A Jewish proverb, popular at least as far back as the 7th century B.C. states, “The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children’s teeth are set on edge.”  This implies the belief that God punishes children for the sins of their fathers which would mean that the child’s fate was predetermined by God.  However, God speaking through both Ezekiel and Jeremiah condemns this line of thinking and declares that each man bears responsibility for his own actions (Jer 31:30, Ezek 18:4).  Obviously, free will is a prerequisite for culpability or the imputation of guilt.

The Apocryphal book of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus is part of the literature produced during the intertestamental period and reflects popular Jewish thought circa 170-150 B.C.  A passage from this book declares, “It was he [God] who created humankind in the beginning, and he left them in the power of their own free choice.  If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice” (Sirach 15:14-15 NRSV).

In spite of the polemics issued by Ezekiel and Jeremiah roughly 600 years prior, the concept of children bearing punishment for the sins of their parents was persistent at the time of Christ.  Jesus’ disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?”  Jesus simply replied, “It was neither that this man sinned nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed.”

While it is clear that his blindness was not the result of any action on his, or for that matter his parent’s part, it is equally clear that God sovereignly caused him to be blind in order that Jesus might have the opportunity to heal him and thereby bring glory to God.

Finally, if man were not free to choose, the exhortation to “choose life and live” in Deuteronomy 32:19 would be illogical pointless.

Does God Cause Sin?

These examples raise some very interesting questions relative to God’s interaction with mankind.  Is it conceivable that God would cause man to sin in order to accomplish his purposes on earth?  Is God actually the author of sin?

Through the centuries these questions have been debated by systematic and biblical theologians alike, but never more hotly than during the Reformation.  John Calvin taught that “from eternity past God has determined the events of history” and based his doctrine of supralapsarianism (predestination coupled with reprobation) upon this belief.¹²

Conversely, once a strict Calvinist, Jacobus Arminius objected to Calvin’s doctrines of predestination and reprobation and through his Remonstrance sought to modify Calvinism “so that God might not be considered the author of sin, nor man an automaton in the hands of God.”¹³

As demonstrated above, God has made man a free moral agent and imbued him with free will in order that he might love God and serve Him of his own volition.  This is evident in the fact that God forbade Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yet Adam chose to disobey.  There is no hint of any evidence in Scripture that God predestined Adam to sin against Him, moreover, it would be illogical to suggest so.

The Bible is replete with assertions that God is just, and a just God certainly would not forbid an action, subsequently cause the man to commit the forbidden action, and then hold him morally culpable for his failure.  Unlike the pagan gods who are presented as whimsical entities which have little concern for morality, YHWH is holy and unchanging (Lev 11:45, Mal 3:6).  Likewise, it is not defensible to postulate that God tempts man with sin when Scripture is abundantly clear about the matter: “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.  But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.  Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (James 1:13-15).

On the other hand, as discussed above, the Bible is filled with countless examples of God inserting Himself into the events of human history so that He might orchestrate the fulfillment of His purposes.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, the tension between the sovereignty of God and the free will of man cannot be adequately resolved.  When theologians have attempted to do so they have ventured into dangerous territory.  Those holding an extreme view of free will have continued down the slippery slope to open theism (the heretical belief that God’s foreknowledge is imperfect and He is essentially watching history unfold as human beings exercise their free will), while those holding an extreme view of sovereignty have slipped to the extreme of theological determinism (the belief that all events are directly caused by God).  As biblical theologians we must reject the former because it denies the foreknowledge and omniscience of God as well as the latter because it places the responsibility for evil on God’s shoulders, summarily removes any hint of personal moral culpability, and attacks God’s character as being unjust.

A mediating position which rests in the tension seems to be more tenable.  God does not cause sin, yet man’s sin will not thwart the outworking of human history as it has been divinely ordained.  There are certain major events which are central to God’s purposes and plan which He has foreordained (e.g., the fulfillment of covenants, promises, and biblical prophecy) and although man is a free moral agent, he is not free to make decisions that have the capacity to interfere with the ultimate outworking or timing of those major events.  As Hill and Walton rightly point out, “The Old Testament leaves us with hope.  God is not done.  Everything is under His sovereign control.  Our faith is an Old Testament faith that God will keep His promises no matter how bleak the circumstances may look.” ¹⁴

From an existential perspective, God’s plans for us as individuals are generally seen much more clearly in hind-sight.  Joseph retrospectively interpreted divine providence in the events of his life by assuring his brothers that while they meant evil against him, God meant it for good: to fulfill his purpose of preserving the lives of Jacobs progeny (Ge 50:20).  Like Abraham and Samson, we may from time-to-time find ourselves in uncomfortable predicaments that are the consequences of our own actions, or like Joseph we may come upon times of suffering at the hands of wicked men, but ultimately we can take peace and comfort from the fact that “…God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Rom 8:28).

Notes

1. The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament, pg. 461
2. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, pg. 574
3. The NIV translates אֲדֹנָי יֱהוִה as “O Sovereign LORD” (as in Gen. 15:8 and elsewhere) yet it seems more accurately rendered “Lord GOD” as in the NASB and most other English language translations.
4. Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary, pg. 807
5. Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary, pg. 692
6. The Moody Handbook of Theology, pg. 186
7. The Moody Handbook of Theology, pg. 490
8. The Works of Josephus: New Updated Edition, pg. 56
9. Grasping God’s Word – Second Edition, pg. 338
10. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. 2, pg. 163
11. Giving the Sense, pg. 72
12. The Moody Handbook of Theology, pg. 481
13. The Moody Handbook of Theology, pgs. 489-490
14. A Survey of the Old Testament, pg. 570

Bibliography

Duvall, J. Scott and Hays, J. Daniel. Grasping God’s Word – Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001, 2005.

Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989.

Green, Jay P. The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible. London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, 2000.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Hill, Andrew E. & Walton, John H. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991, 2000.

Howard, David M. & Grisanti, Michael A. Giving the Sense. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003.

Tenney, Merrill C. Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967.

Whiston, William. The Works of Josephus: New Updated Edition. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.

Unless indicated otherwise, all Scriptural quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the four major millennial views of amillennialism, postmillennialism, dispensational premillennialism, and historic premillennialism and to determine which of these is best supported by Scripture. Space constraints will not allow us to explore the finer nuances of each position so I will present a brief overview of each perspective with an attempt to focus on the major distinctive issues. Inasmuch as these viewpoints are in fact eschatological systems rather than simple perspectives of the millennium per se, we will discuss the categories of the second coming of Christ, the resurrection, the judgments, the tribulation, the millennium, and Israel and the church within the context of each exposition. Moreover, since much of the differentiation in viewpoints tends to focus on the interpretation of Rev. 20:1-6 and the hermeneutical method applied to Old Testament prophecy, we will pay special attention to these domains.

There can be little doubt that no single topic has captured the imagination, attention, and pocketbooks of 20^th and 21^st century Christian readers as the eschaton. From nonfiction volumes such as Hal Lindsay’s The Late Great Planet Earth and John Hagee’s Jerusalem Countdown, to the fictional works and movies of Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series, a multi-million dollar industry has developed around the topic of the apocalypse, replete with authors whom claim unique and esoteric insight into the eschaton. Most of these books are sensationalist works which attempt to interpret current events through an allegorical explanation of the symbolic language of the canonical apocalyptic literature.

In spite of the popularity of this methodology among evangelicals, it is my contention that the entire Bible, including the apocalyptic corpus can be properly interpreted using sound hermeneutical practices by anyone who approaches it in earnest.

Amillennialism

Amillennialism rejects the notion of a literal, future thousand-year reign of Christ and is the predominant eschatological viewpoint of Reformed theology.[i] According to this system, “…the kingdom of God is present in the church age, and at the consummation of the present age, the eternal state is inaugurated without any intervening millennium.”[ii]

Amillennialism embraces an interpretation of Revelation, known as progressive parallelism, which sees the book as consisting of seven sections which run parallel to each other and depict the church and the world from the condescension to the parousia.[iii] While progressive parallelism affirms eschatological progression, it denies chronology. Therefore, rather than seeing chapter 20 as chronologically sequential to chapter 19, it views chapter 20 as a break in the text taking us back to the beginning of the New Testament era.[iv] Further, the assertion is made that the thousand-year period is not to be taken literally but that it refers to an indeterminate period of time. Taken in tandem, these views support the conclusion that the thousand-year period extends from the first advent to just before the second advent.

The amillennialist approach to the interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is another key distinctive of the system.  While it affirms that many of the Old Testament prophecies are to be interpreted literally, it holds that many others are to be interpreted in a nonliteral way.[v] This fact tends to free the amillennialist interpreter from seeing certain Old Testament prophecies such as Isaiah 11:6-9 and Isaiah 65:17-25 as literal references to the millennium.  Since by definition the amillennialist perceives the millennium as symbolic of the present church age, these passages are seen to be definitive of the new creation (new heavens and new earth) and unassociated with a future millennial reign of Christ.

In this schema the second coming of Christ is seen to be a single event which will be subsequent to the occurrence of certain events or the intensification and climactic final fulfillment of the “signs of the times”; hence the return of Christ is not imminent. It also teaches that there will be one general resurrection of the dead which will include believers and unbelievers simultaneously and will occur at the second advent. The final judgment will occur at the end of the age and will be singular and general in nature and will include believers and unbelievers and each person will be judged according to the light they received.[vi]

Postmillennialism

Loraine Boettner describes postmillennialism as, “that view of the last things which holds that the kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of individuals, that the world is eventually to be Christianized and that the return of Christ is to occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace commonly called the millennium.”[vii] This view was held by notable eighteenth century theologian Jonathan Edwards but it gained substantial momentum in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the years preceding World Wars I and II.

This perspective points to social progress and technicalogical advancements as indicators of the progress of the gospel and the expansion of the kingdom.  It holds that the present age will gradually blend into the millennium as the gospel advances and the powers of sin and evil are gradually assuaged.  In the categories of resurrection, judgment, tribulation, and Israel and the church, postmillennialism is virtually identical to amillennialism.

This system utilizes principles of interpretation that are rather liquid as they slip to and fro between a literal and spiritualized reading of the text depending on the needs of the interpreter to support his conclusions. For instance, as in amillennialism, the number 1000 in Rev 20:6 is seen as figurative, thus representing an indeterminate period of time.  For support of this approach Boettner appeals to passages such as the protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15) where symbolic language is used for the serpent and the man, representing Satan and Jesus respectively. Further support for this approach is drawn from passages such as Exodus 19:4, “I bore you on eagles’ wings” and Exodus 3:8, “a land flowing with milk and honey”.[viii]

Conversely, when the need arises to support the conclusion that the vast majority humanity will be saved, the interpreter is free to move to a quite literal interpretation of the text. For instance, Boettner cites Rev. 7:9-10, “a great multitude which no man could number” as evidence that “God has chosen to redeem untold millions of the human race.”[ix] Is it not abundantly clear that this language is purposefully indeterminate? Yet Boettner makes the jump to literally quantifying this ambiguity in the millions.  Further extrapolation of relative capacity is drawn from descriptive terms for hell such as a prison, a lake, or a pit. These descriptors are interpreted rather literally regarding capacity and are characterized as small in contrast to heaven.  This attempt to literalize the text, however, seems to ignore the fact that in Revelation the pit is described as a ἄβυσσος (abyss)which means bottomless or of immeasurable depth.[x]

The postmillennial argument seems to unravel due to its foundational hermeneutic. The fallacy with its exegetical methodology is it fails to recognize that in some cases (e.g., Exodus 19:4) Scripture makes use of metaphorical language that quite simply could not be interpreted in any other way with integrity, and in other cases (e.g., Exodus 3:8) it makes use of contemporary idiom.  Moreover, since the genre of the aforementioned verses is not prophetic, an attempt to use examples of metaphorical or idiomatic language in support of a spiritualizing hermeneutic of symbolic language in the context of prophecy is guilty of the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.[xi]

Postmillennialism seems to be a system that makes extensive use of logic (or logical fallacy, as the case may be) to draw conclusions that are consequently superimposed on the biblical text, rather than allowing the text to guide the interpretation.

Dispensational Premillennialism

A very popular view of the end-times among contemporary Evangelicals is dispensational premillennialism which teaches that the church will be raptured prior to the Tribulation period and that God will judge unbelieving Gentiles and disobedient Israel during the Tribulation.  Following the Tribulation Christ will return with the church and establish His millennial reign on earth.  At the conclusion of this thousand- year period, Satan will be released and subsequently cast into the lake of fire with his minions.[xii] This perspective is espoused in the popular works of Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, Charles Ryrie, Cyrus Scofield, and Finis Jennings Dake.

In stark contrast to the prior eschatological systems, dispensational premillennialism maintains a consistently literal hermeneutic in the interpretation of prophecy and it sees a clear distinction between Israel and the church. The fundamental contention in exegetical methodology is that “if prophecy can be spiritualized, all objectivity is lost.”[xiii] Dispensational premillennialists find no biblical warrant to identify the church as the “new Israel”.

The insistence on the distinction between Israel and the church is perhaps the most unique characteristic of the system. It sees Israel as “an earthly theocratic kingdom while the church represents a spiritual and heaven-oriented people.”[xiv] It maintains that the term Israel always refers to the biological posterity of Jacob and never refers to the church. This lays the foundation for its doctrine concerning the pretribulation rapture of the church: “the purpose of the Tribulation is to judge unbelieving Gentiles and to discipline disobedient Israel; the church does not have purpose or place in the Tribulation.”[xv]

This system divides history into epochs of God’s dealings with and revelation to humanity known as dispensations which, according to Scofield’s reckoning, include innocency, conscience, human government, promise, law, grace or the church age, and the kingdom age or millennium.[xvi] The foundation of dispensationalism is found in the covenants of the Old Testament, all of which are seen as relating solely and specifically to nation Israel.

Interestingly, dispensational premillennialism is a relatively late system, having arrived on the eschatology scene circa 1830 with the work of John Nelson Darby. It was widely popularized by its incorporation into the notes of the Scofield Study Bible published in 1909. Since Scofield’s commentary was printed along side of and embedded into the inspired text, it was imbued with unwarranted authority by the readers of that publication.[xvii]

The chief criticism of dispensational premillennialism is that it fails to adequately address passages such as Romans 11:4ff, Romans 2:29, Phil. 3:3, Col. 2:11, et al.  These verses all make the clarion claim that the church is in fact the true circumcision, a term consistently used to refer to those of Israelite ancestry, and that reckoning as a child of Abraham is a spiritual matter (Gal. 3:7-8).  Furthermore, insistence upon a purely literal reading of Scripture ignores the fact that many sections of prophetic literature, such as the aforementioned protoevangelium, require symbolic interpretation to be meaningful. Insistence upon a strict literal reading of the text has led many in the dispensationalist school, such as Walvoord to draw misleading distinctions between terms such as “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God”. Walvoord claims the “kingdom of heaven” as the realm of the professing church while the “kingdom of God” is the realm of the believing church, when in fact, “kingdom of heaven” is commonly understood by most Bible scholars simply to be a circumlocution used by Matthew in his distinctively Jewish presentation of the gospel.

Historic Premillennialism

Like dispensational premillennialism, historic premillennialism teaches that Christ will return before the millennium to establish an earthly reign. Historic premillennialism, so named due the fact that the majority of the church fathers held this view point, departs from the dispensationalist school in that it is not insistent upon solely literal exegesis and the distinction between Israel and the church is not maintained.[xviii] Its most outstanding proponent is George E. Ladd.

In terms of hermeneutics, historic premillennialism allows for a certain “spiritualization” of the biblical text yet it is not so lose with its methodology as postmillennialism appears to be. Ladd points out that there are several instances where the New Testament “spiritualizes” an interpretation of an Old Testament prophecy that has quite a different meaning when taken literally.  He suggests to Hosea 11:1, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” as a case in point.  When taken literally, this verse is not prophetic but is in fact the recitation of historical fact. Matthew 2:15, however, offers a spiritual interpretation of the passage as it applies it prophetically to Jesus. This then is the principle of biblical prophecy: “the Old Testament is reinterpreted in light of the Christ event.”[xix]

This school also understands passages such as Romans 2:28-29, Romans 4:11, Galatians 3:7, and 3:29, 1 Peter 2:9, et al. as referring directly to the church.  Furthermore, the application of the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:33-34 to the church in Hebrews 8 is reinforcement for the validity of this hermeneutic.[xx] Due to the fact that the church is seen as spiritual Israel, the historic premillennialist sees no biblical evidence for the rapture and resurrection of believers before the tribulation, hence the church will go through the tribulation.

In regard to the resurrection, this system teaches that the “first resurrection” refers to a bodily resurrection of the saints of all ages which will take place at the parousia, while the unbelieving dead will be raised at the end of the millennium.  Another distinctive of this perspective is that while affirming a millennial reign of Christ, this reign is not limited to the millennium but has already been inaugurated.

Conclusion

While I don’t question the intentions of the adherents to the various schools of thought regarding eschatology, I unabashedly question the validity of the conclusions drawn by the various systems.  It seems that the quintessential difference between the systems is the foundational hermeneutic used to exegete the key biblical texts.

Postmillennialism takes an almost cavalier approach to biblical interpretation as the interpreter is free to move from a literal to a spiritualizing hermeneutic as need dictates in order to superimpose a philosophical system on the biblical text. Dispensationalists on the other hand, with insistence on literal interpretation, move to the opposite extreme and in so doing likewise refuse to allow the Bible to speak for itself by ignoring common literary features such as metaphor. Moreover, each dispensationalist interpreter tends to identify prophetic symbols within his own contemporary geopolitical and historical-cultural context and each seems to have his own esoteric insight which allegedly unlocks the secret to the “proper” interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy. The problem with both of these systems is that they simply do not seem to be intellectually honest.  Additionally, Dispensationalists’ dogged insistence that they have the only “biblical” perspective is disconcerting and prevents meaningful dialogue with those whom hold divergent perspectives.

Hill and Walton rightly point out, “Some interpreters place too much confidence in their ability to discern the meaning of symbols in prophetic literature and spend much time devising and defending such meaning. Yet it cannot be assumed that every object in a vision has symbolic value, and when the meaning of a symbol is not given in the text, the interpreter must be cautious in supplying such a meaning. It is possible the symbolism is used to conceal rather than reveal.”[xxi] If the meaning of a symbol is not explicitly given in the text, any interpretation of that symbol, ipso facto fails to carry the authority of the word of God. “Unrevealed symbolism cannot be considered the inspired message of the prophet.”[xxii]

Like Ladd, I arrived at my understanding of the church as “spiritual Israel” through my own exegesis of the biblical record in a holistic sense, honestly uninfluenced by systematic theology. If one were to carry the literal hermeneutic espoused by the dispensationalists to the extreme, one would be required to choose between a literal reading of Exodus 19:5-6 as God is speaking directly to the Israelites, and a literal reading of 1 Peter 2:9 as Peter reinterprets that passage in light of the Christ event and applies it directly to the church. How would the dispensationalist maintain a rigid distinction between Israel and the church in light of these and other similar passages (e.g., Jer. 31:33-34 cf. Hebrew 8)?

All things considered, of the four dominant views, historic premillennialism seems to be the most balanced and intellectually honest. It makes allowance for interpretation according to the scope of genre and comprehends the fact that our construal of symbolic language in unfulfilled prophecy is imperfect at best. In the final analysis, where one finds himself in relationship to these four views is not a matter of salvific importance. Yet, like the doctrines of predestination and eternal security, what one believes about the eschaton can yield significant impact on his attitudes toward activities like evangelism and social action, not to mention how he in fact conducts himself in this life.

Chart

Adapted from Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989

[ii] Enns, pg. 380

[iii] Clouse, tmotm, pg. 156-157

[iv] Clouse, tmotm, pg. 160

[v] Clouse, tmotm, pg. 172

[vi] Enns, pp. 381-382; Clouse, tmotm, pp. 181-184

[vii] Clouse, tmotm, pg. 117

[viii] Clouse, tmotm, pp. 134-137

[ix] Clouse, tmotm, pp. 123-124

[x] Thayer, pg. 2

[xi] Walton, pg. 19

[xii] Enns, pg. 389

[xiii] Enns, pg. 389

[xiv] Clouse, tnmm, pg. 59

[xv] Enns, pg. 390

[xvi] Clouse, tnmm, pg. 59

[xvii] Clouse, tnmm, pg. 98

[xviii] Enns, pp. 386-387

[xix] Clouse, pp. 20-21

[xx] Enns, pg. 387

[xxi] Hill and Walton, pg. 407

[xxii] Hill and Walton, pg. 408

Works Cited

Clouse, Robert G., ed. The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

Clouse, Robert G., Robert N. Hosak, Richard V. Pierard. The New Millennium Manual. Grand Rapids: Bridge Point Books, 1999.

Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989.

Hill, Andrew E. & Walton, John H. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991, 2000.

Marshall, Alfred. The Interlinear KJV-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Tenney, Merrill C. Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967.

Thayer, Joseph, H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, 1896.

Walton, Douglas N. Informal Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Have you ever noticed that people have a tendency to categorize emotions?  The pleasant emotions like happiness, joy, love, etc. we throw into the “good” bucket, and the less pleasant ones like anger, fear, grief, and depression we throw into the “bad” bucket.   But these labels are not only misleading, they also have a very pronounced impact on how we react when we experience them.

In other words, when we view emotions in this way, life gets reduced a pursuit of the so-called “good” emotions, and avoidance of the so-called “bad” emotions.  It seems to me, however, that God created all of the emotions and if this is the case, it doesn’t make much sense for us to classify some as good and others as bad.  Moreover, because Jesus is the Redeemer, I believe that His plan is to redeem everything, including our emotions.

So in this post I want to take a look at one emotion in particular that usually gets thrown into the “bad” bucket and that emotion is fear.  Fear takes many forms.  Of course there are the famous phobias: claustrophobia, the fear of being in confined spaces; agoraphobia, the fear of leaving a safe place or going into a crowded place; aviophobia, the fear of flying; arachnophobia, the fear of spiders; altophobia – the fear of heights (or maybe the fear of girls with deep voices?); and so on.  The sad truth is there are about 530 clinically identified phobias.  What makes a fear a phobia?  Primarily that it is irrational.

But there are other fears we run into in life that are at least a bit more reasonable: the fear of losing face in our social circle, the fear of physical or emotional pain, the fear of loss, the fear of rejection, the fear of being isolated and alone, the fear of our own thoughts (And this particular fear I believe is epidemic; part of the reason for the incessant noise of our culture.  It easier to be distracted with entertainment than to sit in the terrifying silence, left with nothing other than my own thoughts).

What I would like to do is take a look at a text from the Bible that deals with fear and then analyze what exactly is going on with the people involved.  “Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was a long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, ‘It is a ghost!’ and they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.’ And Peter answered him, ‘Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.’ He said, ‘Come.’ So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, ‘Lord, save me.’ Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, ‘O you of little faith, why did you doubt?’ And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’ (Mt 14:22-33)

Observations

Some fears may be rooted in reality

There are some real obstacles to cause concern for their safety.  The boat is beaten by the waves because and wind, and to make matters worse, the wind is against them.  With the wind against them the only means of propulsion would have been to row a boat that probably weighed in excess of 2,000 pounds.  If you have ever been out on a lake in a row boat or canoe in a strong wind you know how challenging it is to even keep the boat going the right direction, let alone make any progress moving it against the wind.  It’s really a lot of hard work.  If I were in that boat I would probably have been mumbling under my breath about the whole thing: “I just had a nice meal of fresh fish and bread, food coma is beginning to set in; all I really want is a nap but here I am breaking my back rowing this stupid boat against the wind all night long.”

To make matters worse, it was the fourth watch of the night (3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) which means they had been battling the storm for about 9 hours and they had only made it about 3 miles which means that they were traveling at the blinding pace of about 3 hours per mile and using all of their strength to do that.

Some fears are not rooted in reality – conjured up in their own minds

It’s a ghost!  The Greek word translated as ghost is phantasma (φάντασμα), an appearance or apparition. It’s where we get the English word phantom.  Not the most rational assumption; but a man walking on the water doesn’t really seem all that rational either.  So what happened here?  Reality was misinterpreted.  They were looking at God doing what God does (transcending the status quo), but they didn’t experience it as that.  The conjured up an alternate interpretation.  There was nothing to fear in reality, but they fabricated something to fear.

The truth is that most of our fears are unrealistic and irrational; fabrications we have invented in our own minds.

Many of our fears are learned responses; things we pick up from our parents or grandparents (perhaps a function of generational curses).  My mom was deathly afraid of the water.  Why?  Because her mom, my grandmother, is deathly afraid of the water.

Overcoming fear

Whether our fears are rational or irrational, we need to learn how to overcome them.

There is a scene in the movie 300 where a young Spartan boy faces a demonic wolf alone in the dead of winter and ultimately vanquishes it.   At one point the narrator says, “It’s not fear that grips him, just a heightened sense of things.”  Whatever.  Walking around in the snow with nothing between you and a big hungry wolf except a sharp stick and a big diaper?  Fear is going to grip you, I don’t care who you are!

But 300 is fiction; a typical Hollywood recast of reality.  Courage is not the absence of fear but the willingness to perform the task at hand in spite of fear.  I am certain that Peter was filled with fear, even after he understood that it was Jesus standing in front of him.  But Peter, had a decision to make: do I stay in the boat or do I respond to God’s call?  Getting out of the boat seems to defy all logic; in fact, from a scientific worldview it seems pretty foolish.  But it seems like Jesus was essentially asking the question that He asks over and over again throughout the New Testament: Do you trust me?

So Peter got out of the boat, and did pretty well until he allowed himself to become overwhelmed by the circumstances and began to doubt.  And as soon as he doubted Jesus, fear consumed him.

Let’s look at another historical account of someone standing up to his fears.  “And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was a valiant man of Kabzeel, a doer of great deeds. He struck down two ariels of Moab. He also went down and struck down a lion in a pit on a day when snow had fallen” (2Sam 23:20).  A brief account yes, but a story of a man overcoming a fearful situation nonetheless.  There are a few observations I would like to make about this episode.

• We must face our fears.  Conditions weren’t perfect – Benaiah went down into a pit on a snowy day.  It would have been easy enough to make excuses: “Hey look fellas, you know with all this snow it’s really kind of slick down in that pit, plus it’s just stinking cold.  Maybe we should wait for things to warm up and dry out a bit.”  Waiting for conditions to be perfect is one of the most popular excuses for avoiding something that is fearful.
• We must be proactive and purposeful.  Courage is not the lack of fear.  It is doing what needs to be done in spite of fear.  Overcoming fear is not found in avoiding the stimulus, but in maintaining my ability to function in spite of the stimulus.
• We must identify our fears – our fears can’t be overcome if we don’t really understand what they are.  Is this one of those fears that I have invented in my own mind like the disciples’ phantom?  Is this a fear that is at least somewhat realistic like something that is genuinely threatening me in my environment?  Either way, they are lions that have to be faced.  And here is the honest truth: every single person who has ever walked the face of the earth has had lions to face; even Jesus.

Take a moment to think about this question: What are the lions in your life?

The truth is, normal people don’t go around chasing lions.  But following Jesus isn’t really a normal thing to do, is it?  I have to tell you, following Jesus isn’t safe; it is the most amazing and breathtaking adventure you can ever embark upon, but it is not safe.  We are not called to a life of mediocrity; we are called to a life of fighting darkness and vanquishing lions.

Near the end of his life, the Apostle Paul wrote to his prodigy, “for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control” (2Tim 1:7).  Paul was a man who was very familiar with facing lions, something he had to do over as he spent his life advancing the kingdom of God.

God didn’t give us a spirit of fear; that came along with the fall.  But God did give us His Holy Spirit and that is a Spirit of power.  I don’t want to go around chasing lions by myself, but if God is with me, and His power is with me, I’ll go along with Him 7 days a week!

A central concern of exegetical pursuits is to discover the historical and cultural Sitz im Leben of the biblical text in order to properly interpret Scripture.  The field of comparative studies of the cultures of the ancient Near East is critical to understanding the historical-cultural and socio-political context from which the Scriptures were produced.  One very important aspect of this field of study is the analysis of the literary works of antiquity and to compare and contrast these works with the biblical text in order to obtain a clearer view of the setting from which the Scriptures arose and to better interpret how the biblical text would have been understood by the original audience (Tate, 30-31).

Toward that end, the purpose of this paper is explore the parallels and contrasts of ancient Near Eastern literature with the book of Deuteronomy.  Because of recent archaeological and academic advances, the modern exegete has access to an unprecedented body of literature from the ancient Near East.  Therefore, we will limit the scope of this study to the specific topics of kingship, legal texts, and the concept of the heart within the literary works of ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Anatolia.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New International Version of the Holy Bible.

Kingship

The central authority in ancient Near Eastern social structure was the office of king.  Although the governmental structure of the Pentateuchal period was theocratic, Deuteronomy prophetically looks forward to a time when Israel would set a king over her, and establishes guidelines for the conduct of the king within the sociopolitical milieu of the ancient Near East.

Kingship in Ancient Near Eastern Literature

Massive urbanization began in the Uruk period in southern Iraq (ca. 4000-3000 B.C.).  Recent archaeological excavations have focused on the expansion and colonization of Uruk due to the lack of natural resources in lower Mesopotamia required to support complex social systems (Chavalas, 129-132).  Although current conflict in the Middle East has brought these archaeological pursuits to a grinding halt, the cessation of digging has afforded opportunity to analyze the finds from previous years of research (Chavalas, 126).

One of the works to come out of ancient Uruk happens to be one of the oldest extant works of ancient literature in all of Mesopotamia, entitled The Epic of Gilgamesh.  This is a four-thousand-year-old tale of love, death, and adventure which is the world’s oldest epic (Foster, xi). There is also a Hittite version, and the epic spawned a series of Sumerian Gilgamesh poems dating to the Old Babylonian period (Foster, 99).

Dating back to at least 2100 B.C., The Epic of Gilgamesh tells the story of Gilgamesh, the brash  king of Uruk who built the city’s walls and staged elaborate athletic competitions.  Due to his arrogance and superior strength, he tyrannizes his subjects who appeal to the god Anu for help against the oppressive king:

You created this headstrong wild bull of in ramparted Uruk,

The onslaught of his weapons has no equal.

His teammates stand forth by his gamestick,

He is harrying the young men of Uruk beyond reason.

Gilgamesh leaves no son to his father!

Day and night he rampages fiercely… (Foster, 5-6 )[1]

In response to the petition, the gods create a rival in the wild man Enkidu in order to redirect Gilgamesh’s attention away from oppressing his subjects.  Interestingly, there is no condemnation of Gilgamesh’s oppressive behavior by the gods.  As Foster notes, “Gilgamesh, at the apex of society, is supposed to act as shepherd of his subjects, but instead he mistreats them…” (xvii-xviii).

As in ancient Mesopotamia, the king in ancient Egypt was deemed to be a divine and all powerful monarch.  A work of narrative prose from the Middle Kingdom period of Egyptian history, the Tale of Sinuhe, tells the story of an Egyptian courtier who is forced to flee the land upon the death of the king because of his fear of the successor, the kings son.  It if of interest not only because it is an example of elevated prose comparable to that of the Pentateuchal narratives, but also, for the purpose at hand, it contains a poem or hymn composed to the king of Egypt which refers to his mighty acts of valor as well as his divinity:

He is a god without peer,

No other comes before him;

he lord of knowledge, wise planner, skilled leader,

one goes and comes by his will.

He was the smiter of foreign lands… (Arnold, 77)

Ultimately it is Sinuhe’s dread of turmoil of monarchial succession that sends him into exile in a foreign land.

While it was very common for rulers throughout the ancient Near East to produce works attesting to their peacefulness and benevolence, the king was nevertheless a terrible figure who inspired fear in the heart of his subjects and oppressed them with a heavy hand and absolute domination.  This desire for men to wield power over and oppress other men is clearly portrayed in the Pentateuch, especially in Genesis from the fall of man to the flood.

Kingship in Deuteronomy

In literature predating and contemporary with Deuteronomy (ca. 1400-1200 B.C.), the king is typically presented as either fully or partially divine (e.g., Gilgamesh is presented as two-thirds divine and one-third human) (Foster, ix).  This is in sharp contrast to the portrait of the Israelite king as presented in the book of Deuteronomy.  In chapter seventeen God lays the standard for appropriate behavior of Israel’s king as radically different from the domineering conduct of the kings in the ancient Near Eastern cultural milieu.         Israel’s king is a fully human bloodline descendant of Jacob, he is to be chosen by God (17:15); he is not to amass personal wealth in the form of gold, silver, or horses (17:16); and he is not to take many wives (17:17).  Moreover, he is to write for himself a copy of the law which he is supposed to study all of the days of his life “so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God… and not consider himself better than his brothers…” (17:19-20).

Unlike other ancient Near Eastern kings, Israel’s king is to be humble and on the same level with those over whom he is given authority.  The result of this humble servant-leadership will be the establishment of an enduring dynasty for him and his descendants (17:20).  The logical implication then, is that if he doesn’t rule over the people in an appropriate manner, God will depose him and his line will come to a rapid end; a reality which is thoroughly borne out in the history of Israel (e.g., Solomon, Rehoboam, Ahab, etc.).

Although kings in the ancient Near East wielded absolute power over their subjects, the authority of Israel’s king was to be circumscribed by the law.  Since Israel was originally a theocracy and the king was to rule the people in strict adherence to God’s standard of moral and ethical righteousness as defined in the law, it may be reasonably inferred that Israel’s monarch was, ipso facto, simply a proxy for God Himself who was to be a physical representation of God within the community as he justly wielded authority on His behalf.  As Hill and Walton put it, “A proper monarchy still had to function as a theocracy rather than replace it.  The king was to be viewed as the earthly head of God’s theocratic kingdom” (Hill and Walton, 220).

Although Deuteronomy gives clear instructions for the behavior of the monarch, Israel’s kings were grossly unsuccessful at putting the instructions in practice.  Had she heeded this one command, the others would have largely fallen into place as the king would have enforced adherence to the covenant and Israel would have greatly benefited from the leadership.  As history unfolded, the decay of the heart condition of the king was the catalyst for decay in the observance of the covenant, and thus for the ultimate demise and exile of the people from the land.

Legal Texts: Laws and Treaties

Central to Hebrew thought is the concept of law.  As Deuteronomy is largely a book of covenant reiteration and renewal, the stipulations of the law are a fundamental theme of the book.  The English concept of law is significantly narrower than Hebrew usage.  The Hebrew word translated as law is תֹּורָה which means “instruction, direction, law, Torah, the whole law” and is also used as a summary term of the various bodies of legal, cultic, or civil instructions of the Old Testament (Carpenter, Hebrew, CWS, 1220).

Due to the unity and cohesion of the Pentateuch, it is challenging to limit a comparative discussion of Hebrew law to the book of Deuteronomy since other books (e.g., Leviticus) may expound certain stipulations in greater detail.  Nonetheless, this approach is helpful as it focuses on the distinctive characteristics of the law as presented in Deuteronomy and allows for comparison not only to other bodies of law in the ancient Near East, but also to the corpus of  תֹּורָה as it is presented in other books of the Pentateuch.

Two important subcategories of law are casuistic or case law, “usually cast in a conditional ‘if… then’ formula, making reference to a specific hypothetical legal situation”; and apodictic law, which are direct affirmative or negative commands (Hill and Walton, 52-53).  Both types are common throughout the ancient Near East.

Law in Mesopotamia and Anatolia

The most famous collection of laws of Mesopotamian origin are the Laws of Hammurapi. Containing some 282 casuistic laws, an extensive prologue, and an epilogue, the code claims to have been created in compliance to the command of the god Marduk “to provide just ways for the people of the land in order to attain appropriate behavior” (Arnold, 112-113).

An interesting feature of this code is the differing standards of justice based on the social classes of the parties involved, the AWILU being of higher social standing than commoners and slaves (Pritchard, 166).  For instance, “If an AWILU should blind the eye of another AWILU, they shall blind his eye.  If he should break the bone of another AWILU, they shall break his bone.  If he should blind the eye of a commoner or break the bone of a commoner, he shall weigh and deliver sixty shekels of silver” (Arnold, 113).  Again, there is a harsh penalty in the instance of a slave striking a member of the AWILU class, “If an AWILU‘s slave should strike the cheek of a member of the AWILU class, they shall cut off his ear” (Arnold, 113).

By way of contrast, Deuteronomy summarily condemns partiality in judgment (1:7, 10:17, 16:19) and calls for exacting justice with no regard to social standing.  Moreover, Deuteronomy sets strict limits for penalties, not allowing them to exceed the loss suffered by the victim, yet maintaining the gravity of the offense by prescribing penalties of appropriate severity with unwavering commitment to justice (19:21).

Predating Hammurapi are the Laws of Ur-Nammu who was the founding ruler of the 3^rd Dynasty of Ur (Ur III, ca. 2112-2004 B.C.) (Pritchard, 523).  While the extant copies are badly damaged, the prologue and close to forty laws remain intelligible (Arnold, 104).  Law #25 is of particular interest for comparative studies of Deuteronomy in that it is a prohibition against false witness, “If a man appeared as a witness (in a lawsuit) and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay 15 shekels of silver” (Pritchard, 525).  While this law follows the casuistic formula, the parallel prohibition in Deuteronomy is purely apodictic (5:20).

While this penalty may at first seem to be more humane (Carpenter, BBC, 147), there is a practical issue with the Ur-Nammu formulation of the code, in that the 15 shekel monetary penalty could serve as a break-even point at which the potential gain for bearing false testimony could far outweigh the risk of the fine (especially in the case of bribery), which could be an obvious enticement to the ethically bereft.  In Deuteronomy, however, it is an absolute prohibition bearing the penalty that the malicious witness should suffer the punishment which the falsely accused defendant was in jeopardy of, up to and including capital punishment (19:15-21).  This would have been a strong and effective deterrent to the perversion of justice.  Although similarities exist in the Laws of Hammurapi[2], this level of retribution, and ergo protection, is only extended to the AWILU class.

Ancient Near Eastern law commonly addressed the issue of adultery.  A case in point is law #4 of the Laws of Ur-Nammu, “If the wife of a man, by employing her charms, followed after another man and he slept with her, they ( i.e., the authorities) shall slay that woman, but the male (i.e., the other man) shall be set free” (Pritchard, 524).  Deuteronomy, however places equal culpability on both adulterer and adulteress, prescribing capital punishment for both parties (Dt 22:22) which is a far more just and equitable solution, especially given the social standing of women in the male dominated, patriarchal societies of the ancient Near East.

Like the code of Hammurapi, Hittite law also utilized social stratification in their judicial system.  For instance, if a Hittite man slept with a woman who was captured in war as well as her mother, this was not considered to be incestuous, as it would have been had the woman been a Hittite (Yenner and Hoffner, 62).  By contrast, this type of incestuous affair was explicitly forbidden in the תֹּורָה carrying the penalty of death by burning (Dt 27:23; Lv 18:17, 20:14).

Deuteronomy also sets forth a very specific process for dealing with women captured in battle.  Unlike the Hittites, who seemed to have viewed the captives as objects for sexual pleasure, if a Hebrew man were attracted to a captive woman, he must take her into his home, care for her, and give her ample time to mourn her father and mother.  After this process had been completed, the man may take her as a wife, but if he was not pleased with her, he was not permitted to treat her as a slave, but must set her free (21:10-14).

From time to time, captives of the Hittites would escape and take refuge in neighboring countries which were not allied with the Hittites.  Yenner and Hoffner explain that, “In the royal annals the king is portrayed as demanding from such neighboring countries the return of his [slaves], or a submissive neighbor is portrayed as promising their return” (Yenner and Hoffner, 65).  In Hebrew law, however, the slave was not to be returned to his master; he was to be given refuge in the city of his choosing, and he was not to be oppressed (23:15).

Law in Egypt

Although the idea of law did not play a prominent role in Egyptian literature there are some interesting references to law in the didactic literature.  One reference from The Instruction of Ptahhotep reads:

People’s schemes do not prevail,

God’s command is what prevails. (Lichtheim, 65)

Although this is not a reference to law in the strict sense of the word, and it obviously is not referring to the command of Yahweh, it is a fascinating view of the theological underpinning of Egyptian thinking in the literature of the ancient near Eastern sophist tradition.

Law in Deuteronomy

There are striking similarities between Deuteronomic law and the forensic codes of other ancient Near Eastern cultures, yet there are also very distinct differences.  While some of the codes, such as Hammurapi, were purported to be created by men at the command of the gods, Scripture is consistent in asserting the oracular origin of the Deuteronomic law (5:4-22, 30-31), and explains that the Decalogue was inscribed on stone tablets by the very “finger of God” (9:10).

In many instances where capital punishment is prescribed as the penalty for an infraction, it appears with the formulaic statement, “You must purge the evil from among you” (13:15; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21,24; 24:7), which functions as a motive clause for the execution of the judgment.  While capital punishment for these crimes is often a more stringent penalty than was appointed in other ancient Near Eastern codes, it testifies to the fact that God intended to form a moral, ethical community marked by holiness, and that all evil must be eradicated in order to form the righteous community He desired.

Another distinctive of Hebrew law is that throughout the Pentateuch it is presented within a specific narrative setting which produces a unique historical and theological context; a fact which testifies to the broader instruction aspect of the תֹּורָה rather than a narrow forensic view (Alexander and Baker, 500).  In other words, the entire Pentateuch is covered by the term תֹּורָה which indicates the didactic nature of the complete narrative, rather than limiting it to the sections of the text which are specifically casuistic or apodictic law; a fact which, among other things, explains the variance in motive clauses between the Decalogue as recorded in Exodus 20 and its reiteration in Deuteronomy 5 (i.e., Ex 20:11 cf. Dt 5:15).  Thus it is critical to interpret Hebrew law within its peculiar narrative setting.

While the codes of the other ancient Near Eastern societies are largely casuistic, there is a much greater emphasis on apodictic law in Deuteronomy.  The Decalogue, for instance, is made up entirely of apodictic commands which can be divided into two categories: commands 1-4 which deal with man’s duty to God, and 5-10 which deal with man’s interpersonal relationships.  Although the laws regulating interpersonal relationships in other cultures are primarily for the promotion of social harmony, in Deuteronomy, they are chiefly for the purpose of living in holiness before Yahweh since mankind is made in His image.  Arnold sums it up well when he says, “…in Israel, all offenses were ultimately against God.  In the Bible, law is revelatory since it is God given and prescribed for the people; in Mesopotamia the law was approved and sanctioned by the gods, but was only descriptive of what a well ordered society should be like” (Arnold, 104).

Hebrew תֹּורָה  is also comparatively egalitarian and socially progressive when contrasted with other contemporary bodies of law.  Unlike the laws of Mesopotamia which hold a higher standard of justice and privilege for the upper class, Israel is instructed to show no partiality in judgment because God shows no partiality, and has no regard for social stratification.  Indeed, He is the defender of those who are oppressed and marginalized in society, and Israel is to empathize with them on account of her alien sojourns in Egypt (10:17-19).

Finally, Hebrew law was to serve a very distinct purpose.  Observance of the law was to be a demonstration of Israel’s wisdom and understanding before the nations (4:6), it was to show the close proximity of God to His people (4:7), and it was to exhibit the stark contrast between a society ordered by a thoroughly righteous and holy body of laws and decrees, and the decayed social systems of the surrounding pagan cultures.  Insomuch as Israel was obedient to the תֹּורָה she would be an exemplar of God’s purposeful design for His kingdom.  The תֹּורָה as presented in Deuteronomy then, is chiefly and unabashedly theological in essence.  While other ancient cultures observed law out of the fear of punishment and to promote social order, Israel was to observe the Deuteronomic law out of love for God.

Treaty Parallels in Ancient Hittite Literature

The parallels, in both form and function, between the book of Deuteronomy and Hittite Suzerain-Vassal treaties has been well documented.  The Hittite treaty followed a standard form which included six main sections: (1) a preamble introducing the speaker, usually the suzerain, (2) a historical prologue emphasizing the suzerain’s benevolence, (3)stipulations detailing what is expected of the vassal, (4) a statement regarding the the documents display, storage, or terms for its recital, (5) a list of witnesses, usually deities, and (6) curses or blessings to be effected by the gods according to the performance of the stipulations (Hill and Walton, 132-33).

This pattern has been identified in the book of Deuteronomy where Yahweh is introduced as the Suzerain and Israel as the vassal.  The speaker/Suzerain (Yahweh) is introduced in 1:1-5, the historical prologue is found in 1:6-3:29, extensive stipulations are recorded in chapters 4-26, documentary statement is located in 27:2-3, the witnesses are recorded in chapters 31-32, and the extensive blessings and curses are enumerated in chapter 28 (thematically, blessings and curses are also utilized extensively throughout Mesopotamian literature[3]).  While not an exact correlation in sequence, each of the sections of the Hittite treaty are found in Deuteronomy (Hill and Walton, 133).

Another interesting feature of the stipulations section of Deuteronomy is that a broad section of it (6:1-26:15) can be analyzed as an elaboration of the Decalogue where each of the commandments are expanded as follows:

Commandment 1 (6-11)

Commandment 2 (12)

Commandment 3 (13:1-14:21)

Commandment 4 (14:22-16:17)

Commandment 5 (16:18-18-22)

Commandment 6 (19-21)

Commandment 7 (22:1-23:14)

Commandment 8 (23:15-24:7)

Commandment 9 (24:8-16)

Commandment 10 (24:17-26:15) (Hill and Walton, 134)

This parallel is of keen interest to conservative scholars in that it not only serves to identify Deuteronomy as documentary evidence of a formal relationship between God and Israel, but also counters attempts by liberal scholars to date the book to the latter part of the seventh century B.C., as the structure of the Suzerain Vassal treaty reflected in Deuteronomy is best dated between 1400-1200 B.C., contemporaneous with the exodus event and the traditional dating of Deuteronomy (Hill and Walton, 134; Carpenter, BBC, 3).

The Heart

The concept of the heart plays a pivotal role in both Deuteronomy and the literature of ancient Egypt.  While in Israel the heart was used figuratively and metaphorically, in Egypt the physical organ was also tied intimately to religious issues and cultic ritual (Carpenter, BBC, 98).  By comparison, Israel and Egypt are much more concerned with the heart than other contemporaneous cultures.

The Heart in Ancient Egyptian Literature

It would be impossible to overestimate the influence of Egyptian culture on the the background of Pentateuchal history, as the Pentateuch itself contains some forty-five Egyptian loan words.  Having sojourned in Egypt for some 400 years, Jacobs descendants would have been throughly acculturated into Egyptian civilization and would have been very familiar with their theology and literary works (Hill and Walton, 54).  Moreover, having been adopted by a daughter of Pharaoh, Moses would have been educated in the Egyptian court until adulthood (Alexander and Baker, 571).

The condition of one’s heart was of immense importance in ancient Egypt as it was a critical factor for entering into eternal life.  Egyptian religion taught that at death the heart was weighed by Anubius on a scale and if it was heavier than a feather, the deceased could not enter  eternal life (Alexander and Baker, 382).  Moreover, the heart of the Pharaoh was the key to his thinking and behavior (Carpenter, BBC 78).  Accordingly, references to the heart are ubiquitous in ancient Egyptian literature.

Heart plays a prominent role in The Memphite Theology, a copy which appears on the Shabaka Stone (ca. 710 B.C.) although the original composition was during the Old Kingdom period of Egyptian history (ca. 2650-2135 B.C.) (Lichtheim, Vol. I, 51).  The reference to the heart is profound in section 54, “Thus heart and tongue rule over all the limbs in accordance with the teaching that it (the heart..) is in every body and it (the tongue…) is in every mouth of all gods, all men, all cattle, all creeping things, whatever lives, thinking whatever it wishes and commanding whatever it wishes” (Lichtheim, Vol. I, 54).  This rendering demonstrates semantic parallelism between Egyptian and Hebrew concepts of the heart as the locus the rational thinking process.

In Egyptian thought, the tongue repeats what the heart formulates while the heart gathers information form all the senses (Carpenter, BBC 78).  While The Memphite Theology teaches that the heart and tongue rule over the limbs, thereby rendering man subject to its whims, Deuteronomy teaches that God’s word is resident in the heart and mouth, so that it may be obeyed (30.14).

A work of didactic literature dating from the latter part of the Sixth Dynasty (ca. 2300-2150 B.C.), The Instruction of Ptahhotep, contains several fascinating references to the heart:

The wise is known by his wisdom,

The great by his good actions;

His heart matches his tongue,

His lips are straight when he speaks… (Lichtheim, Vol. I, 73)

Clearly this alludes to a man’s honesty and integrity as a mark of wisdom which flows forth from the heart and although it is beyond the scope of this study, this is strikingly similar to Jesus’ assertion that “out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks” (Mt 12:34).

In the epilogue of this work we find:

He who hears is beloved of god,

He whom god hates does not hear.

The heart makes of its owner a hearer or non-hearer,

A man’s heart is life-prosperity-health! (Lichtheim, Vol. I, 74)

In context, the hearer is one who listens to the counsel of his father; the obvious parallel being the fifth commandment, “Honor your father and mother…” (5:16).    Not only does Ptahhotep identify the heart as the source of a son’s ability to listen to his father, but it also clearly links the condition of the heart to whether or not the son is loved by their conception of a god, presumably Horus.  Any hint of determinism here is quickly countered by the assertion that it is a man’s own heart that determines his behavior (Lichtheim, Vol. I, 80).

Near the end of the epilogue, Ptahhotep praises the good son saying, “He will do right when his heart is straight…” (Lichtheim, Vol. I, 76).  This assertion clearly links obedience to the condition of one’s heart; a concept which is paralleled throughout Deuteronomy (10:12-16, 11:13, 30:2, 30:10, 30:14, et al.).

Interesting uses of heart occur in the prologue of Ptahhotep as well, where the son is warned, “Do not be proud of your knowledge…” (Lichtheim, Vol. I, 63), literally, “Do not let your heart be big.”  As Lichtheim points out, “Ptahhotep distinguishes between ‘big-hearted’ in the sense of ‘proud, arrogant’, and ‘great-hearted’ in the sense of ‘high-minded, magnanimous’” (Vol. I, 76).

Elsewhere, in the literature of the Middle Kingdom period (ca. 2040-1650 B.C.), readers are exhorted to “cleave to His Majesty [the king] in your hearts” (Lichtheim, Vol. I, 128)[4] which is reminiscent of the King James rendering of Deuteronomy 10:20: “Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave…”  Likewise, the benevolent deeds of the gods are attributed to their hearts, “I repeat to you the good deeds my own heart did for me…” (Lichtheim, Vol. I, 131)[5] and culpability for evil is placed on the hearts of men, “I made every man like his fellow; and I did not command that they do wrong.  It is their hearts that disobey what I have said” (Lichtheim, Vol. I, 132 ).[6]

The Heart in Deuteronomy

The word heart (לבב) occurs more frequently in Deuteronomy than in any other book of the Pentateuch.  As is true with standard English usage, the word heart in Hebrew can be used to refer to the seat of human emotions.  Yet the Hebrew semantic range is broader as it is also used to “describe the place where the rational thinking process occurs…” (Carpenter, 537) and is thus seen as the locus of the mind, knowledge, wisdom, thinking, reflection, memory, determinations of the will, moral character, and courage of man (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 523-24).

In Deuteronomy, heart (לבב) is commonly accompanied by the word soul (נפש).  The soul is considered to be the seat of emotion, appetite, desire, passion, and acts of will.  In fact there is significant overlap in the semantic range of these two terms indicating the intrinsic unity of these concepts as they represent the totality of the inner man in Hebrew thought (4:29, 6:5, 10:12, 11:13, 13:13, 26:16, 30:2,6, 10).  Accordingly, God’s people are expected to seek after Him with all their heart and soul, their entire being.

Following the repetition of the account of the Decalogue (5:6-21), Moses tells of the intense fear the people had for God as a result of the encounter, as they pleaded with Moses not to  have this direct experience with God again.  God in turn answers, “Oh that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always…” (5:29) expressing an intense longing that their hearts would be marked by proper reverence toward Him and consumed with zeal for holiness as revealed through the law.  While Egyptian literature suggests an element of determinism by the gods, Yahweh’s desire is for the hearts of His people to always be inclined to fear Him.

Not only are the hearts of God’s people to reflect appropriate fear and reverence for Him, they are also to love Him.  At the center of Deuteronomistic theology lies the Shema (6:4-6).  Verse 4 asserts the essential unity and coherence of God (a radical concept when contrasted with the numerous gods worshiped in the Egyptian pantheon), while verse 5 is an imperative for God’s people to love Him with all their heart, soul, and strength.  Moreover, God’s commandments are to be upon their hearts which would naturally impel the people to pass them on to their progeny, to talk about them, and to meditate on them.  This intense focus on God’s commandments would then be reflected in the moral and ethical life of the community.

As noted above, there are numerous parallels between Hebrew law and the laws of the ancient Near East, in ancient Egyptian literature, however, the concept of law gets very little attention.  A fact which is probably due to the veneration of Pharaoh as semidivine and his word having been viewed as divine decree.  As Arnold explains, “There was, therefore, no need for a legal code that approved him before the gods and validated his performance as king – which was the function of such codes in Mesopotamia” (104).  There did exist in Egypt, however, a sizable corpus of writing in the tradition of wisdom literature.  This literature contained numerous maxims, proverbs, and pithy sayings, and it is replete with reference to the heart.[7]

In Deuteronomy, the people are also warned against the danger of forgetting Yahweh and becoming prideful in their hearts, taking credit for the wealth the Lord has bestowed upon them (8:14, 17) or believing that God had driven out the nations of Canaan due to the merit of the Israelite’s righteousness rather than expelling the nations on account of their own wickedness (9:4, 5).  This concept of the “prideful heart” is also closely paralleled in Egyptian literature as noted above.

In summary of Yahweh’s expectations for His covenant people, Moses explains that they are to fear Yahweh, to walk in His ways, to love Him, to serve Him with all their heart and with all their soul, and to observe His commands and decrees (10:12-13, 11:13).  The promised result of this complete love and service is fertility for the land God is giving them, which directly equates to blessing for the ancient Israelites and their agrarian economy.  On the other hand if the hearts of the people are deceived and they turn from the one true God to the worship of idols, Yahweh will withhold the rains and the land consequently will yield no produce (11:16-17).  While climactic control was attributed to the gods in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, or even to Pharaoh in Egypt, “in Israel, spiritual/moral beliefs merged to a degree not evident in other ancient Near Eastern laws or worldviews” (Carpenter, BBC, 102).  In Deuteronomy, the key to God’s blessing of the land was, essentially, to possess hearts that were morally and ethically upright before God.

Although circumcision was not common in ancient Egypt, it was practiced to some extent as early as the third millennium B.C.  However, while the Hebrews amputated the prepuce of the penis, the Egyptians merely incised the foreskin so as to expose the glans (Carpenter, BBC, 98-99).  For the Israelites, circumcision was the physical, external sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Ge 17), yet in Deuteronomy God makes it clear that circumcision was intended to be the outward sign of the inward reality of a circumcised heart (10:16) as a circumcised heart leads to voluntary and volitional obedience to God’s will through love and service.  It is also promised that following the prophesied banishment, when the people have taken the trials and tribulations of the banishment to heart, God will restore them to the land and will circumcise their hearts so that they will be enabled to love Him with all their hearts and with all their souls, and live (30:6).

The people are also warned that when they select a king there are several stipulations that should be put in place in order that his heart might be guarded.  He is not to “multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away” (17:17), which would ultimately be the undoing of Solomon as he took wives in order to establish political alliances with foreign states and these wives brought with them their foreign gods.  The king is also instructed to write for himself a copy of the law and to carry it with him and study it for his entire life so that he may learn to fear God and so that “his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen” (17:20).  Unlike all of the other nations of the Ancient Near East who ruled their people from a position of aristocracy, Israel’s king was to be humble in heart and not consider himself better than his brothers.  This humble heart condition would result in a long lived dynasty for the family.

To sum up, the heart is the moral, ethical, and religious center of a human being in Israelite thought.  Consequently, the condition of one’s heart is of paramount concern to Yahweh; a fact which is abundantly clear in the sermonic expansion and exposition of the covenant as presented in the literary context of Deuteronomy.

Conclusion

Why should we be interested in the literary parallels and contrasts in ancient Near Eastern Literature?  Tate puts it well: “…one of the cardinal rules of exegesis is that the interpreter must always approach and analyze a text in part or whole within contexts: historical, cultural, geographical, ecclesiastical, ideological, and literary” (3).

Clearly, the nation of Israel did not exist in a vacuum, but within a sociopolitical milieu rich with influence from flourishing cultures in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, et al.  It is the goal of the modern exegete to, as much as possible, assume the worldview of the original audience in order to properly interpret and apply Scripture today.  Comparative study of the literature produced by these cultures helps move us toward a better understanding of the competing worldviews of Near Eastern antiquity and the experience of the ancient Israelites as those worldviews converged to exert pressure on the cultural and unique theological worldview of the fledgling nation.

Only through comparative study can we understand the full extent the uniqueness of the biblical portrait of kingship.  Clearly, no other ancient literature expected humility from their king in the way commanded in the book of Deuteronomy.         When we compare the biblical law against the legal corpora of other ancient Near Eastern cultures, an unprecedented picture of justice, equality, and righteousness quickly emerges.  Far from the egalitarian, open, and socially progressive law of Deuteronomy, laws in other cultures are uniformly protectionist against aliens and afford a higher degree of justice relative to the social sphere of the plaintiff.    Although the parallels between the prominence of the heart in ancient Egypt are striking, Deuteronomy is again unique in the depth of the use of the metaphor

Yet Deuteronomy’s uniqueness extends beyond mere cultural and literary concerns, as its essential distinctive quality is theological.  Deuteronomy is unique because it is the revelation of the righteous and immutable creator of the universe as he lovingly guides and directs those made in His image.

Works Cited

Alexander, T. Desmond and David W. Baker. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch.  Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003.

Arnold, Bill T. and Bryan E. Beyer. Readings From the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Brown, Francis, and S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1906.

Carpenter, Eugene E. Deuteronomy: Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting and Parallels. Unpublished  ms., 2008.

Carpenter, Eugene E. and Comfort, Phillip W. Holman Treasury of Key Bible Words. Nashville:   Broadman & Holman.

Chavalas, Mark W. and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., ed. Mesopotamia and the Bible. Grand Rapids:   Baker Academic, 2002.

Foster, Benjamin R., ed. The Epic of Gilgamesh. New York: Norton, 2001.

Hill, Andrew E. and John H. Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament, 2^nd ed. Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2000.

Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol.I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. Berkley:  University of California Press, 1975.

Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol.II: The New Kingdoms. Berkley:      University of California Press, 1975.

Pritchard, James B., ed.  The Ancient Near East Vol I: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958.

Pritchard, James B., ed.  Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3^rd Ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Tate, W. Randolph. Biblical Interpretation, An Integrated Approach. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.

Yener, K. Aslihan and Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., ed. Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

[2] See Pritchard, 166, laws 1-4.

[3] cf. the occurrence of blessings and curses in The Epic of Gilgamesh, the epilogue to the Code of Hammurapi, the Lipit-Ishtar Lawcode, etc.

[4] Stela of Sehetep-ib-re.

[5] A Spell from the Coffin Texts.

[6] A Spell from the Coffin Texts.

[7] e.g., The Instruction of Ptahhotep among many others.

Nonetheless, these are some of the philosophical underpinnings which have come to shape the postmodern worldview, thus the Christian apologist must not only understand these seminal ideas but also recognize that it is necessary to relate to the postmodern mind with a different approach than has traditionally been used in dialogue with the modernist.  Toward that end, rather than attempting to force the postmodernist back into compliance with modernity, this study will attempt to synthesize a different rubric for apologetic discourse with postmodernity having the ultimate goal of bringing those whom hold this worldview to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and thereby advancing the kingdom of God.

Worldview Navigation

Mankind’s quest for truth can be analogized to a sea voyage.  Truth is a light in the distance which has been obscured by the dense fog of culture and competing philosophical paradigms.  In the midst of the deep, it is the helmsman’s responsibility to chart a course that will lead to that great light.  One needs to know very little about seafaring and navigation to understand that when a ship veers off course by even a single degree, the effect on the voyage is terrific.  In fact, this divergence renders it impossible to reach the intended destination.  In many respects, various worldviews function much like navigation systems as people and cultures attempt to grope for truth.  This provides a significant challenge, however, because worldviews are not fixed in form but develop dynamically from one generation to the next.

In many respects, the shift to modernism brought a badly needed course correction to the premodern worldview which was rooted in authority structures and thoroughly steeped in a feudal system that attributed status and power to a few, based on the privilege of birth.  It was a shift to modernity which allowed the founding fathers of this country to react against premodern feudalism as they made the outrageous claim, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”  This declaration provided a sorely needed course correction to the political philosophy of the premodern world.

Modernity also challenged the authority of the church and gave birth to the watershed doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide providing a much needed course correction to premodern theology and ecclesiology.  Premodern theologians held that only the church was entitled to interpret Scripture and that the decisions of popes and councils were on the same authoritative plane with the canon.  This belief in ecclesiastical authority spawned a power structure which was used and abused to perpetuate class oppression and create a material kingdom for the church.  The Reformers roundly rejected this authority due to its logical incoherency.  Employing the law of noncontradiction at the Diet of Worms, in true proto-modern form Luther noted, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they contradict each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God” (qtd. in White 28).

It is quite common, however, for a steering correction to result in a divergence toward the opposite extreme.  Modernism not only rejected the authority of the church, but under the influence of Descartes’ radical doubt, Locke’s tabula rasa, etc., moderns moved beyond Luther to reject even the authority of Scripture (White 30-33).  As this trajectory continued, it resulted in the exaltation of human reason which in turn gave birth to hope in progress and the embrace of science and technology as its apparatus of delivery.

As history has unfolded however, the promise of human progress has not delivered.  Despite advances in science and technology, modernism has ushered in two world wars, the Holocaust, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and biological weaponization to name just a few.  Modernism clearly misplaced trust in the innate goodness of mankind to utilize advances in technology for benevolent purposes.  In fact, most major advances in technological benevolence have produced malevolent counterparts.

Enter postmodernism.  Cynicism regarding modernity’s doctrine of progress has given birth to much in postmodern thought.  In fact, it is in this aspect of postmodernism that N. T. Wright finds its greatest strength, “…in all sorts of ways I believe postmodernity is to be welcomed.  It offers an analysis of evil which the mainstream culture I described earlier [modernity] still resists; it deconstructs, in particular, the dangerous ideology of ‘progress’” (Evil 32).  In other words, postmodernity can be characterized by disillusionment with the modernist notion that in the end human progress will carry the day.  This incredulity toward human progress provides a significant point of contact with the biblical perspective which also finds man, left to his own devices, utterly powerless to deal with the viral expanse of evil.

In this respect, postmodernism provides a needed course correction to modernity. However, as we have seen with modernism, as postmodernism develops toward the extreme, it goes too far.  Finding evil indissoluble, postmodernity impotently degrades into nihilism.  As Wright put it, “Postmodernity may be correct to say that evil is real, powerful and important, but it gives us no clue as to what we should do about it.  It is therefore vital that we look elsewhere, and broaden the categories of the problem from the shallow modernist puzzles on the one hand and the nihilistic deconstructive analyses on the other” (Evil 33-34).

Reaction to Philosophical Paradigm Shifts

As the modern worldview began to take root and develop, the initial reaction of the Catholic church was very adverse and more than mildly resistant.  When their work proved contradictory to interpretations of Scripture held to be authoritative, Enlightenment thinkers such as Galileo and Copernicus received severe censure by the church and their views were condemned as heresy.  The Catholic church had much invested in an Aristotelian worldview which they had imbued with authority (White 29).  If shown to be false, the resulting loss of credibility would pose a significant threat to the existing power structure.  Attacking ideas they were unwilling or unable to comprehend, the establishment clung to the traditional hermeneutic handed to them by their fathers.  Nonetheless, the flaws of premodernism had been exposed and the damage was done; the turn was inevitable. The religious establishment was brought kicking and screaming into the stark reality of modernity with an epic struggle.

Likewise, on the threshold of an historic shift in worldview, many Evangelicals have attacked postmodernism in a kneejerk response to something they see as wholly antithetical to the Christian faith.  In The Truth War, John MacArthur cites an article about Rob Bell and Brian McLaren which appeared in Christianity Today Magazine entitled The Emergent Mystique, as proof positive of the rejection of truth by postmodern Christians.  In the introduction MacArthur writes, “One dominant theme pervades the whole article: in the Emerging Church movement, truth (to whatever degree such a concept is even recognized) is assumed to be inherently hazy, indistinct, and uncertain – perhaps even ultimately unknowable” (x).

Interestingly, the word truth appears in the article only once, “[McLaren] cites Dallas Willard and Richard Foster, with their emphasis on spiritual disciplines, as key mentors for the emerging church.  None of these thinkers has any inclination to throw out the baby of truth with the bathwater of modernity.”  Rather than a rejection of truth per se, in the context of the article McLaren seems to be reacting against the categorical, empirical, hierarchical schema of the modern worldview.

Likewise, in an article entitled Postmodernism and Truth, J. P. Moreland launches a particularly vitriolic attack on postmodernism in general.  Although Moreland grudgingly concedes that language can be problematic as he affirms, “…the language/world hookup is arbitrary,” he ultimately concludes that postmodernism “is an immoral, coward’s way out that is not worthy of a movement born out of the martyr’s blood” (126).

While there is certainly biblical support for the need to defend sound doctrine from attack (cf. 1Pet 3:15), it is first necessary to discern whether an idea is clearly and wholly antithetical to biblical truth before one flies to a defensive posture.  In other words, while evaluating postmodern philosophy, we must be sure we have a clear comprehension of the ideas before we snap to judgment and defense.  Once the ideas are clearly understood, we then need to distinguish which aspects of those ideas indeed require defense and counterattack through apologetics, and which aspects should be embraced and applied to our own understanding of the world in general and faith in particular.  Most importantly, this must all be done with the ultimate goal of engaging those who hold a postmodern worldview in constructive dialogue which is circumscribed by gentleness and respect (1Pet 3:16).  Bludgeoning those whose worldview has been shaped by postmodern philosophy with a reaffirmation of the modern worldview coupled with insult is likely to be an ineffective strategy in disciple making.

The Dark Side of Absolute Truth

One well deserved criticism of the modernist worldview is that it neglects to take into account the “dark side” of absolute truth.  Of course this is not to suggest that truth as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ or in Scripture has a dark side, but to acknowledge the fact that absolute truth, insomuch as it is popularly conceived, can prove to be more than a little problematic for at least two reasons.  First, as it is affirmed by the various denominations and sects of the Judeo-Christian traditions, there seem to be competing versions of absolute truth, something which is clearly a logical fallacy in light of the law of noncontradiction.  Yet, while appealing to the same canon of Scripture, first century Jews and Christians held to very different ideas of absolute truth.  Indeed today, Evangelical Protestants and the Roman Catholics affirm very different views of what is affirmed by Christians to be the purest expression of truth: the gospel.

Second, as Michel Foucault has pointed out, conceptually, “absolute truth” has a tendency to morph into an implement of power and control when handled improperly; a fact which has been horrifically borne out in church history (Greer 15-46).  Sadly, one needs to look no further than the slaying of the Anabaptists during the tumultuous period of the Reformation to find evidence of the inherent dangers of the systems of power and control which can spawn from a misguided attempt to wield “absolute truth” and defend its corruption from the supposed infidel (Shelley 247-55).

Language, and Interpretation

Truth is communicated in propositions which are constructed using language.  Language is a form of semiotic communication which makes use of symbols (signa, i.e., words) to point to, or describe reality (res) (Greer 27-28).  For communication to take place, a speaker must symbolically encode a message which is subsequently decoded and interpreted by the listener.  As Greer explains, “Semiotic communication, by definition, requires distortion due to the use of symbols that only partially represent reality and thereby imply imperfection” (27).  In other words, while absolute truth exists, due to the inherent weaknesses of language, it is not feasible to employ language (a finite abstraction) to absolutely, comprehensively define infinite absolute truth.

While the law of noncontradiction is a useful tool in demonstrating that objective truth exists, it is of little value in defining exactly what truth is.  To put it another way, A ≠ ~A, but how do we get to A in the first place?  Additionally, the correspondence theory of truth is effective in proving truths that can be empirically verified, yet it falls short in attempts to validate transcendent truths such as moral or theological absolutes.

In his critique of Grenz and Franke, John Wilsey charges the men with abandoning the correspondence theory of truth and then rightly affirms that truth proper is independent of human observation.  To illustrate this point he employs the age old playground question: “if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”  He goes on to say, “…since the laws of the universe are the same everywhere and are not dependent upon any creature inhabiting it, we know this question to be nothing more than an amusing one from the school playground” (10-11).  There is, however, more value to this question than mere amusement.

First, the correspondence theory of truth cannot be employed to prove or disprove the claim that the tree indeed makes a sound, due to the fact that an observer is inherently necessary to evaluate the correspondence to reality.[1] Secondly, even with an observer on hand to establish the truth of the event, the event itself is entirely meaningless unless it is interpreted.  To look at it another way, while we can establish that the existence of a particular tree is objectively true so long as it corresponds to reality, unless that truth is interpreted and applied by an individual or community, the objective truth of the tree’s existence has very little, if any, value.  For interpretation to take place we must resort to linguistics and linguistics are culturally bound.

People in different cultures may interpret the tree in very different ways.  One community may see it as holy or an object of worship; another may see it as useful for firewood, building materials, or shade; yet another more technically advanced community may see its value in the manufacture of paper, erosion control, or even in its ability to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen.  Regardless of how the tree is interpreted within a particular cultural-linguistic system, it must be interpreted to have any value whatsoever.  It follows then, for truth to have meaning and value to an individual, it must be interpreted; if it is to have value within a community it must be communicable within a cultural-linguistic system.

Noting the inherent subjectivity of interpretation, McKnight says, “Even when we recognize intellectually the inevitability of some type of relativism, we attempt to ignore or refute it because relativism seems to mean that all of our facts are false or at least that no important fact can be verified” (59).  This is not to suggest that truth is unknowable or unverifiable in that there seems to be an intuitive recognition of truth when one encounters it, “There is a validation of meaning and significance but this validation – just as the determination of meaning and significance – takes into account the total nexus of dynamic signifying systems” (McKnight 61).  Here, however, we must proceed with caution, for it would be quite easy to slip into a pluralistic view of truth if this line of reasoning were carried too far.  It is not truth but interpretation that exists in plurality.

This leads us to the fact that Scripture itself must be interpreted in order to arrive at meaning and application.  All too often, interpreters of Scripture fail to take note of the fact that their interpretations are inescapably subjective (due to the fact that Scripture is usually interpreted within a given community setting, many interpreters are blind to the fact that their interpretations are ipso facto culturally relative).  Believing they have arrived at objective absolute truth they tend to wield it like a club, smashing any suggestion of disagreement with their position with the claim that their views are “derived from Scripture.”  This phenomenon can be seen in the plethora of Christian denominations and their dogmatic adherence to systematic theology.  After all, whose interpretations of Scripture shall we say convey absolute truth, Calvin’s or Arminius’?

Narrative

The importance of narrative in human cognitive process cannot be overstated.  According to Coon, “We creatively build our self-concepts out of daily experiences. Then we slowly revise them as we have new experiences” (414).  The mental record of our experiences is usually recorded in narrative form, complete with interpretation.  As Stephen Crites puts it, “…the formal quality of experience through time is inherently narrative” (Hauerwas and Jones 66).  To a large extent, one’s self-concept is simply a collection of stories and their associated interpretations, and these stories play a significant role in the way human beings experience, perceive, and thus interpret reality.

As noted above, the modernist meets the biblical narrative with skepticism due to the fact that the quintessential claims of the narrative cannot be empirically verified.  Traditional evidential apologetics attempts to work within the modernist framework rooted in Cartesian anxiety.  Here again, postmodernism proves to be an ally to those who hold a biblical worldview by exposing the significant epistemological flaws in modernity.

In The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Jean-Françios Lyotard, an influential postmodern philosopher, wrote “I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives” (qtd. in Smith 63).  At first blush, this would seem to suggest that postmodernity would meet the grandest story of all, the biblical narrative, with incredulity.  This, however, is not how he used the term metanarrative.  As Smith explains, “For Lyotard, metanarratives are a distinctly modern phenomenon: they are stories that not only tell a grand story… but also claim to be able to legitimate or prove the story’s claim by an appeal to universal reason” (Smith 65).  In other words, postmodernism exposes the fact that the modern scientistic views of the world are far from the alleged purity of empiricism; in fact they are themselves rooted in narrative and thus ultimately reduce to philosophy.

Therefore the kerygma of the church falls outside the scope of this polemic in that, in its purest form, the proclamation of the gospel makes no appeal to universal reason in an attempt to legitimate.  When the Apostle Paul was before the Areopagus, his proclamation was rooted in the Scriptures.  Some met the proclamation of the resurrected Christ with ridicule while others recognized truth.  Paul made no attempt at a rational defense of the resurrection, offered no evidence or appeal to universal reason; instead he “went out from their midst” (Acts 17:33).[2]

Postmodernism then does not reject narrative per se, but the self-legitimating claims of metanarratives.  Narrative itself has value to the postmodern.  Timothy Keel notes, “…most [postmoderns] would settle for a good story.  Part of the rub with post-evangelicals is that most evangelicals rely on apologetics to explain their faith.  But apologetics can’t satisfy the postmodern appetite for mystery, paradox, and imagination.  People are desperate for myth, art, and story” (qtd. in Tomlinson 83).  In many respects, the modern approach to apologetics has sterilized the kerygma by removing the mystery from the proclamation.

Another particularly troubling outgrowth of modernism’s relentless pursuit of systematizing all aspects of human experience has been the dogmatic espousal of systematic theology.  In recent years, biblical theology has provided a refreshing alternative. Confined to the text, biblical theology seeks the locus of meaning in the overarching biblical narrative.  Thus, rather than employing philosophy to resolve the tension between seemingly contradictory doctrines (e.g., predestination vs. free will), biblical theology focuses on the theological principles which can be extracted from the epic itself.

Finally, modern apologetics tends to focus on rational, evidential methodology which seems in many respects to preclude the power of personal testimony (read “personal narrative”) in the apologetic effort, presumably due to the subjective nature of testimony.  We must acknowledge, however, that personal testimony was the traditional nexus of the apologetic endeavors of antiquity.  At bottom, the most powerful apologetic is delivered when the apologist relates the story of an encounter with God from personal experience.

Jesus’ Use of Parables

From His use of parables, it would appear that Jesus had an appreciation for the use of narrative in apologetic discourse.  The word parable makes its way into English from the Greek παραβολή which literally means “a placing of one thing by the side of another” implying a comparison or juxtaposition (Thayer 479).  Jewish parables were rooted in a Hebrew form know as mashal which “employs a short narrative fiction to reference a transcendent symbol” (Bailey and Vander Broek 106).

For the most part, Jesus’ parables were amazingly dense and deliberately vague.  Bailey and Vander Broek explain,

As metaphorical language, Jesus parables are narratives that seek to encourage listeners to widen and deepen their notion of the kingdom of God, a symbol that points to divine reality and cannot be reduced to an abstract concept… [which] speaks of a mysterious reality so rich and so new that the parable cannot be reduced to clear language (110)

Due to this phenomenon, the parables are polysemous, containing rich layers of meaning which invite the listener to step into the timeless nature of the parable and experience the transcendent reality of the kingdom of God through concrete, mundane scenes of daily life.  While the parables point the way to the absolute truth of the kingdom, they are irreducible in comprehensive, absolute terms.

While some modern scholars in reaction to Augustine’s extreme allegorical interpretations of the parables in premodern times have asserted that meaning in parables must be singular, it seems this declaration fails to recognize the Sitz im Leben of the parabolic form and its usefulness as an vehicle of signa.  Bailey and Vander Broek rightly determine that, “Contrary to the conclusion of earlier scholars, these metaphorical stories do not have just one legitimate point but sponsor multiple interpretations” (111).  Due to their intrinsic polysemy, the parables are ideally suited to a community hermeneutical effort as each individual’s interaction with the parable may assist in elucidating a more complete picture of the transcendent reality of the kingdom.

Consider the parable of the grain of mustard (Mt. 13:31-32) as a case in point.  A typical way to interpret this parable has been to see the kingdom of God as something that has inauspicious beginnings (a grain of mustard) but grows exponentially into something capable of supporting, sheltering, and nurturing life as the seed grows into a tree which provides a nesting place for the birds of the air.  This is a perfectly legitimate way to interpret this parable; in fact, it appears prima facie to be the proper interpretation.

Consider, however, that for a grain of mustard to grow into a tree is something quite abnormal as a normal mature mustard plant is actually a sparse bush at best.  Also, in the parable of the sower (Mt 13:1-8), the birds were symbolic of the evil one.  Given the context then, the grain of mustard could be representative of evil (possibly the legalism of the Pharisees) and the abnormal growth of the plant illustrates the system and viral expansion of evil which becomes a fortress for the enemy even in the midst of God’s people.  Likewise, this is a legitimate interpretation.

Most narratives move through stages of exposition, complication, rising action, discriminated occasion, climax, and then reach a point of resolution, or denouement, where the story is detangled and the moral or meaning becomes clear.  A parable, however, is a form of story which has no dénouement; it doesn’t resolve.  Jesus seems to adequately complicate the plot and the drop it into the listener’s lap to do the hard work of detangling and interpreting.  As Geisler notes, “Jesus’ use of parables demonstrates the value of stories to convey a message and persuade an audience which cannot always be achieved by direct discourse” (qtd. in Meister 8).

A final noteworthy feature of Jesus’ parables is that they tend to be iconoclastic.  The Pharisees of Jesus day were convinced of the absolute truth of theological positions which they believed to be firmly rooted in the Torah.  Many times Jesus utilized parables when relating a view of the kingdom which was incongruous with the Pharisaical view.  Jesus exploited the power of this fascinating form to smash through popular misconceptions of reality, upset the tranquil status quo of the religious establishment, and cast new provocative images of the kingdom of God.

Reengaging the Ancient

“Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls’” (Jer 6:16).  It seems that many modern Evangelicals have lost sight of the fact that Christianity was a growing, thriving concern for 1500 years before the advent of Descartes, the Enlightenment, and modernity.  Perhaps a more effective way of relating to the postmodern mind may be found in a return to certain aspects of the ancient, to premodernism.  H. Richard Niebuhr explains, “The preaching of the early Christian church was not an argument for the existence of God nor an admonition to follow the dictates of some common human conscience, unhistorical and super-social in character.  It was primarily a simple recital of the great events connected with the historical appearance of Jesus Christ and a confession of what had happened to the community of disciples” (Hauerwas and Jones 21).

A return to the ancient acknowledges the indispensability of an experiential encounter with God.  The Apostle Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ was not rooted in rational certainty but in special, particular revelation which was the result of Peter’s seeking after God; a fact which is evidenced by Jesus’ response to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17).  Peter’s confession then is foundationally existential and rooted in divine revelation. [3] No matter how well it is crafted, no logical argument can replace a first-hand encounter with God.

Here, however, one may point out that Peter had the good fortune of living in an historical period when Jesus walked the earth; ergo he was in a unique position to have this personal encounter through direct contact with Christ.  It is important to note, however, that Peter’s revelation did not come from his physical contact with Christ, but from the Father who is in heaven and Scripture clearly affirms the availability of this encounter to all who would earnestly seek after it, “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart” (Jer 29:13; cf. Dt 4:29), but how are people today to go about achieving such an encounter?

One possibility may be found in the resurrection of ancient spiritual practices such as Luther’s theologia crucis (contemplation of the cross), lectio divina, fasting, solitude, meditation scriptura, etc.  While modernism has categorized these practices as antiquated “mysticism” and thus relegated them to something tantamount to superstition, the ancients, not to mention the biblical record, stand opposed to such a reduction.  Scripture bears witness to experiences in the life of Paul which could be categorized on no other way than mystical (e.g., 2Co 12:1-10), not he least of which being his conversion experience (Acts 9:1-19).

Synthesis

It is a challenging (an admittedly overambitious) endeavor to synthesize a systematic rubric for apologetic discourse with those holding a postmodern worldview.  The enterprise proves problematic for a variety of reasons.  Due to the breadth and nebulous nature of postmodernity, those who have been influenced by it are quite often unaware of any formal arguments of the philosophy, let alone its esoteric vocabulary.  Moreover, a phenomenon has developed in the public education system of the United States which embraces a thoroughly modern worldview in disciplines such as science and mathematics, but shifts to postmodern relativism in the humanities (especially in the fields of philosophy and ethics).  This teetering between worldviews has resulted in a form of epistemological schizophrenia in those whose thinking has been shaped in the caldron of public education.

Furthermore, if, as Lyotard has suggested, postmodernity can be defined as incredulity toward metanarrative, it is ipso facto vehemently resistant to all things systematic.  Thus, to even make suggestion of a system or method for dealing with postmoderns is paradoxical at best.  Nonetheless, there are a variety of tactics which can be employed to assist the postmodern mind in making a critical steering correction without compelling one to jettison all postmodern philosophy and forcing the adoption of an entirely modern posture.

First, while refusing to compromise the reality of absolute truth, the apologist should honestly recognize and acknowledge the inescapable subjectivity of interpretation, rather than attempting to wield absolute truth in absolute terms.  Second, the narrative kerygma (rather than Cartesian anxiety) should be the foundation of the apologetic effort.  Third, discussion of the parables of Jesus should be employed to point the seeker to the transcendent reality of the kingdom.  Fourth, ancient spiritual practices should be recommended as a medium for a personal, existential encounter with God.  Fifth, the personal narrative of the apologist (or testimony of one’s personal encounter with God) should be a thread that runs through the entire apologetic effort.  Finally, one should engage the postmodern with biblical rather than systematic theology.

Conclusion

To be sure, many of the ideas to grow out of postmodern philosophy will in fact prove to be antithetical to the Christian worldview, however, some may bear out to advance certain aspects of theological study.  After all, one does not simply discard the entirety of the Reformation simply because some reformers went too far in their radicalism.  We do not, for instance, discard the watershed doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide simply because Luther was anti-Semitic.  We intuitively understand that he went too far, that he slipped into extremism, thus we retain what is good and valuable and discard the rest.

The purpose here has not been to devalue the modern approach of evidential apologetics, but to suggest an alternative which may better serve the apologist who wishes to engage those holding a postmodern worldview.  The present author’s perspective has been shaped by both modern and postmodern philosophy and in some respects, he holds certain opinions that may be identified as distinctively premodern, at least so far as the embrace of Scripture as holistically authoritative (sola scriptura!), not only in matters of faith and practice, but in the domains of cosmology, philosophy, epistemology, etc.  Ultimately, everything essentially reduces to theology.

Postmodernism should be engaged as a welcome course correction for the modern worldview, and for that matter, the church as a whole.  However, as is the case with all steering corrections, the goal should be to adjust early and often, avoiding extremes by constantly keeping a watchful eye on the true compass: the Word of God.  Only when this compass sets our bearings are we able to navigate the deep and often turbulent waters of life and safely reach our destination.

Works Cited

Bailey, James L. and Lyle D. Vander Broek. Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.

Coon, Dennis. Psychology: A Modular Approach to Mind and Behavior, 10^th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2006.

Crouch, Andy. “The Emergent Mystique.” Christianity Today Magazine 1 Nov. 2004 Oct. 2008 <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=11430>.

Geisler, Norman L. Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics 1.1 (2008): 1-24.

Geisler, Norman L. and Chad V. Meister, eds. Reasons for Faith: Making a Case for the Christian Faith. Wheaton: Crossway, 2007.

Hauerwas, Stanley and L. Gregory Jones. Why Narrative?: Readings in Narrative Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

MacArthur, John. The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception. Nashville: Nelson, 2007.

McKnight, Edgar V. Postmodern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-oriented Criticism. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988.

Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. Grand Rapids: Family Christian Press, 1982.

Smith, James K. A. Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Thayer, Joseph H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 4^th ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1896.

Tomlinson, Dave. The Post-Evangelical (Revised North American Edition). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

White, Heath. Postmodernism 101: A First Course for the Curious Christian. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006.

Wilsey, John D. Postmodern Epistemology: A Critique of Stanley J Grenz and John R. Franke. International Society of Christian Apologetics. 5 Nov. 2008. <http://isca-apologetics.org/wilsey-critique.pdf>

Wright, N. T. Evil and the Justice of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006.

Wright, N. T. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking the Resurrection and the Mission of the Church. New York: Harper Collins, 2008.

[2] This is not to suggest that a rational defense is inappropriate but to point out that the kerygma is just that: a proclamation.

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Holy Bible.

[3] “Existential” is used here to refer to the experiential essence of revelation, not in the philosophical sense of Sartre, et al.