Gerhard F. Hasel - Understanding the Living Word of God (1980).pdf

Understan ing theLiving WordofOoo Gerhard F. Hasel, Ph.D. Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan

Corregido y digitalizado para lectura electrónica por SHEKINA BOOKS para la Biblioteca Virtual de Libros Adventistas https://www.facebook.com/groups/librosadventistaspdf/

Pacific Press Publíshing Association Mountain View, California Omaha, Nebraska Oshawa, Ontado

Copyright © 1980 by Pacific Press Publishing Association Litho in United States of America AH Rights Reserved

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 79-90025 ISBN 0-8163-0372-X

To my wife and companion Hilde

PREFACE

The search for truth-how the human mind can be certain about reality-has been the quest of thinking men and women for ages. This quest has gripped me since my undergraduate, seminary, and university days. For this reason 1 cannot eseape the basic issue of hermeneutics-the procedure, principies, and methods of understanding and interpreting the Bible, the living Word ofGod. I owe thanks to many colleagues, students, laypersons, and Eriends for their encouragement and constructive critical suggestions. In a real sense this book is an outgrowth oE my participation in Bible conferences held since 1974 in North America. Europe, Australia, and South America, presentations made at ministerial seminars across North America, retreats Eor laypersons; and my teaching experience. The wealth of experienee gathered from these occasions-including the many thoughtful quesrions asked and perrinent issues raísed by laypersons, students, ministers, and colleagues-have materially eontributed to the making of this book. My inadequate but deep and honest thanks goes to the help of friends who have aided in this work. 1 wish to mention partieulady Dr. Herbert Douglass of the Pacific Press, who has not only suggested the deadline for the finishing of che manuscript but who has seen it go to speedy publication. The typing of the manuseript was aeeomplished with most surprising dispatch by Patricia Young, who showed great skill in deciphering a modem hieroglyphic handwriting. But 1 owe most to my wife, Hilde, who was my great supporter and whose interest has made a world of differenee. 1 eommend this book to the glory of God and to Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. May each reader be stimulated to a better understanding of the living Word of God today. Gerhard F. Hasel Theological Seminary Andrews University January 1980

TABLEor CONTENTS

l. The Word of God in and out of Eclipse 13 The Authority of the Bible in Modero Times The Bible and the Individual The Bible in the Church The Bible in the Pulpit The Bible in Recent Theology The Roots oE the Eclipse in Authority Common Denominators Revolutions in Westero Thought Modero Solurions Neoorthodox Solutians Toward a Biblical Solution 11. Bíblical Backgrounds far Understanding 42 Bíblical Languages Biblical Customs Biblical Indications of Interpretatíon Lifring Barríers of Understanding Creadon Account Flood Narrative Time Elements Historical Informatían Chranological Informatían Scientific Information 111. Bíblical Foundarions far Understanding 66 Internal Foundations The Witness of Peter The Witness of Paul Support of the Biblical Witness Inspiration and the Unity af Scripture Inspiratíon and the Human Instrument Inspiration and the Analagy of Faith

viii

ix

Inspiration and the Supreme Authority of Scripture The Principie of the "Bíble Only" Scrípture Its Own Interpreter Inspiration and Objectivity in Interpretation Objectives of Biblical Interpretation IV. Biblical Texts, Translations, and Understanding 83 Old Testament Scribal Errors Manuscripts Dead Sea ScroIls and Daniel Text Types Vocalization of the Text Ancient Translations PrincipIes of Old Testament Textual Criticism New Testament Textual Materials Principies of Textual Criticism Text Types Modern Eclectic Methods Examples T ranslatiolls Paraphrase Dynamic Translations Formal Translations V. Understanding Biblical Words, Sentences, and Contexts Biblical Words and Sentences Words and GrammaticaI Contexts Words and Root Meanings

110

Words and Sentences Within the Bíblical Hermeneutical Cirde The PrincipIe The PrincipIe AppIied Words and Sentences Within the Extrabiblical Background The History-of-religíons Approach The Matter of Borrowing The Uniqueness of the Bible Bíblical Creation and the Andent World Ancient Ebla and the Bible VI. Understanding Units 146 Units and Chapters and Verses Chapters Verses

x

Determination of Units Units and Source Criticism in the Old Testament Units and Source Criticism of the New T estament Principies for Determining Units Classification of Units Classification and Form Criticism Classiíication Through Internal Criteria Interpretation oE Units Historical, Cultural, and Religious Background Setting and Date Form and Content Words and Sentences Theological Motifs VII. Understanding Books 179 Books and Authorship and Unity Books and Biblical Prophecy Biblical and Nonbiblical Prophecy Schools oí Prophetic Interpretation Diseensatiorialism Aml11ennialism Postmillennialism Historicism Apocalyptic Interpretation and the Book oí Daniel World History Unfolded Focos on End Time Divine Revelation Angelic Interpretation PreCliction and Fulfillment A Saving Message Fulfillment, Conditionality, and the Deeper Meaning Fulfillment of Prophecy Conditionality oí Prophecy The Deeper Meaning Books and the Message of Jesus The Authenticity of Jesus' Words The Synoptic Gospels The Gospel oí J06n The Nature of the Gospels

KEYOf

ABBREVIATIONS

AA E. G. White, The Acts of the Apostles (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1911) AFO Archiv für Orientforschung ANET J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Tests (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1955) Sup J. B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East: Supplement (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969) ANET3 Third edition of (1968) ANET BA Biblical Archaeologist BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research lBC F. D. Nichol, ed., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 7 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1953-1957) {2BC, etc., for vols. 2-7} CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CG E. G. White, Child Guidance (Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Publishing Association, 1954) CM E. G. White, Colporteur Ministry (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1953) CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique COL E. G. White, Christ's Ob¡ect Lessons (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1900) CSW E. G. White, Counsels on Sabbath School Work (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1938) CT E. G. White, Counsels to Teachers (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1913) ;¡c¡

xii

Ed E. G. White, Educatían (Mountain View, Calif.: Paófic Press, 1903) Ev E. G. White, Evangelism (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1946) EW E. G. White, Ear/y Writings (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1882) FE E. G. White, Fundamentals af Christian Education (Nashville, T enn.: Southern Publishing Association, 1923) GC E. G. White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1888) HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IDB The lnterpreter's Dictionary af the Bib/e, 4 vols. (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1962) IDB 5up The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bib/e: Supplement (NashviHe, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1976) 1BL ]ourna/ of Biblical Líterature JCS ]ournal of Cuneiform Studies JNES ]ournal of Near Eastern Studies 1TS Journal of Theological Studies KH E. G. White, "That 1 May Know Him" (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1964) MH E. G. White, The Ministry of Hea/ing (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1905) OTS Oudtestamentische Studien PK E. G. White, Prophets and Kings (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1917) SEA Svensk exegetisk arsbok 1SM E. G. White,Selected Messages, bk. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1958) 25M E. G. White, Selected Messages, bk. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1958) lT E. G. White, Testimonies, 9 vols. (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1948) (2T, etc., for vols. 2-9) TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Erdmans, 1964-1976) TLZ Theologische Líteraturzeitung VT Vetus Testamentum ZAS Zeitschrift für Agyptische Sprache ZThK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

1 The Word of God In and Out of Eclipse

On Monday, February 26, 1979, portions of the continental United States experienced their last total solar eclipse of the twentieth century. The next eclipse over continental United States is predicted to take place in the year 2017. An eclipse of the sun is an event of significant proportions. In certain parts of North America, where the eclipse was total or nearIy so, light dimmed; and the day became dusklike because the moon had slipped between the earth and the sun, progressively blotting out the solar disk. After a few minutes the sun reappeared in ful! strength. An eclipse of the Bible started sorne time ago. In many ways the darkness appears to be increasing in modern culture. In the last quarter of the twentieth century, the nature and purpose of the Bible is a heated subject of debate. At the heart of this debate is the subject of the authority of the Bible.

The Authority of the Bible in Modern Times The Bible and the Individual Every person confronted with the Bible in sorne way must answer the question of how this collection of ancient documents written by people oE different background s over a period of about 1500 years is to be received or considered. Is the Bible a holy book in the same sense as the Koran, the scriptures of Islam, or the Bhagavad-Gita of 13

14

Understanding tbe Living Word of God

Hinduism, or the scriptures ofBuddhism? Is the Bíble only a colleetíon of great religious literatu re to be read with all such books, contemplated on, and instructed by as each individual chooses? Sorne feel that the Bible, as a whole, is dated and thus irrelevant beca use it comes from a preEnlightenment age. Others believe that it is part of the great Judeo-Christian heritage and to be revered as such along with other writings of great Jewish and Christian thinkers. StiU others argue that the Bible must be subject to human reason and experíence in order to verify ¡ts claims. And still others believe that the Bible is self-authenticating, providing the guidelines for the evidences of its supernatural authority.

The Bible in the Church The issue of the authority oí the Bible is a matter so deep and broad that it is not restricted to any particular church, denominatíon, or culture. The problem of the authority of the Bible is transdenominatíonal and transcultural, touching every church and denominatíon, no matter how smaIl or large, irregardless oí the geographicallocation or cultural background. It is a matter of deep concern and heated debate in traditional churches of both Catholíc and Protestant background. Roman Catholicism, in the Second Vatican Councíl, debated for long periods of time on several occasions the matter of the place of Scripture in Roman Catholíc theology. In the "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,"l the matter of the authority of the Bible, or "sacred Scripture," in relationship to other norms of authority (namely, "sacred tradition" and "the teaching authority of the Church"), are carefully defined. Three sources of authority are affirmed, but Scripture is not the primary norm. 2 The modernist-fundamentalíst controversy at the begínning of the twentieth century centered on the authority of the Bible. Though primarily restricted to the North American continent, this interdenominational con-

The Word of God in and out of EcUpse

15

troversy3 was intensely severe. At that time fundamentalists attempted to stem the erosion caused by modern thought on the authority of the Bible, including particulady such doctrines as the Virgin Birth, the deity and resurrection of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, and the second coming. At the present time we live in the midst of evangelical resurgence begun in the 1950s4 which is again transdenominational and intercontinental; at the same time a new liberalism, a post-World War II phenomenon, i8 equally widespread. ¡; Our purpose is not to describe the new evangelicalism 6 and its stanee toward the authority of the Bible nor that of the new liberalism. 7 Many signs of deepening theological divisions 8 that suggest a gathering storm in the churches 9 already are evident. 10 But to apply labels, whether liberal or fundamentalist, eritical or conservative, neoliberal or neoevangelical, confessional or neoorthodox, does not contribute much to the understanding of the crisis of modern theology in general nor to the particular issue before uso The issue of the authority of the Bible cuts much deeper than many suppose because it concerns the very nature of revelatíon ¡tself, involving all groups and points of view alike. Professor James D. Smart of Union Theological Seminary in New York, a prolific writer in the field of biblical interpretation, addressed him8elf to the problem of The Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church. 11 He observed that "an astounding number of Bibles are purchased each year, more than eight million in the United States alone. Each new translation becomes a best seller."12 These facts are undeniable: The New International Version of the Bible (N.I.V.) was published in October 1978 and had sales of one and a haH million copies in a Httle over four months. This phenomenon surpasses that of The Living Bible and the Revised Standard Version. 13 People who read these Bibles read them most likely for their devotions and private study. But the Bible was not intended for private consumption alone.

16

Understanding the Living Ward af Cad

The Bible in the Pulpit The Bible is the book for the church at large. But why is it that in wide sections of the Christian church today people are not as frequendy and as extensively exposed to the Scriptures as in earHer times? Preachers in earlier days were much freer in their use of Scripture. "The Bible was read with greater intensity when there was an expectation that suddenly in any sentence from Genesis to Revelation there might be a message from God himself. Adult and youth dasses that met regularly for the study of the Bible have now vanished in many congregations and, where c1asses stiU meet, they give their attention usually to matters that seem to be more urgent than the understanding of Scripture."14 Even in the worship service, time spent in preaching is reduced and even then contact with the Bible is mínimal. In sorne quarters an unabashed aversion to using the Bible in the pulpit exists. One prominent English preacher and theologian, Dr. D. E. Nineham, said, "1 often preach without a text or on a text from a nonbiblical writer, Kierkegaard for example, or even on occasions [from] Kathrine Whitehorn!"lS (The latter i8 more or less the equivalent of Ann Landers in the United States.) Such a position contends that "the task of the church is to say what it believes today, and not to expound the text of an andent document [the Bible],"16 The English preacher added, "And 1have to admit to myself that the spirit of my sermons is very much that expressed in Leonard Hodgson's formula: 'This lS how 1 see it; can you not see it like that as well?' "17 A very large segment of Christianity believes that preaching is based on "what one person believes today and appeals to what others today may also believe and accept." 18 This position reflects the crisis of the authority of the Bible when personal opinion usurps the authority of the Bible, Thus we observe a strange and growing silence of the Bible today. We have touched briefly some symptoms of

The Word of God in and out of Eclipse

17

the crisis involving the authority of the Bible. The question is, What is the problem that divides so many over the authority of the Bible? Before we attempt to find some answers, let us pursue further the symptoms of the crisis over the authority of the Bible.

The Bible in Recent Theology The recent history of the World Council of Churches illustrates the growing tensions in the way the Bible has been handled in ecumenical study documents since World War n. The dissatisfaction reached a point of considerable alienation between biblical exegetes and ecumenical theologians. This fact is cited as the main reason for a new ecumenical study of bíblical authority. In 1969 a study document reported, "The assumption that all churches have the Bible in common is ambiguous until the question of authority has been c1arified."19 Put in its simplest form, the problem is as follows: "If the Bible when interpreted in one way gave a quite different impression from the Bible when interpreted in another way, then the Bible in itself could hardly be taken as a decisive authority."zo The crisis of the authority of the Bible is thus very much a matter of how it is interpreted; the crisis is deeply influenced by hermeneutics (the principIes of bíblical interpretation). The strange and growing silence of the Bible in the church is not limited to the pulpit, study groups, or ecumenical study documents; the silence seems most apparent in contemporary theology. The Vale University professor David H. Kelsey recently described the uses of Scripture among modern theologians. 21 He demonstrated that the prevailing trend is to abandon the use of biblical texts as authority in theologyU while searching for authoritative foundations other than Scripture. "But just how a theologian does finally construe and use scripture is decisively determined, not by the texts as texts, nor by the texts as scripture, but by that logically prior imaginative judgment."23 In its simplest form, this means that a subtle but decisíve shift in the norm of authority has taken place,

18

Understanding the Living Word ofGoá

moving from the external norm of the Bible (and the authority it earries) to the internal norm of man's mind. 5uch theologians contend that rnan has come of age and is autonomous; man is the source of authority. The result: man's imaginative judgment sits as judge over Scripture. What does aU of this mean? The University of Chieago theologian Langdon Gilkey summarized, "The present theologieal situation is charaeterized by a radical 'shaking of the foundations; and this upheaval has, we believe, becn recently experieneed by almost aU of those eoncerned with Christian helief, with theology, preaching, and religious existence generally /'24 The seriousness of this "shakingU is that it takes place this time within the church. In the past this "radical shakíng of the foundations" characterized the secular world and came as an attack against the church from the outside. Until recently, if this "shaking" happened to someone inside the church, it was the sure signal of a departure from the ranks of the faithful; frequendy, it meant the end of employment as a professional mínister or the teacher of theology. Now the prohJem is a permanent one witbin the church. The "shakíng of the foundations" is enormously severe beca use the enrire Christian community, irregardless of religious affiIiation~ is experiencing this upheaval. But the "shaking" is radical in the sense that it cuts at the heart of all Judeo-Christian religious affirmations: (1) the reality of God and (2) the reality ofHis unique revelation emhodied in Seripture.

The Roots of the Eclipse of Authority Common Denominators In the early 1960s radical theologies2G appeared bearing new labels such as "liberationU and "God is dead."26 The key in understanding this radical swing thar is shaking the foundations of traditional Christianity is found in tracing the crisis of modern liberal theology and neoorthodox theology.


19

Modern liberal theology had its rise at the end of the eighceenth century with che writings of Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834). His first major work, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (1799), is a Romanticist defense of Christianity in the postEnlightenment world; however, it was neither a restatement of biblical orthodoxy nor a refurbishing of moralistie religion. Schleiermacher defined religion as a "sense and taste for the infinite" and demonstrated that religion is grounded in the structure of human existence and not in the revelation of Scripture. Schleiermacher's anthropoeentrie approach to theology epitomized the liberal approach to religion which dwelt upon man rather than God and influeneed theology for decades to come. He has found renewed following among twentieth century radical theologians. Neoorthodox theology developed in the early twentieth century as a reaction against the libera lis m of the previous century that had reduced the Christian faith to general human truths and moral values, thus turning Christianity from revealed theology into anthropology. Thus neoorthodoxy was like a bomb falling on the happy playground of the liberal theologians. The early neoorthodox theologian Karl Barth (18861968) argued in 1919 that God is the Wholly Other who is totally transcendent and is not to be identified with anything in this world. He breaks into this world like a vertical Une intersecting a horizontal plane in the person of Jesus Christ who is, in His life, death and resurrection, the full revelation of God. The early neoorthodoxy of Barth went through several revisions. Others, such as E. Brunner, R. Bultmann, H. Richard Niebuhr, G. Aulen and A. Nygren developed the neoorthodoxy theme but each in his own way, ultimately contradicting each other on essential points. Although neoorthodox theologians accepted "the modern secular understanding of the spatiotemporal world process-the world of nature and of history,"27 they continued to ehallenge

20

Understanding the Living Word of God

the liberal theologians with their evolutionary optimism and their model of the autonomous mano But, no matter how critical neoorthodoxy was of its liberal forefathers) "in a major sense [it] continues the liberal tradition."z8 It seems that Wilhelm Pauck had a point of great importance when he said) "Orthodox theologies give rise to more orthodoxies, liberal theologies give rise to neo-orthodoxies."29 Barth and other neoorthodox theologians adopted the secular (and liberal theology) understanding of the origin of the world as developed on the Darwinian evolutionary model and the new understanding of the movement of history as a closed continuum of causes and effects. These two radically new perceptions of the world of nature and the world of history were inherited by neoorthodox theologians from their liberal forefathers, although protesting vigorously certain other basíc teachings. These two new aspects of nature and history proved to be the cause of the downfall of neoorthodoxy and brought about the eclipse of the Bible. Let us elaborate on these two points. The neoorthodox theologians accepted the evolutionary model as the key to understanding the world of nature. That is, the concept that life moves from the simple to advanced forms over long periods of time became the only viable scientific explanatíon of the universe, the planet earth, and life thereon. Onto that contemporary scientific understanding of the world of nature, onto this modero) naturalistic world view) neoorthodoxy attempted to íngraft the bíblical understanding of God as the WhoUy Other. As transcendent Creator and sovereign Lord, they depicted God as dynamically active in the process of history-in judgment and redemption, and especially in the event of Jesus Christ. This meshing of a naturalistic-evolutionary world view and the God of the Bible who gives meaning and coherence to this world in His personal acts in history is "at best only an uneasy dualism. U30 The marriage of these two world views, one modero and naturalistic and the other biblical and superoaturalistic, was an unequal yoke of two mutu-

The Word o{ Cod in and Qut o{ Eclipse

21

ally exclusive conceptions of reality. The ultimate breakup of this uneasy marriage is manifested most unmistakably in the denial of observable miracles and special divine interventions. How does God act in history? Does He actually have the Israelites walk through the Red Sea as depicted in the Bible? Does He actually slay in one night 185,000 Assyrian soldiers to save Jerusalem? Does He actually he al the blind and the lame? Was Jesus really physically raised from the dead? The answer is usually a consistent and, for most neoorthodox theologians, an unequivocal No. God acts in history, but not in that way. Many theologians ¡oín R. Bultmann's refraín, "The resurrection [of Jesus] itself is not an event of past history."31 Paul's appeal to living eyewitness in 1 Corinthíans 15 is not a binding truth for us in our time. Bultmann maintained in this connectíon that "an hístorical fact whích involves a resu' rection from the dead is utterly inconceivable!U 32 Karl Barth argued that Paul's appeal to eyewitnesses in 1 Corinthians 15 does not guarantee the resurrection of Jesus but does reflect what Paul preached. 33 For Bultmann the resurrection is but "a mythical event pure and simple. "34 Thus, in spite of sorne promising directions of thought, the neoorthodox movement accepted uncriticalIy the evolutionary model for interpreting nature and the modem conception of historical-critical study.35 In these two respects neoorthodoxy essentialIy followed classical liberal theology. 36 We now tum our fuIl attention to the resulting storm center that has brought about a radical shaking of the foundations in terms of authority. One centrifugal spin-off of the storm center is the issue of the reality of GOd. 37 But we cannot take time to illustrate this aspect of the controversy. Yet, after His reality is affirmed, other issues, such as, the nature and function of God become decisive. 38 Immediately, additional questions arise, such as, if there is a God, has He revealed Himself? In what forms has He communicated with man? Has God attempted to disclose

22


Himself to man? lE so, what form does this disclosure take? What manifestation of God to His creatures is known? Has He revealed Himself in Scripture only, or in Jesus Christ only, or in both? These questions indicate that we are touching the foundation of one's concept oí revelation. This concept is closely linked with that of the authority of the church. If the church is to be in the world but not of the world, where does its authority and its message come from? Does the foundation of the life, mission, and goal of the church come from the world, beca use the church is in the world, or does it come from sorne other source? And if the latter, then from where does the foundation of the life, mission, and goal of the church come? The Judeo-Christian heritage has consistently affirmed that God has disclosed Himself in revelation. We do not wish to enter the age-old debate about general and special revelation. 39 We wish to address ourselves to the issue of God's special revelation because the Christian church has testified that God has revealed, or disclosed Himself, and that He has done so authoritatively and supremely by His prophets and in Jesus Christ. John 1:1-3, 14; Hebrews 1:1-3. This revelation is inscribed by inspiration in the Bible. God has revealed Himself in the propositions of the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God. In Protestantism the Bible as the revealed Word of God has been reaffirmed by the Reformers. They rediscovered the uniqueness of the inspiration of the Bible. The Bible is understood as inspired (2 Timothy 3: 16), that is, as "breathed by God." The term "inspirationU has meant and still means that the Bible comes from God in the sense that both the origin and content of the Bible is recognized. 40 Such an understanding is fundamental and basic in the battle for the Bible and in the theological warfare within the church. However, shifts in the concept of inspiration are symptornatic oí the strange silence of the Bible in the Christian church today, of its virtual eclipse in many circles, and of the dim view taken by many regarding it.


23

Many differing shades of inspiration exist in'Christian theology. They range from the type of"verbal inspiration" conceived in the form of an essentially word-by-word dictation where even the vowel points in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament are believed to be inspired 41 to those of mere "poetic inspirationH by which truths are expressed not in literal prose or poetry, but in great images which convey biblical ideas much in the same way as poetry, drama, or short story convey truth in other fields. 42 The issue of inspiration is fundamental to the question of the nature and authority of the Bible. Before we continue on this subject we must review the reasons or backgrounds for the differing positions today regarding the authority of the Bible.

Revolutions in Western Thought Three revolutions have left an indelible mark on Westero culture and modern society, induding virtually all of Western thought, induding theology. The three revolutions are in the areas of the natural sciences, in historical science, and in philosophy. We will look at these monumental revolutions only briefly. When we thínk about the revolution in the field of natural science, we turo immediately to the Copernican, or heliocentric system, that replaced the Ptolemaic, or geocentric system. In the seventeenth century both J. Kepler (1571-1630)43 and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)44 took up the scíentific conception of N. Coperoicus (1473-1543) and made a lasting impact not only on science but also on the understanding and authority of the Bible. 45 This new scientific ímpetus contended that everything is now changed. Science is no longer informed by Scripture, but Scripture is now to be interpreted by means of the condusions of science. This meant that uthe Bible's authority was diminished. "46 Henceforth the Bible was to pertain to matters of faith and moraIs but no longer had anything to do with science. We have touched already on the impact of this modern,

24


naturalistic world view on classicalliberalism and neoorthodoxy. Science became autonomous and has generally remained so. Beginning in the 1960s however, a transdenominational attempt in the United States has developed to have a biblically informed creationist model taught alongside an evolutionary model in public school instruction 47 in addition to other activities. 411 The second revolution pertains to the field of history. Beginning al so in the seventeenth century, the age of the Enlightenment, historical science has continued to develop for the last four centuries. 49 Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923), the German theologian turned historian,50 in whose shadow much contemporary theology functions,51 is credited with the classical formulation of modern historiography. This procedure for the study of history is the historical-critical method which understands history as a closed continuum of unbroken series of causes and effects, where "the historian cannot presuppose supernatural intervention in the casual nexus as the basis for his work. "52 R. Bultmann expressed the historical method as follows: "The historical method ineludes the presupposition that history is a unity in the sense of a closed continuum of effects in which individual events are connected by the succession of cause and effect.... The historical method presupposes that it is possible in principll'! to ... understand the whole historical process as a dosed unity."53 Although there can be little question about the causeeffect relationship, the real issue is whether a transcendent cause can function in this conception of history. For exampie, can God, a transcendent God, by mean s of adivine act, determine the historical process or an historical happening? Let us note how Bultmann answers this question. "This closedness means that the continuum of historical happenings cannot be rent by the interference of supernatural, transcendent powers and that therefore there is no 'miracle' in this sense of the word."54 In this view of history any divine activity is either denied or not reckoned as possible. It is a totally immanent view of history on the

Tbe Word of God in and out of Eclipse

2.5

horizontallevel without any vertical, transcendent dimension. How has the historical-critical method arrived at this understanding of history? The answer is provided in the three foundational principIes of the historical-critical method. The first principIe, that of correlation,5S means "that the phenomena of man's historicallife are so related and interdependent that no radical change can take place at any one point in the historical nexus without affecting a change in a11 that immediately surrounds ¡t."56 The principie of correlation refers to "the reciprocity of a1l manifestations of spiritual-historicallife:'57 The second principIe, that of analogy, is defined as "the fundamental homogeneity of all historical events"511 in the sense "that we are able to make such judgments of probability only if we presuppose that our present experience is not radically dissimilar to the experience of past persons."59 In more simple words, the principie of analogy means that "the observation of analogies between past occurrences of the same 80rt makes it possible to ascribe probability to them and to interpret the one that is unknown from what is known of the other."60 Fundamental in the use of the principie of analogy is the value of analogy as a means of knowing. The third principie of the historical-critical method is the principie of criticism, according to which "our judgments about the past cannot simply be c1assified as true or false hut must be seen as c1aiming only a greater or lesser degree of probability and as always open to revision:' 61 Inherent in this principIe is the relativity of our knowledge and thus the tentativeness of human judgments. 62 According to sorne philosophers of history, the principie of criticism is to be applied psychologicalIy in order to determine (1) what the author of a document meant, (2) whether he believed what he said, and (3) whether his belief was justified. What are the implications of this conception of history for the authority of the Bible and for theology in general?

26

Understanding tbe UlJing Word of God

The formulator of these principies in their classical form, E. TroeItsch (1865-1923), suggested himself that these principIes of historical science are incompatible with historie Christian belief and thus the testimony of the Bible, beca use biblicaI religion is based upon God's supernatural activity.63 Thus the Bible must not be regarded as supernaturally inspired by God. "The BibIe is intelligible only in terms of its historicaI context and is subject to the same principies of interpretation and criticism that are applied to other ancient literature."64 The BibIe affirms the supernatural activity of God in history; but the application of the principIe of analogy, which claims that all past events are analogous or similar to those in the present, leaves no room for such events as Creation, for the Fall, for the Exodus, "the divine nature of Jesus and the supernatural events of miracle and resurrection."65 Thus when the new historical method is applied to the Bible it acts as "a leaven that alters everything and, finally, bursts apart the entire structure of theoIogical methods employed until the present."66 The theologian or exegete must not get the impression that he can safely utilize certain parts of the historical-critical method in an eclectic manner, because there is no stopping point: "Whoever lends it a finger must give it a hand. "67 An example of one who attempted a change in using the historical method may be the highly respected theologian w. Pannenberg who complained about the anthropocentrie nature of the method 68 and who wished to open it for transcendence. 69 But at the end of his study he concluded, "It is this history [in which the character of God is disdosed step by step] whieh first corrects the preliminary (and distorted) representations of God-indeed, even IsraePs representations of its God! Thus, all statements about the redemptive event remain bound to anaIogies 'from below,' whose applicability is subject to the procedures of historieaI criticismo "10 Here Pannenberg affirr.1s that the Bible will have to be judged on the basis of


27

"analogies 'from below,' " that the Bible is still subject to the historical-critical method, despite that method's acknowledged anthropocentricity. A criticism of the principIe of analogy has many facets of which we mention onIy a few. The principie of analogy has the wrong starting point because it takes its norm from that which is nearest at hand. It as sumes that that which is nearest at hand and known is the universal key to all reality induding that of God, who may manifest Himself in different ways at different times and places. H. E. Weber objected to the use of the principIe of analogy in historicaI thought on the basis of its "one-sided orientation to contemporary sense experience" making it "an expression of the idea of immanence."71 In other words, a supernatural cause should not be left out of consideration. If God is excluded from the start as in the principIe of analogy with its "fundamental homogeneity of aH historical events,"72 then the originality, novelty, and uniqueness of the Christian faith is forthrightly ruled out as being based upon the self-revelatíon of God. In addition, no person today knows the experiences involved in the varieties of cultures and societies in order to judge what is analogous and what is not, or those forces that have or have not shaped history. Furthermore, the principIe of analogy is inadequate because it emphasizes analogy and homogeneity at the expense of dissimilarities, particuIarities, and uniquenesses. 73 Finally, the presupposition that the past has to conform to the present or that the present is indeed a guide to the past is to be questioned. 74 The thírd revolutíon tbat is involved in the crisis of the authority of the Bible is the revolution in philosophy largely centering in Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). His critique of pure reason led to the collapse ot the traditionaI arguments for the existence of God and to the deveIopment of arguments for the existence of God on the basis of practical reason (confined to religious self-consciousness and responsible moral actions).75 Kant's view that any knowIedge of God is impossible other than through prac-

28

Understanding the Living Ward al God

tical reason became extremely influential in theology. From his time on "theology has beco me anthropology."78 The impact of these three revolutions on the Bible has been immense. Classicalliberalism considered the Bible to be made up of andent documents that are on the same level as other andent documents and must be interpreted with the same historical-critical method. The Bible had become a purely human book which contained myth, saga, legend, and other types of literature. This meant the development of such methods as source criticism, form criticism, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, and more recently structural criticism or structuralism.

Modem Solutions Having discussed the symptoms of the radical attack on the authority of the Bible and the underlying causes of the various sdentific and intellectual revolutions, we are now in a position to present several attempted solutions. The great theological renewal brought about by K. Barth, E. Brunner, and other neoorthodox theologians, was unwilling to put the Bible entirely on the human level.

Neoorthodox Solutions K. Barth (1886-1968), the leader of neoorthodoxy, developed a new understanding of Scripture. He argued that Jesus Christ is the absolute divine revelation. God has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. In other words, the Word of God is a person, indeed adivine person, namely, Jesus Christ. 77 This means the Scripture, the Bible, is no longer considered the Word of God. This personalism of Barth's view of the Word of God has relativized the Bible. The Bible is only a witness to the Word of God, Jesus Christ. So in the strict theological sense the Word of God is Christ, but whenever the Bible witnesses to Christ, it may be called "the Word of God." In this sen se the Bible contains the Word of GOd. 78 In this case, the idea of propositional revelation as provided by God is denied because revelation is conceived of as per-


29

sonaL For Barth, revelation occurs when God's disclosure of Himself in the Christ-event is responded to by faith. The Bible is the authoritative pointer to this experience but not revelation itseU. We will not attempt a critique of Barth's view at this stage. lt appears, however, that Barth in reacting to classicalliberalism and to natural theology threw out the baby with the bath water. He is forced into an "eisegesis" (a reading of meaning into) of Scripture. Hebrews 1: 1, 2, for example, certainly does not support Barth's position: "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son:' R.S.V. God has indeed spoken by His Son, but He has also spoken "by the prophets." This passage teaches that God has spoken by different agents, namely prophets, as well as the Son. Another pioneer theologian of our century among the neoorthodox theologians is Emil Brunner (1889-1966) who developed the concept of the divine-human encounter as a way to explain revelation. In this he was influenced by Martín Buber (1878-1965), a Jewish religious philosopher, who in turn was influenced by the Christian existentialist, Soren Kierkegaard. Buber developed the "1-Thou" concept in a book entitled 1and Thou published first in the 1920s. 79 He conceived re1igious faith as a dialogue between man, the "1," and God, the "Eternal Thou," the living personal God of the Old Testament. He held that there are three primary terms-It, l, and Thou. For Buber "It" was a broad term representing the material world, "Without It, man cannot live. But he who lives with 1alone is not aman. "80 Thus life in the truest sense is more than an I-It relationship. With "Thou," Buber meant more than an unlimited concept of deity as expressed by the term "God." The "Thou" may be known by being addressed but not by merely being expressed, in propositioned terms, for to attempt to know God through expressions means that we can know Him as we can know an object in the realm of It.

30


The true and genuinely meaningful relationship is one of "1-Thou." Thís conception of "1-Thou," darifying truth in many ways, has deeply influenced contemporary Christian theology and particularly the divine-human encounter theology of EmiI Brunner. Brunner wrote his work expounding his view of revelatíon under the title, The Divine-Human Encounter. in the year 1938, establishing thereby the encounter theory of revelation. 81 Similar to Barth he held that the center of God's self-disclosure is the Word beco me flesh in Jesus Christ. 82 Jesus Christ Himself is the Word of God and the revelational center around which are clustered the witnesses of the OId T estament and New T estamento The Bible witnesses to Christ and is thus only indirectly the Word of God. The claim is made that the Bible is only in an indirect way the Word of God as a witness to Jesus Christ. 83 A direct revelation outside of Christ is heathenism, claimed Brunner. 84 Then how does God reveal Himself to man? Brunner said revelation is an 1-Thou encounter but not a communication of proposítional truth in the form of actual informatíon. He suggested that in the divine-human encounter the Holy Spirit acts upon men with lifedispensing and life-transforming fellowship. In this encounter no direct informatíon is communicated. 85 Brunner's concept of revelatíon as encounter is correct insofar as it emphasized an encounter between God and mano It is a reductionism, however, beca use it downgrades the truIy personal encounter86 to the level of a limited personal experience in which no transaction of objective knowIedge takes place. His personalism of Christ as the Word of God leads him, as also Barth before him, to an extreme misconstruction of Scripture. Toward a Biblical Solution Let us consider certain New T estament data that state that the Holy Spirít spoke through the mouth of human beings. Peter saíd, "Brethren, the Scriptures had to be

Tbe Word of God in and out of E.clipse

31

fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretoId by the mouth of David concerning Judas." Acts 1:16, N.A.S.B. The identificatíon of God with Scripture was so close according to the writers of the New Testament that we find the two terms used interchangeably. For instance, Romans 9: 17 begins, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh" (N.A.S.B.) whereas in Exodus 9:16 the words of the Lord (Yahweh) are spoken to Pharaoh through Moses. In short the words of the Lord through Moses are Scripture. Paul stated in Galatians 3:8 that "Scripture ... preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham" (N.A.S.B.), referring to Genesis 12:3 where the words are those of the Lord. Other instances can be cíted. Hebrews 3: 7 states, "The Holy Spirit says" (N.A.S.B.), and then quotes from Psalm 95:7. Acts 4:25, 26 is more explicit by saying that God spoke "by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David" (N.I.V.); then Psalm 2:1 is quoted. Acts 13:34 affirms also that "He [God] has spoken" (N.A.S.B.) and cites Isaiah 55:3 and Psalm 16:10. These texts are direct evidence that the Scriptures are from God, confirming, contrary to the claims of neoorthodox personalist view of revelatíon, that the Bible is the Word of God. New Testament writers referred to the 01d Testament as the "oracles of God." Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5: 12; 1 Peter 4: 11. Jesus Christ Himself accepted the Bible ofHis day, the Old Testament, as an undisputed authority. Matthew 5:17-19; Luke 10:25-28; 16:19-31. We can fol10w the example of Jesus and the apostles in accepting the Old Testament as Scripture, fully inspired and fully authoritative. Claims of authority are made throughout the Old Testament by its inspired writers who constantly declare that God not only acts, but also speaks. We find 376 times in the 01d Testament the expression, "the utterance of the Lord {n 'um YHWH)";87 in each case, the declaration is made by God and not mano Another expression asserting the authority of the Bible is the phrase, "thus says the Lord (kóh 'amar YHWH)," or variations thereof, which ap8

32


pears about 445 times. 88 The noun daba,. "word," and combinations thereof, in over 540 instances has the meaning "word of God," as adivine communication in the form of commandments, prophecy, and words of help.89 These expressions reveal that throughout the Old Testament God communicated to His people through His inspired servants in such a way that those addressed were aware that God was speaking through the human instrument. 9o God spoke in the past "in many and various ways ... to our fathers by che prophets; but in these last days He has spoken to us by a Son." Hebrews 1:1,2, R.S.V. Regarding the authority of the New Testament, it is imperative to recognize that the visible Word,91 namely Jesus Christ, and the audible Word 92 are both together "the word of God." 1 Thessalonians 2: 13. This parallelism of the authority of Jesus and of the word is continued in numerous ways. Salvation is in Jesus (Acts 4: 12; 2 Timothy 2: 10; Hebrews 2:10; 5:9) and the word (Acts 13:26; d. Ephesians 1:13); life is in Jesus (John 1:4; 10:10, 28; 11:25; 14:6; Acts 3:15; 1 John 5:12, 20) and the word (John 5:24; Acts 5:20; Philippians 2:16); grace is in Jesus (John 1:14; 16f; Acts 15:11; Romans 1:5, etc.) and the word (Acts 14:3; 20:24,32); power is in Jesus (1 Corinthians 5:4; 2 Peter 1:16) and also in the word (Romans 1:15,16; 1 Corinthians 1:18; Hebrews 1:3); reconciliationis in Jesus (Romans 5:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18f) and the word (2 Corinthians 5:19); truth is in Jesus (John 1:14; 2 Corinthians 11:10; Ephesians 4:21) and the word (2 Corinthians 6:7; Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; James 1:18); Jesus Himself is the truth (John 14:6) as is also His word (John 17:17). As Jesus is living (Luke 24:5; John 6:51, 57; 14:19), faithful (1 Thessalonians 5:24; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; Hebrews 3:2; etc.), and true (John 7:18; Revelation 3:7, 14; 6:10; 19:11); so the word is living (Acts 7:38; Hebrews 4:12; 1 Peter 1:21;), faithful (1 Timothy 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; Titus 1:9; 3:8; Revelation 21:5; 22:6), and true (Reveladon 19:9; 21:5; 22:6). This partiallist indicates that the inspired word carries


33

with it the authority of Jesus. The authority of the Bible rests then in the ultimate authority of God speaking through His unique self-revelation in acts and words and throughJesus Christ, and incarnate Word, whose message is passed on in the New Testament. The New Testament gives al so direct information about its divine origin in addition to what has been discussed. The book of Acts in chapters 1:1-3; 22:7,10,18,19 refers to its origin as being from God. Paul said in 1 Timothy 5: 18 (N.A.S.B.) that "Scripture says" and quotes the fírst citation from Deuteronomy 25:4 while the words "the laborer is worthy ofhis wages" is identical with Luke 10:7. This indicates that the apostle Paul considered the Gospel of Luke as Scripture in the same sense as the Old Testamento The apostle Peter equated the epistles of Paul that were known to him as on the same level as "the other scriptures." 2 Peter 3: 16. The apostle Paul in writing to the Thessalonians referred to his own preaching as "the word of God's message" which they accepted not as "the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God." 1 Thessalonians 2:13, N.A.S.B. These New Testament voices are unanimous. They apply the designations of "scriptures" and "word of God" which are used for the Old Testament to various parts of the New Testament so as to suggest that both Testaments of the Bible are the divine Word of God on the same level of origin and authority. From the beginning, the God-man relationship has been determined by the divine initiative. As we go back in Scripture to the beginning of the human race, we learn that man's understanding of himself and the world does not come by research or intuition but through acts of divine self-revelation. We learn in Genesis 1:26-28 that man was made in the image of God. Both Adam and Eve were made in the divine image, revealing that they were like God in that they are made in His image. They were reasoning persons, free moral agents, having the power of volition. On the other hand, Adam and Eve were unlike God in that

3-IJIW

34


they were created and hence finite. The finite is in need of the infinite. The infinite always has priority over the finite. In teems of communication between God and man, God is the ¡nfinite point and man the finite. In the process of transacting knowledge and understanding between these two points, precedence and priority always belong to the Infinite One. The infinite God created finite man with the capacity to understand God's self-revelation. God has communicated with man in such a way that truth can be understood by the human mind with its finite, limited capacities to understand. Two points are fundamental in the transaction of knowledge between God and man: (1) Man is created by God with the ability to understand di vine revelation about Himself and everything else, and (2) God's revelation was communicated without distorting the truth as it is in Him. A striking fact in the Hrst two chapters of the Bible is that even in a perfect environment, Adam and Eve needed divine revelation. God commanded Adam, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat oE it you wiU surely die." Genesis 2:16, 17, NJ.V. Revelation taught man his role as a dependent creature, subordinate to the will and purpose of God. God taught man at the beginning that he was not a law unto himself. God is always the final authority. God's revelation communicated the knowledge needed for a proper understanding of this God-man relationship. This divine revelation al so índicated that God, not man, determined the meaning in life and the criterion for what is right and wrong. Out of a heart of love and fairness, God provided the knowledge essential for the well-being of the human race. He informed man about his origin, the meaning of his existence, and the options that would shape his future. In the narrative of the faH of man (Genesis 3) God's revelation by His own word was challenged. The challenge carne in the form of an alternate interpretation of


35

reality-especiallyas focused on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the results of eating its fruit. The serpent said, "You will not sureIy die .... For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Verses 4, 5, N.LV. Under the instigation of the serpent, Eve (and Adam) desired to be like God. The issue was not whether humankind wanted to know and understand everything but over the question of who should decide what was good and evil. Man wanted to make his own law. He wanted to have freedom and autonomy from the Creator-creature relationship. Although Eve and Adam may not have thought through all the horrible implications, when they asserted their power of choice, they were proclaiming their moral independence. They refused to recognize their status as created beings and thus were refusing to recognize that God was the final authority. In other words, the center of authority shifted from God to man, who wanted to be like God. Whoever makes himself like God asserts at least implicitly that he has no need of God. Man has beco me his own authority. Man's sin is to set himself up as moral authority, an autonomy independent from God. The story of Adam and Eve's fall reveals how Satan challenges God's revelatíon and how he will seek to confuse man's understanding of that revelatíon. Satan's subtle deceptíon brought about a change in mankind's understanding of his relationship with God-a change laden with immense consequences for man's existence and future. The understanding that man gained was that "the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked." Genesis 3:7, N.LV. Because of the prickly nature of the substance, the covering made of fig lea ves could be nothing more than emergency clothing. Both Adam and Eve attempt to hide from the Lord God. Verse 8. Their new understanding, did not make them more like God, but it

36

UndeTstanding the Living Word of God

did lead them to fear (verse 10), blame (verses 12-14), and death (Genesis 4:1-12). This profound oudine of the opening chapters of Scripture portrays what happens to anyone who seeks knowledge, wisdom, and understanding outside of, or in opposírion to, the revelatíon of God. The inspired Word of God provides the supreme understanding of God, world, and man, índudíng the latter's place in space, time, and history. Man's understanding of himself and the world around hím ís dependent upon God and the revelation that comes from Him. Nothíng in this world and the universe is outsíde of the knowledge of God, because God is the Creator of all rhings. God's comprehensive knowledge of all things makes possible man's partíal and limited knowledge and understanding. Man can understand and know because God, who knows all thíngs, has chosen to reveal Hímself uniquely through His ínspired Scripture. The fact that God is the Creator (Genesís 1, 2; John 1:1-3; Hebrews 1:1-3, etc.) means that everythíng in God's creatíon has meaníng. Therefore there are no bruta {acta or brute, meaningless facts. God has chosen to ínterpret to mankínd the facts of His creatíon by Hís word. When God created light on the fírst day and had separated ít from darkness, "God called the light 'day' and the darkness he called 'night.' " Genesis 1: 5, N.1. V. Afterthe creation ofthe "firmament" (K.J.V.), or better the "expanse" (N.A.S.B., N.!. V.), "God called the expanse heaven" (Genesís 1:8, N.A.S.B.). When the waters had been separated from the dry land, "God caHed the dry Jand earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas" (Genesis 1:10, N.A.S.B.). God designated the tree of testing in Eden "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" and the tree to maintain life "the tree of life" Genesis 2:9. These instances reveal that God has assigned meaníng to His creation. Man's knowledge and understanding of things as they are in the uníverse is correct only when infarmed by God's interpretatian and the meaning He


37

assigns to things and events. Thus man's knowledge and understanding in all spheres of knowledge is correct insofar as it is informed by God's revelation embodied supremely in Scripture. Nature and history have correct meaning only in view of God's revelation. The wise man counseled that "those who seek the Lord understand all things." Proverbs 28:5, N.A.S.B. The mystery of Christ, as part of "all things,', from the beginning to the end of time, can be understood because "it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit!' Ephesians 3:5, N.S.A.B. God's self-revelation by means of the Holy Spirit through the holy apostles and prophets is embodied in the Bible for the welfare of man here and now and for a fruitful future. In the same Spirit that moved Bible writers, Ellen G. White spoke of the Bible as the "unerring standard"93 for all realms of thought and experience. A fitting condusion to our discussion of the modern eclipse of the authority of the Scriptures is the high view of the Word of God held by Ellen G. White, "The Holy Scriptures are ... an authoritative, infallible revelation of His [God's] Will."94 Notes and References 1. W. M. Abbott, ed., The Documents ofVatican 11 (New York: America Press, 1966), pp. 111-128. 2. Ibid., p. 118: "It is dear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design. are so Iinked and ¡oinOO together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in iES own way under the aerion of the one Holy Spirit contribute effeaively to the salvation of 50uls." 3. G. W. Dollar,A History of Fundamentalism in America (Greensville: Bob Jones University, 1973);J.I. Packer, "Fundamentalism" and the Word ofGod (London: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1958); B. L Shelley, "Fundamentalism," The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmaos, 1974), pp. 396, 397. 4. D. Tinder, "Evangelicalism," in New International Dictionary of the Church, p. 361; D. G. Bloesch, The El/angelical Renaissance (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1973). 5. See the description fur the Bible by J. Barr, The Bible in the Modern Word (London: SCM Press, 1973); idem, O/d and New in Interpretation (New York: Harper &: Row. 1966). For the general scene in modern culture and theology see L. Gilkey, Naming the Whir/wind: The Renewal of God-Language (IndianapolisINew York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1969).

oo.

38

Understanding the Living Word of Cod

6. See R. Quebedeaux, The Young Evangelicals (New York: Harper & Row, 1974); D. F. Wells andJ. D. Woodbridge, The Evangelicals: What They Believe, Who They Are, Where They Are Changing (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975). 7. Barr, The Bible in the Modern World, pp. 1-12. 8. R. J. Coleman, [ssues ofTheological Warfare: Evangelicals and Liberals (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1972). 9. J. K. Hadden, The Cathering Storm in the Churches (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969), shows that there i5 a widening gap between dergy and laymen due to a widening gap between evangelicals and liberals. 10. See the problems of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Accounts from both sides of the issues are provided by K. E. Marquart, Anatomy of an Explosion. Missouri in Luthern Perspective (Fort Wayne, Ind.: Concordia Theological Seminary Pre5s, 1977) and F. W. Danker, No Room in the Brotherhood (St. Louis, Mo.: Clayeon Publishing House, 1977). The issues oí the understanding of Gen. 1-3 in this debate is described with its background by W. J. Hausmann, Science and the Bible: From Luther to the Missouri Synod (Washington, D.e.: University Press of Ameriea, 1978). 11. J. D. Smart, The Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970). 12. Ihid., p. 23. 13. Private oral communication (Feb. 20, 1979) from Mr. David HiIl, manager oí the Bible Division at Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Mich., publisher of the N.I.V. 14. Smart, The Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church, p. 16. 15. D. E. Nineham, "The Use of the Bible in Modero Theology," Bulletín of

the John Rylands Lihrary 52.(1969}:193. 16. Barr, The Bible in the Modern World, p. 7. 17. Nineham, "The Use of [he Bible in Modern Theology," p. 193. 18. Barr, The Bible in me Modern World, p. 7. 19. J. Barr and others, "The Authority of the 8ible: A Study Outline," The Ecumenical RelJiew 21 (1969):138. 20. Barr, The Bible in the Modern World, p. 8. 21. D. H. Kelsey, The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). 22. Ibid., pp. 14-155. 23. Ibid., p. 206. 24. Gilkey, Naming the Whirlwind, p. 9. 25. Ibid., pp. 107-145. 26. See W. Hamilton, The New Essence ofChristianity (New York: Association, 1961); Paul van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Cospel (New York: SCM Press,1963); T. Altizer and W. Hamilton, Radical Theology and the Death of Cad {Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1966}; T. Altizer, The Cospel of Christian Atheism (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1966). 27. Gilkey, Naming of the Whirlwind, p. 91. 28. D. Traey, Blessed Rage for Order: The New Plura/ism in Theology {New York: Seabury Press, 1975}, p. 27. 29. W. Pauck as quoted by Traey, Blessed Rage for Order, p. 27. Cf. W. Pauck, Karl Barth: Prophet of a New Christianity? (New York: Harper & Row, 1931). 30. Gilkey, Naming the Whirlwind, p. 91. 31. R. Bultmann, "New Testament and Myrhology," in Kerygma and Myth,

The Ward af Gad in and out of Eclipse

39

ed. H. W. Barrsch (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), p. 42. Fo! a discussion oE rhe resurrection oE Jesus in contemporary mought, see C. E. Braaten, History and Hermeneutics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), pp. 78-102; B. Klappert, ed., Diskussian um Krenz und Auferstehung, 2d ed. (Wuppertal: Aussaat, 1967); J. Moltmann, The Theology af Hope (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), ch. 3; W. Pannenberg, "Díd Jesu5 ReaIly Rise from the Dead?" Dialog 4 (1965): 128-135. 32. Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth, p. 39. 33. K. Barth, Kerygma and Myth, p. 39. 34. Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth, p. 39. 35. This is true also oE K. Barth who in his "Preface" to The Epistle to the Romans (German ed., 1919; English ed.: London: Oxford University Press, 1933), p. 1, explains that if he had to choose between "the historical-critical method of Biblical exegesis" and "me venerable doctrine of Inspiratíon," he would choose the larter without hesitadon. Barth naced immediately, "Fonunately 1 am not compelled to choose between the two." Wrote G. Ebeling, "Barm's The Epistle to the Romans is explicidy ¡nvolved in the problem of hermeneutics: The hístoric;al-critica! mechad is not in itself rejected, but relegated to become a simple preparation of the task of understanding" "Hermeneutik," Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3d ed. (Gottingen: Van den Hoeck & Ruprecht, 1959).3:256. See also J. Hamer, Karl Barth (Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1962), pp. 107-136; R. Marle,lntroduction to Hermeneueles (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967), pp. 26-32. 36. Gilkey, Naming the Whir/wind, pp. 73-106. 37. S.M. Ogden, The Reality ofGod (New York: Harper& Row, 1966),p.l: "One of the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the latest developments in Protestant theology is mat the reality of God has now beco me the central theological problem." 38. Coleman, [ssues of Theologica/ Warfare: EvangeJicals and Uberals. pp. 39-72; Tracy, Blessed Roge for Order. pp. 91-202. 39. G. C. Berkouwer, General Revelatian (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1955); P. Jewett. Emíl Brunner's Goneept ofRevelatian (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1954); C. H. F. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958); J. Baillie, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought (New York: Columbia Universíty Press, 1956); H. D. McDonald, Ideas of Revelation: A Historical Study, A.D. 1700 to 1860 (London: Macmillan, 1962); J. Orr, Revelatian and Inspiration (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1951); B. Ramm, Specia/ Revelatíon and the Word of God, 2d ed. (Grand Rapíds, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1968). 40. Barr, The Bible in the Modern World, p. 13. 41. The Reformed Formula consensus Helvetica of 1675 asserted thar the vowel points ín the Hebrew of the OT were as much inspired as the words of the Bible. 42. So Ausrin Farrer, The Glas$ ofVislon (Westminster/London: Dacre Press, 1948); ídem, A Rebírth of lmages (Landon: Dacre Press, 1949). 43. J. Hübner, Die Theologie Johannes Keplers zwischen Orthodoxie und Naturwissenschaft (Tübingen: Mohr, 1975). 44. J. J. Langford, Galileo, Science and the Ghurch (New York: Desclee Ca., 1966). 45. See R. Hooykaas, Religíon and the Rise of Modern Science (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 35-39; H. Karpp, "Die Beitriige Keplers and Galileis zum neuzeitlichen Schríftverstándnis," Zeitschrift für Theologie

40


und Kirche 67 (1970):40-55; G. F. Hase!, New Testament Theology: Basic Issues ;n the Current Debate (Grand Rapíds, Mích.: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 25, 26. 46. E. Krentz, The Historieal-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), p.13. 47. A textbook produced for public schools on creationism is Scientifie Creationism, ed. H. M. Morris (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974). 48. Since 1974 [he Seventh.day Adventist Church publishes through the Geoscience Research lnstitute a scholarly ¡ournal devoted to creationísm with the cicle Orígins. 49. SeeR. G. Collingwood, The IdeaofHistory, 2ded. (NewYork: Oxford, 1956), pp. 46-204. 50. R. H. Bainton, "Ernst Troe1tsch-Thirty Years After," Theology Today 8 (1951):70-96; W. Bodenstein, Neige des Historismus. Ernst Troeltsehs Ent· wicklungsgang (Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1959). 51. Van A. Harvey, The Historian and the Be/iever, 2d ed. (Toranto: Macmillan, 1969), pp. 3-37; Krentz, Historical-Critical Method, p. 85. 52. R. W. Funk, uThe Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism," in Tbe New Hermeneutic, ed. J. M. Robioson and J. B. Cobb, Jr. (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 185. 53. R. Bultmann, "ls Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?" in Existence and Faitb, ed. S. M. Ogden (ClevelandlNew York: World Publishing Co., 1960), pp. 291, 292. 54. ¡bid., p. 292. 55. E. Troeltsch, Gesammelte Sehriften (Tübingen: Mohr, 1913), 2:729753. 56. Harvey, The Historian and the Believer, p. 15. 57. Troeltsch, Gesammelte Scbriften, 2:733. 58. ¡bid., p. 732. 59. Harvey, Tbe Historian and the Believer, p. 14. 60. Troeltsch, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:732. 61. Harvey, The Historian and the Believer, p. 14. 62. On the impact of relativity in theology, see Gilkey, Naming the Whirlwind, pp. 48-53. 63. R. Bultmann, "ls Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?" pp. 291, 292. 64. Harvey, The Historian and the Believer, p. 5. 65. Ibid., p. 15. 66. Troeltsch, Gesamme/te Sehriften, 2:730. 67. Ibid., p. 734. 68. W. Pannenberg, Basie Questions in Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 1:39-53. 69. ¡bid., pp. 53-66. 70. [bid., p.53. 71. H. E. Weber, Bibelg/aube und historisch-kritische Schriftforschung (Gütersloh: Mohr, 1913), p. 69. 72. Troeltsch, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:732. 73. T. Peten, "The Use of Analogy in Historical Method," Catho/ie Biblical Quarterly 35 (1973):473-482. 74. There are a great variety of interpretatioos of history by people of different background and persuasions. The followiog studies reflect these views, C.


41

T. Mdntire, ed., God, History, and Historians. Modern Christian Views of History (New York: Oxford Universiry Press, 1977). This contains anthologies of rwenty-rwo different persons. Note also L. Gilkey's reinterpretation of a Christian view of history in Reaping the Whir/wind: A Christian lnterpretation of History (New York: Seabury Press, 1976). 75. J. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 2d ed. (London: The Macmillan Co., 1907). 76. O. McDonald, "Immanuel Kant," New International Dictionary of the Christian Faith, p. 56l. 77. K. Barth, Kírchliche Dogmatik (Munich: Kaiser, 1932), I/1:141-158. 78. K. Barth,Church Dogmatícs (NewYork: Scribner, 1956), V2, seco 19-21. 79. M. Buber, 1 and Thou, 2d ed. (New York: Scribner, 1958). 80. M. Buber asquoted by K. J. Hardman, "Buber, Martín," inNew lnternationa/ Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 161. 81. P. K. Jewett, Emil Brunner's Concept of Revelation (London: Clarke, 1954). 82. E. Brunner, Dogmatik (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1946-1960), 1:16-58. 83. Ibid., p. 32. 84. E. Brunner, Natur and Gnade (Tübingen: Mohr, 1934), p. 36. 85. Brunner, Dogmatik, 3:274, 275. 86. P. G. Schrotenboer, "Emil Brunner," in Creative Minds in Contemporary TheoJogy, ed. P. E. Hughes (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1966), p. 125. 87. L. Koehler and W. Baumganner, Lexicon in Veterís Testamenti Libros, 2d ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1958), p. 585; D. Vetter, "ne'üm Ausspruch," Theologisches Handwórterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. E. Jenni and C. Westermann (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976),2:1-3. 88. See S. Mandelkern, Veteris Testamenti Concordantia Hebraicae (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1967), pp. 532, 533; O. Procksch, "lego," TDNT 4:91-100; S. Wagner, "'amar," Theological Dictionary ofthe O/d Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974), 1:335-341. 89. Mandelkern, Concordantiae, pp. 282-288; G. Gerleman, "dabar Wort," Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament, 1:433-443, esp. 439f. 90. MH 462. 91. SeeJohn 1:1, 14; Rev. 19:13. 92. See Man. 15:6; Luke 5:1; John 10:35; Acts 4:31; Rom. 9:6; 1 Thess. 2:13. 93. MH 462. 94. GC viL

II Biblical Backgrounds for Understanding

Are there any barriers to understanding the Word of God? Sorne may assume that everyone can understand the Bible. Depending on a person's background, the basics of the plan of salvation may be grasped relatively easy. But the person that reads the Bible does not read it in the languages in which it was written. The Bible was written in languages different than our own. Therefore, a language bardee exists. Although it has been lifted for centuries, making Bible translations aceurate and clear is an ongoing process. Few people are aware that between 1900 and 1978 more than 130 different English translations of the whole Bible or parts thereof were produced. 1 Biblical Languages The New Testament was written in Greek at a time when the Greek language was widely used. Greek was the common language of the Mediterranean world in the time of Christ. Scholars caH this particular language, Koine Greek. (Koine mean s "common" and also connoted "widespread" and "not restricted in area of usage."2) The oldest transIation of the Hebrew OId Testament, produced in the third-second century B.C. in the Greek language, is generally known as the Septuagint, so·called from the story that it was made by seventy (or seventytwo) translators. This Greek OId Testament, written in Koine Greek, the common Greek Ianguage of the Hellenis42

Biblical Backgrounds for Understanding

43

tic períod (300 B.C. to A.D. 200), 3 gave the first opportunity to provide the Greek world with the Old Testament. The Jews living in the Greek-speaking world were now able to read their Scriptures in the language which was now natural to them. But any Greek-speaking person anywhere couId now read and study the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament is written primarily in Hebrew with small parts in Aramaic. 4 Hebrew, the native tongue of the Israelites, is one of the Semi tic languages that shares the general characteristic of that language group. Sorne of these eharacteristics are triliteral roots, the consonantal dominance of its roots, hesitancy to form compound words, simplicity of sentenee, and simplicity of structure. In contrast to such languages as Greek and English, Hebrew is written from right to left. About 40 pereent of the Old Testament is written in poetry. Hebrew poetry, however, does not rhyme as do many of the Indo-European languages to which Greek be1ongs. The ehief characteristic feature of Hebrew poetry is parallelism. The Hebrew poet used parallelism of thought expressed in parallel word pairs. The following example found in Psalm 11:4 (author's translation)-and there are literally thousands-ilIustrates how a bíblical poet uses parallelism: "The Lord is in his holy temple, The Lord is on his throne in heaven." In prose the bíblical writer would merely state that the Lord is on His throne in the hoIy temple in heaven. The psalmist, by means of this type of poetic paralle1ism, makes the reader wait until the end of the sentenee to Iearn of the tocation of the throne which is in the temple of God in heaven. The insurpassable beauty ofHebrew poetry has charmed readers for centudes. Because of ¡ts unique parallelism, in contrast to the rhyme poetry of Western (IndoEuropean) languages, Hebrew poetry can be translated without tosing its beauty, force, or intento The inspired wdters of the Old Testamentemployed literary and rhetor-

44


kal conventions possible in the Hebrew language, enabling them to give their revealed message a subtlety and sophistication that is understood and appreciated with increased respecto As there are distinctions between Hebrew and Greek (Western) poetry, so there are distinctions between Hebrew thought and Greek thought. The Hebrews were "ear-minded"; the Greeks, "eye-minded." Hebrew thinking was dynamic; Greek was static. s Hebrew thought was temporal; Greek, spatial. 6 Yet these contrasts are often so overemphasized and universalized that they have become distortions and even falsifications. Sorne individuals have wished to minimize the importance of Bible and its applicability to modern thought patterns and culture on the basis of such contrasts. They argue that modern thought and culture is superior and that Bible thought and culture is inferior, irrelevant, or insignificant. Others have felt that lasting kernels of truth can be abstracted from the shell or husk of what is supposed to be time-conditioned world views or limited patterns of thought. These notions have led to a decisive reducrionism of biblical truth and God's revealed message. If the biblical gospel is not to beco me a man-made system, then all such attempts, regardless of their degree of sophistication, must be fought off vigorously. Man is not to sit in judgment over God or His unique revelarion in Scripture; salvation and true knowledge is found only in Him and as communicated by Him through the Word of God-Scripture. Biblical Customs Our modern situation, culture, and customs are hardly those of Bible rimes. For years interpreters were unable to explain why the mysterious Eliezer of Damascus appears as Abraham's heir before the birth of Isaac. Genesis 15 :2. However, on the basis of ancient texts from Nuzi it is now known that, according to legal custom in patriarchal


45

times, property was inalienable and the legal practice of adoption was employed. A childless couple couId adopt someone from outside as an heír, a practice well attested from ca. 2000-1500 B.C. But an adoptive heir had to take second place to any subsequent Eirstborn son. 7 The strange story oE Rachel's theft of her father's "household gods," or teraphim (Genesis 31:34), is now understood on the basis of a law in Nuzi texts which proclaims that "the possession of such idoIs by the woman's husband ensured for him the succession of the fatherin-Iaw's property."8 Since Laban, after he had pursued Jacob and his household, was unable to gain possession oE these househoId gods, he hastily secured the right of inheritance for his sons by entering into a covenant with Jacob which obligated both of them not to cross over an agreedupon area. Genesis 31:48-54. The accusation in Amos 2:6 that Israel sold the poor for "a pair oE sandaIs" (N.A.S.B.) provides another instance of a custom different from ours. In the ancient Near East people became slaves either by capture in war or througt. a legal process because of debts. The "pair of san daIs" suggests that the price of the sI ave was very little. But it is not unlikely that this phrase represented a legal transfer of Iand by the poor persono In Nuzi times sandals (footgear) were used as a symbol of ownership in the transfer of real estate. This means that land was transferred by the exchange of a pair of shoes (or sandals), thus validating the transaction. 9 So the poor man who is sold or bought for "a pair of sandals" is a person who has been unjustly dispossessed, having been made a slave under a cloak of Iegality, a transaction symbolicalIy validated by a transfer of a pair of sandals. These examples of different customs ilIuminate and illustrate the great distance separating our situations, our customs, and our culture from those of Bible times. A Westerner would be quite offended if he were invited for a dinner and were not provided the tableware for eating food. But in Bible times forks and other utensils were not used;

46

Underlitanding the Living Word of God

guests at the table ate with their fingers. Proverbs 26: 15; Mark 14:20; John 13 :26. Guests did not sit around tables but reclined on couches around low tables (Esther 1 :6; EzekieI23:41;john21:20) and were seated in orderof age or importance (Genesis 43:33; 1 Samuel 9:22; 20:25; Mark 10:37; Luke 14:8). On this basis, the request of James and Peter, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory" (Mark 10:37, N.I.V.), is better understood. Both desired the greatest possible place of importance in heaven. Jesus used this occasion to emphasize the place of humility and service. Mark 10:35-45. Biblical Indications of Interpretation Turning from general considerations to particular ones, a real need exists for interpretation that leads to correct understanding. jesus Himself indicated the need of interpretation, especially concerning the predictions and prophecies about Himself in the Bible of His day. Luke recorded that the risen Lord Jesus "interpreted [diermeneusen]" to those walking to Emmaus "in all the scriptures the things concerning himself/' Luke 24:27, R.S.V. The Lord thereby acknowledged the need for interpreting the Bible of His day, Le., the OId Testament. The interpretation of the Bible requires reverence and faith coupled with a deliberate attempt to be accurate. The apostle Peter referred to the letters ofPaul as written by the wisdom that God gave him through the HoIy Spirit. 2 Peter 3:15, 16. Peter freeIy acknowledged that Paul's letters contain "sorne things hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures." Verse 16, R.S.V. Peter not onIy placed Paul's letters on a level with other inspired scriptures, but he admitted that sorne things in them are hard to understand. Peter did not say that those things in Paul's letters cannot be understood but that they are "hard to understand." This phrase can mean that sorne things are "obscure" (N.E.B.) or "difficult" (T.E.V.); either way, Peter observed that sorne scripture is capable of misun-


47

derstanding and misinterpretation. Since they can be wrested to mean something that they are not intended to convey, the need for proper understanding and sound interpretation is evident. The apostle Paul commanded his colaborer Timothy to set forth the message of truth correct1y and exactly, handling it with great care, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2: 15, N.A.S.B. There is the danger of "corruptíng" or "adulterating"lO the message of God. 2 Corinthians 2: 17. Such "corrupting" must be avoided by handling the message of truth with sound principIes of biblical interpretatíon applied under the illuminating guidance of the HoIy Spirit. The need to explain or interpret and thus to aid the understanding of the reader or hearer is supported in other ways in the Bible. What God has spoken in the Bible is of inestimable importance to uso Its meaning is a marter of life and death. The Holy Spirit has chosen to inspire some Bible writers to explain rhe meaning of certain expressions they use so that their import may be dearly perceived. In the Gospel of Manhew we find the quotation from Isaiah, " 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will caH him Immanuel'-which means, 'God with us.''' Matthew 1:23, N.I.V. The words "which means" (N.I.V., R.S.V.) translate literalIy the phrase "which means (when translated)."ll The same term used in Matthew 1:23 is found in John 1 :41, "We have found the Messías, which is, being interpreted, the Christ" (K.J.V.) or "which mean s Christ" (R.S.V.). The same Greek term appears in Mark 15:22, "They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull)." N.I.V.12 Another example is found in Hebrews 7: 1, 2, "Thís Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. . . . First, his name means 'king of righteousness'; then also, 'king of Salem' means 'king of peace.' " N.I.V. These scriptural explana-

48


tions of names, places, and tides mean that not all things are clear to aU people and that God wants His Written Word properly interpreted so that it can be understood anywhere it is prodaimed.

Lifting Barriers of Understanding Creation Account Understanding Scripture is at times complex and complicated. The need for interpretatíon and explanatíon is evident beca use readers of the Bible through the years have noted apparent discrepancies. Each generation has had its own set of alleged errors and contradictíons, mostly depending on the frame of mind and the adequacy of information. Many have charged that "the fírst two chapters of the Bible contain two irreconcilable accounts of the Creation. According to the first account [Genesis 1] man and woman were created together as the crown and climax of Creatíon, after all the birds and animals~ whereas accord... ing to the second account [Genesis 2:4b-25] the creation of man preceded the creation of the animals and birds while the creation of woman followed their creatíon."13 The discrepancy is supposedly one of sequence and seems irreconcilable. However, an investigation of the Hebrew text leads to a totally different understanding. The first verb form in Genesis 2:19 (a waw-consecutiveimperfect for which the proper English contextual equivalent is the pluperfect) should be rendered "had formed."14 The New International Version translated properly, "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the airo He brought them to man!' This so-caUed error proved to be no error at aH. As a matter of fact, Genesis 2:4b-25 is not an independent creatíon account. It has no reference to a cosmic structure, but functions as a complement, providing, in greater detail, the creation of man and the garden environment where he was placed. In Genesís 1 and 2 there is no geocentricity, no three-storied understanding of the universe and no internal contradiction.

Bíblical Backgrounds for Understanding

49

Flood Narrative Another alleged "contradiction"15 is seen in Genesis 6:19,20 where "Noah is commanded to take a single pair of every species into the Ark, whereas according to Genesis 7:2 he is bidden to take seven pairs of clean beasts and a single pair of the unclean."16 The distinction between Genesis 7:2 and Genesis 6:19, 20 does not constitute a eontradiction. The word "two" (R.S.V.) in Genesis 6:19 translates the Hebrew term senayim which is a dual form, denoting pairs of things and seems to serve as a eolleetive for "pairs."n Accordingly Genesis 6:19 reads, "You shall bring pairs of allliving creatures, male and female, ... to be kept alive." The number of "pairs" remains undefined. But in the detailed recounting of God's command in Genesis 7:2, the information is provided that there shall be "seven pairs of all clean animals" and only "one pair" of the animals that are unclean. So in Genesis 6: 19, 20 (cf. Genesis 7:8,9, 15) a general statement declares that pairs oE animals are to enter the ark, whereas Genesis 7:2 provides the specific number. 18 A knowledge oE Hebrew grammar and Semitie styIe are, in this instance, key aids in correcdy understanding the intent of the bíblical texto Genesis 7:7 indicates that Noah and his family "went into the ark" and seven days later the flood started. Verse 10. But verse 13 reports that "on the very same day [when the rain began] Noah •.. entered the ark." R.S.V. Here Hes an apparent contradiction. The impression is left that Noah, his family, and the animals entered the ark on the day the rain began (verse 13), whereas it is stated earlier that he had already entered the ark seven days earHer (verse 7). This tension is completely removed when the exact verbal form is recognized. The verb rendered "entered" (verse 13, R.S.V.) is in the Hebrew a perfect tense (ba'). Sueh a tense can be translated as a past (cf. Genesis 1: 1), perfect (d. Psalm 143:6), pluperfect (Genesis 31:32), or a future perfect (Deuteronomy 8:10; Jeremiah 8:3).19 A weH-known commentary expIains thar a pluperfect in En-

so

Understanding tbe Uving Word of God

glish correctly translates the Hebrew verbal form in this context: "On that day he had entered, had completed the entering, which occupied seven days between the giving of the command (vs. 4) and the commencement of the flood (vs. 10)."20 A recent translation, the New American Bible, captured this insight admirably and translates Genesis 7: 13 as follows: "On the precise day named, Noah and his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's wife, and the three wives ofNoah's sons had entered the ark." The meaningof the Hebrew text is that the process of entering the ark had been completed on the very day the Flood commenced. These three examples from the Flood story and the Creatíon narrative illustrate how a knowledge of Hebrew style and syntax is crucial to sound understanding and appreciation of the meaning of the Word of God. We will now observe how exciting discoveríes from the spade of archaeologists have assisted in interpreting the Bible and espedally the book of Daniel. Time Elements For a long time many scholars contended (and still held by sorne) that the datíng of Nebuchadnezzar's coming to Jerusalem "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim kíng ofludah" (Daniel 1:1) í8 in contradiction with the informatíon provided in Jeremiah 25:1, 9, which refers to the "fourth year of Jehoiakim" as being also "fírst year of Nebuchadnezzar." The faet is that the "fourth year of Jehoíakim" is the year 605 B.C. and his "third year" is also 605 B.e. The discerning reader will ask, But how can the "fourth" and the "third" year of a king be the same calendar year? This is a valid and crucial question. The answer Hes in the system of reckoning involved. A worldrenowned authority on Hebrew chronology, E. R. Thiele, professor emeritus of Andrews University, informs us that "two systems of reckoning were employed for the Hebrew kings, accession-year reckoning (postdating), and nonaccession-year reckoning (antedating)."21 The


51

accession-year reckoning, or postdating, is a method of counting the years of a king's reign with the year that began following the new year's day of his coming to the throne. The accession year in which he came to the throne was not counted. The nonaccession-year reckoning, or antedating, is a method of counting the years of a king's reign with his accession year. The following diagram illustrates these methods of counting and shows how the "third year" and the "fourth year" of Jehoiakim is the same year: Accession-year method: Daniel 1:1

Accession year Nonaccession-year method: 1st year

2d year

3d year

4th year

Jeremiah 25:1, 9; 46:2

In the year 1956 Professor D. J. Wiseman published the famous Babylonian Chronicle of Chaldean Kings which indicates that in Babylon the accession-year method was employed,22 whereas Jeremiah appears to follow the usual Palestinian-Jewish nonaccession-year method. Thus there is no historical or chronological error here. It is quite contrary to the facts as now known to claim that the author of Daniel "was not concerned with such historical details that meant nothing for his spiritual message."23 Daniel, who resided in Babylon, simply empIoyed here the Babylonian system of dating andJeremiah, who resided in Palestine, that of Palestine. 24 In addition, indisputable evidence from eclipses indicates that the third-fourth year of Jehoiakim which is the first year of Nebuchadnezzar is the year 605 B.C. and not the year 606 B.C. 2ó or 604 B.C.26 The historicity of the date is now firmIy established on the basis of archaeological data.

52


Historicallnformation In the book of Daniel the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuehadnezzar is quoted as the one who built Babylon as a royal residen ce for himself: "Is not this the great Babylon 1 have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and forthe gloryofmy majesty?" Daniel 4:30, N.I.V.Aecording to Daniel, Nebuehadnezzar is the proud builder of the new Babylon. But, though frequent reference is made to BabyIon in the writings of He rodotus , Ctesius, Strabo, and Pliny,27 these writers are not known to refer to Nebuchadnezzar as the builder of the new Babylon. Therefore, many have suggested that the book of Daniel is providing erroneous information. However, written records contemporary with Nebuehadnezzar diseovered by archaeologists provide indisputable information indieating that the history recorded in the book of Daniel is reliable. For example, one record states, "Then build 1 [Nebuchadnezzar] the palaee the seat of my royalty, the bond of the raee of men, the dwelling of joy and rejoicing. "28 Professor J. A. Montgomery is led to eonclude that in this striking instanee "the very language of the story [of Daniel] is reminiscent of the Akkadian."29 The king's self-glorification is strikingly true to history. Nebuchadnezzar's building activity is almost everywhere evident in Babylon where millions of bricks carry an inscription that affirms this. In the words of professor H. W. F. Saggs this is "indicating that he could with considerable justification have uttered the words attributed to him in Dan. 4:27, RV 30."30 The historical aecuracy substantiated by much scientifieally gathered evidence is puzzling to those who maintain that Daniel was written in the second century B.C. Professor R. H. Pfeiffer of Harvard University admitted: "We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:30 [H. 4:27]), as the excavations have proved."31 Problems to past generations are no longer problems in the present


53

generation beca use of increased information that corroborates the bíblical record, thus providing for a proper understanding of biblical claims. The narrative ofNebuchadnezzar's madness in Daniel 4 has been a point of controversy for a long time. It has been called an "unhistorical tale" which is "a confused remíniscence of the years which Nabonidus spent at Teima [Tema] in Arabia."32 This daim has received further support from other scholars because of a discovery in 1955 of four fragments of an unknown text from Cave 4 (4Q Pr Nab) of Qumran which were published in the following year under the tide "The Prayer of Nabonidus. "33 The fragments purport to be the prayer of N abonidus, "the great king, when he was smitten with malignant boils by the ordinance of God Most High in the city of Teman. "34 Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, is said to have been smitten "for seven years,"35 until "a diviner [or exorcist],36 who was a Jewish man,"37 came. The king gains forgiveness for his sins and is healed by the diviner/exorcist. Several scholars have argued that the narrative of Nebuchadnezzar's madness is dependent on the "Prayer of Nabonidus"38 which was "written at the beginning of the Christian era, but the writing itself might be sorne centuries older. "39 The author of Daniel 4 is said to have confused the narnes Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus andlor reworked earHer traditions of Nabonidus. This position is built on a tenuous hypothesis with questionable assurnptions. It had been assumed that Nabonidus was for seven years in the Arabian city of Tema which is believed to be confirmed by the "seven years" of sickness in Tema mentioned in the Qumran fragrnents. New discoveries have altered the situation in such a way that the hypothesis has to be abandoned. Contemporary evidence written in Akkadian cuneiform from the Harran stelae and published first in 1958 informs us that Nabonidus stayed for "ten years" in Tema, not for seven, and that he moved there for political reasons. 40 This

54

Understanding the Living WQrd of Cad

throws a significant shadow of doubt upon the historícity of the information in the "Prayer of Nabonídus." Thus hístorical evídence runs counter to the hypothesis and the information in the "Praye! of Nabonidus." Among the significant differences between Daniel 4 and the aprayer of Nabonídus" are the following: (1) Nebuchadnezzar is inflicted with an illness in Babylon, but Nabonidus in Tema. (2) The illness of Nabonídus ís described as "malignant boils,"41 "severe rash,"42 or"severe inflammation,"43 whereas Nebuchadnezzar is befallen with a rare mental disorder, seemingly a varíety of monomanía. 44 (3) In Daniel 4 the illness of Nebuchadnezzar is a punishment for hubris (arrogance), whereas that of Nabonidus is apparently a punishment for idolatry. (4) "Nebuchadnezzar was cured by God Himself when he recognized his sovereignty, whereas a Jewish exordst healed Nabonidus."45 The "Prayer of Nabonidus'~ in íts prcsent form is later than Daniel 4. On the basis of careful comparísons "we cannot speak oí dírect literary dependence"46 between Daniel 4 and the "Prayer of Nabonidus." The essential differences between the two argue against the assumption that an original Nabonidus tradition was transferred in Daniel 4 to King Nebuchadnezzar. The weU-known British Assyriologist D. J. Wiseman noted, "Nothing so far known of the retreat of Nabonidus to Teima' supports the view that this episode is a confused account of events in the latter's [Nebuchadnezzar's] reign"47 and we may add that this is true also the other way around. 48 Let us move to a related point of great ínterest" Sorne hold that on the basís of extrabiblical data Nebuchadnezzar udid nor give up his throne,"49 and that the name of Nebuchadnezzar was substituted for that of Nabonidus in Daniel 4. New extrabibHcal data has been published re~ cently which provides for the first time in over 2000 years hístorical information regarding Nebuchadnezzar's mental derangement. The Assyriologíst A. K. Grayson published in 1975 a fragmentary cuneíform text (BM

Bíblical B4ckgrounds for Understanding

55

34113=sp 213) from the treasures of the British Museum which mentions Nebuchadnezzar and EvH-Merodach, his son and successor on the throne of Babylon. Sil Unfortunately the Babylonian tabIet 1S so fragmentary mat only the content oE one side (obverse) is translatable and even here are many uncertainties. Nevertheless, in lines 2 to 4 Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned, and it is stated that "his life appeared of no value to [him; ... ]" and that "[h1e stood and (took] the good road to r... J."51 In tines 5 to 8 the foUowing is stated: "And (the) Babylon(ian) speaks bad counsel to Evil-Merodach [... ] Then he gives an entirely different order but [... ] He does not heed the word from his lips, the cour[tier(s) ... ] He changed but did not block [.•• ]."52 Unfortunately no indisputable identificatíon of the subject in lines 5 to 9 can be made. It is possible that the subject refers to Nebuchadnezzar, who gave orders to his son Evil-Merodach which the latter does not heed because of the former's erratic behavíor. If Nebuchadnezzar is the main actor in this text, then the phrases in some later lines such as "he does not show love to son or daughter [...] ... family and clan does not exist t...] ... his attention was not directed towards promoting the welfare of Esagil [and Babylon]"53 can easíIy be seen to refer to the strange behavior of Nebuchadnezzar during his time of mental incapacity when he neglected his own family, clan, the worship assodated with the temple complex Esagil, and the interest of Babylon in general. We suggest that the crown prince Evil-Merodach was forced to take over the government of his father Nebuchadnezzar during the time of his incapacity to reign. Daniel 4 informs us that Nebuchadnezzar was 1ater reinstated into fun royal rulership. Verse 33. lf our interpretation of this new cuneiform text is sound, we have for the first time extrabiblical and contemporary historical data 54 that corrobora tes and supports the biblical story of Daniel 4. Others have asserted that no historical evidence exists supporting the view that Belshazzar was "king." Daniel 5;1; 8:1. The book oi Daniel, it is said, contains here a

56

Understanding tbe Living Word of Cod

"grave historical error. "55 The reeovery of Babylonian texts demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that Belshazzar existed and was the son of N abonidus, the last king oE Babylon. 56 It is quite correct that no text has yet been found which calls Belshazzar "king," but information has been diseovered which explains explicitly that Nabonidus entrusted Belshazzar with "kingship" (sarrutim). The "Verse Account of Nabonidus"57 states, "He [NabonidusJ entrusted the 'Camp' to his oldest (son), the fírst-born, the troops everywhere in the country he ordered under his (command). He let (everything) go, entrusted kingshíp to him .... He turned towards Tema (deep) in the west."S8 Although BeIshazzar is not ealled "king" as such, because Nabonidus was still king, Nabonidus "entrusted kingship to him." This "kingship" included a taking over of the nation's military command and thus implies a "regal position."59 The "kingship" funetion with its regal power included, aecording to other Babylonian texts, the upkeep of the Babylonian places of worship which was the task of the king, the invoking of his and his father's name in the taking oE oaths, and the receiving of tribute in the name of both. 60 Professor E. J. Young noted correctly: "BeIshazzar's regal power is further shown by his granting of leases, his issuing of commands, his performance of an administratíve act concerning the temple at Erech."61 In short, on the basis of the various Babylonian texts, Belshazzar had in effeet the prerogatives of a monarch and thus couId be called "king," although his position was subordinate to that of his father Nabonidus. Belshazzar functioned as king and the handing over of "kingship" to him caused Belshazzar to manage the affairs of state like a king. Babylonian texts plainly name Nabonidus as the father of Belshazzar. However Daniel 5 : 11, 18 gives that place to Nebuchadnezzar. In Semitic language the word "father" can stand for grandfather, or a remote physical ancestor, or even a predecessor in office. The British Assyriologist D. J. Wiseman points out that che naming of Nebuchad-


57

nezzar as "father" actually "does not contradice the Babylonian texts which refer to Belshazzar as the son of Nabonidus, since the latter was a descendent in the line of Nebuchadnezzar and may weU have been related to him through his wife."62 Nabonidus was a usurper taking the throne of Babylon from Labashi-Marduk in 556 B.e., whose father, Neriglissar, had himself usurped the throne from Nebuchadnezzar's son Amel-Marduk in 560 B.e. Neriglissar, however, had married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar,63 and it is suggested that Nabonidus was also a son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar. 64 In this case Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar's grandfather on his mother's side. Thus, according to the usage of "father," and likewise oE "son," in Semitic languages, king Nebuchadnezzar was indeed the "father" of Belshazzar and the latter was the "son" of the former in the grandfather-grandson relationship. Historical evidence from aneient records aids in the understanding of information provided in the book of Daniel. Chronological Information While on the subject of contributions provided by archaeologícal discoveries, sorne breakthroughs relating to chronology should be mentioned. Biblical ehronology is found in many parts of the Bible, the historical books, the prophetic books, the Gospels, the writings of Paul. Among che striking features oE the book oE Kings is the chronological informacion relating to the lengths of reigns of the Hebrew kings. The inrrjcate and perplexing chronological information oE the Hebrew kings has exercised Bible students for over 2000 years, and many oE the most careEul among them had eome to regard it as beyond solution. When a Hebrew king carne to the throne in one of the two Hebrew kingdoms, a synchronism for the beginning of his reígn is given with the year of the ruler of the other kingdom, and then the years of his total reign are given. For instanee, in 2 Kings 13:1 the chronological information concerning Jehoahaz, king of Israel, is re-

58

Understanding the Living Word 01 God

lated: "In the twenty-third year of Joash son of Ahaziah king of Judah, Jehoahaz son of Jehu became king of Israel in Samaria, and he reigned seventeen years." N.I.V. As these biblical numbers are examined in relation to other such data in the Bible, they appear to be in almost constant contradiction with each other. Among the difficulties encountered is the fact that the synchronism given for one king is often out oi line with the information provided for another, or for the length of his reign. At times there appear to be conflicts conceming the year when a king began to rule. Cf. 2 Kings 3: 1 and 1: 17; 8 :25 and 9:29. In a number of instances the total years of Israel are not the same as those of Judah for the same periodo 2 Kings 9:23-27 and 15:27. These and other problems have caused students of the Bible to speak of contra diction 65 and error66 in the chronology of the Hebrew kings. The greatest breakthrough in biblical chronology was published by E. R. Thiele in the year 1951 and updated in 1965. 67 He recognized a chronological scheme used by the early Hebrew authors by which the data of synchronisms and lengths of reign can be woven together into a most amazing partern of intemal harmony "that is in accord with the years of contemporary chronology at every point where a precise contact occurs. "68 This solution to the most complex of the bíblical chronological data is phenomenal, because it reveals that the biblical system is consistent once its internal key is discovered. This solution with its chronological scheme has been widely adopted by students of the Bible because it solves for the first time what had been a puzzle to Bible students for over two millennia. Seven of twelve chapters in the book of Daniel open with chronological notations, and several chapters contain items in which time is a key factor. The riddle ofDaniel1:1 can now be clearly understood because of Thiele's breakthrough. The chronological information of Daniel 7:1; 8: 1; and 9: 1 can now be dearly perceived because oi vital data from contemporary records now available for the fíest time.


59

Students of the Bible have found it difficult to date the first and third years of Belshazzar with any degree of accuracy. Daniel 7:1, 8:1. With the publication of the Harran stelae 69 in the year 1958 new light was provided to answer the vexing questions of these years. Belshazzar, the crown prince of the Babylonian Empire, received "kingship"70 at the time when Nabonidus left for Tema, ¡.e., in the latter's sixth regnal year, 550/549 B.C., as other hístorical-archaeological evidence on cuneiform records indica tes. 71 On the basis of this information the dates of the fírst and third years of Belshazzar can be accurately calculated for the first time. The fírst year of Be1shazzar (Daniel 7:1) was the year 550/549 B.C. or about eleven years before the faH of Babylon (middle of October 539) which brought about his death. The vision of Daniel recorded in the eighth chapter was given in the third year of Belshazzar, i.e., 548/547 B.C., or about nine years before the fateful night of the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the life oí Belshazzar. The firstyearofDarius the Mede (Daniel 9:1) fallsinto theyear 539/538 B.e. This means that the time span between Daniel 8 and 9 consisted of only nine years, a relatively short period compared to the fi&y-three years that elapsed between Danie12 and 7. This means that a varying period of time, sometimes very long, can elapse between two dosely related visions, Le., Daniel 2 and 7 and Daniel 8 and 9 respective1y. Present understanding on this issue is significantly enhanced. Minds have been baffled for centuries regarding the exact starting date oí the most famous Messianic prophecy in the book of Daniel. Daniel 9:24-27. 72 The historicalMessianic interpretation oí Daniel 9:24-27 understands the "going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem" (verse 25, R.S.V.) to refer to the beginning of the seventy weeks or 490 years. The expression "the word [dath]" refers to the "decree" (N.I.V.) just as in Daniel 2:13, 15 the royal "decree [dath]" is said to have gone forth. A linguistic link is found in Ezra 7:26 where the

60


same term dath appears for a royal (state) law or decree of Artaxerxes. Since the "decreeu is to deal with the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem (vs. 25), the royal decree of Artaxerxes 1, issued in his "seventh year" (Ezra 7:7,8), is in view. Having identified the decree in quesrion, the next issue is the date of the "seventh year" of Artaxerxes I. Students of the Bible and andent history have variously dated the "seventh year" of Artaxerxes 1 as 467 B.C., 458 B.C., or 457 B.C. The difference between these dates is vital because the remainingparts ofDaniel9:25-27 predict the death oí the Messiah to be 486 1/2 years after the beginning of the decree. Recent finds have come to light that clarify the accession date of King Artaxerxes I. 73 The discovery of an Aramaic document contemporary with the beginning oí the reign of Artxerxes 1pro vides the evidence that settles the quesrion oí this king's accession, determining the "seventh year" ofhis reign to be 458/457 B.C. 74 The decree mentioned in Daniel 9:25 was accordingly issued in 457 B.C. according to Ezra 7:8, 9. 75 The death of the Messiah was to take place in the year A.D. 31. Exactly in this year Jesus Christ died on the cross and fulfilled the prophecy that the Messiah will be cut off at the appointed time and that "he will put an end to sacrifice and offering" (Daniel 9:27, N.I.V.) in the middle of that final week, i.e., in the year A.D. 31. Here we observe a marvelous fulfilIment of a prophecy, the beginning date of which can now be pinpointed with an almost unbelievable accuracy formerly unknown-because of discoveries in andent extrabiblical records.

Scientific lnformation The riddle of Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 where both texts state that the hare or rabbit (N.LV.) chews the cud has exercised students of the Bible for ages. A widely used Bible dictionary notes that the statement of Leviticus 11:6 with "its assertion that the hare is a ruminant [Le., chews the cud] is contrary to fact. "76 Since the

8iblical Backgrounds for Understanding

61

1950s many studies have appeared that conclusively demonstrate that all genera of hares and rabbíts re-ingest more than 50 percent of their feces as soon as they are passed. Although rabbits and hares produce two kinds of fecal pellets at different times of the day, only the soft pellets are re-ingested. This re-ingestion is the "equivalent to 'chewing the cud' ."77 A recent study that compared cows and rabbits condudes that "it is difficult to deny that rabbits are ruminants;'78 Thus, what had appeared to be a difficult, even erroneous, statement is confirmed to be accurate 79 on the basis of recent understanding gained about the dígestíve mechanism of hares and rabbits. Careful scientific research may illuminate and corroborate strange bíblical assertions. This chapter has illustrated the need for biblical interpretatíon ín view of a variety of barriers to modern understanding, such as those posed by wide differences of language, time, and geography. In other words, these are the natural barriers imposed upon us by the simple fact we live in the twentieth century, far removed from the language and culture of Bible times. We have examined a selection of traditional difficulties that have plagued thoughtful people for centuries. Sorne of these difficultíes have been considered errors or at least discrepancies. But they have vanished as our understandíng has increased by means of linguístic, historical, archaeological, and scientific information. Not infrequendy, such barriers to understanding and confidence remained for long periods of time before the understanding carne. This fact should caution the student of the Bible to be patient and not to loose heart when a problem is not solved immediately. This historical review should also give courage where today an irreconcilable conflict is thought to existo We should be thankful that the increased understanding of the Bible in its historical setting does not compromise the Word of God to norms equal with or superior to God's self-revelation in Scripture; in the process of understanding we have not had to submit

62


the self-revelation of God as given to man in Scripture to external authority. The advances in bíblical understanding of the past century should also challenge us to make greater strides in refining sound principIes of bíblical interpretation that in no way compromise the authority of the Word of God. Notes and References 1. A. S. Herben, Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible, 1525-1961 (New York: The American Bible Sociery, 1968); S. Kubo and W. Specht, So Many Versions? Twentietb Century English Versions of the BibJe (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1975). 2. E. C. Colwell, "Greek Language," in IDB 2:481. 3. E. Würthwein, The Text of tbe Old Testament (Oxford: Macmillan, 1957), pp. 34-37. 4. The Aramaic parts are Dan. 2:4b·7:2S; Ezra 4:S-6:18; 7:12·26; Jer. 10:11; and rwo words in Gen. 31:47. 5. See the famous study by Th. Boman, Hebrew Tbougbt Compared wítb Greek (London: SCM Press, 1960), which, however, should not be read without also noriOS the critiques by W. F. Albrigbt, New Horizons in Biblical Research, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), pp. 18-31; idem, History, Arc:baeology and Christian Humanism (New York: McGraw·Hill, 1964), pp. 83-100; and J. Barr, The Semantícs of Bíblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 46-79, 96-100. 6. O. Cullmann, Christ and Time, rey. ed. (Londoo: SCM, 1962). 7. C. H. Gordon, "Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets," The Bíblical Archaeologist Reader, 2, ed. D. N. Freedman, and E. F. Campbell, Jr. (Garden Ciry, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1964), pp. 21·33, esp. 22; D. J. Wiseman, IlIustrations Prom Bíblical Arehaeology (London: Tyndale Press, 1958), pp. 25f. 8. H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord (LondoD: Lutterworth Press, 1952), p. 302; cf. Albrigbt, New Horizons ín Biblical Research, p. 10. 9. R. de Vaux, Andent Israel (London: Darton, Longman, 1961), p. 169. 10. H. Windisch, "kapeleuo," in TDNT 3:60Sff. 11. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexieon of The New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 499. 12. Other examples are in Mark 5:41; Acts 4:36. 13. H. H. Rowley, The Growtb of tbe Old Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. lS. 14. W. H. Green, Unity of the Book of Genesis (New York: Scribner's & Sons, 1895), p. 28; K. A. Kitchen, Andent Orlent and Old Testament (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966), pp. 118,119 and n. 19 with examples from Ex. 4:19; 19:2; Josh. 2:22; 1 Kings 13:12; Isa. 37:5. 15. So Rowley, The Growtb ofthe Old Testament, p. lS. 16. lbid. 17. Kitchen. Aneient Orient and Old Testament. p. 120. 18. See W. J. Martin, Stylistic Criteria and tbe Analysis of the Pentateuch (London: The Tyndale Press, 1955), pp. 15, 16.


63

19. R. J. WiIliams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronro Press, 1967), p. 32; R. Meyer, Hebriiische Grammatik (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1972), 3:51, 52. 20. e. F. Keil, Commentaries on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdman's, 1959), 1:145. 21. E. R. Thlele, A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1977), p. 79. 22. D. J. Wiseman, Chronic/es of Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum (Landon: British Museum, 1956). 23. L. F. Hartman, "Daniel," in The lerome Bíblical Commentary, eds. R. E. Brown et al. (Englewood ClifEs, N.J.: Prenrice-Hall, 1968), 1:449. 24. See Thiele, A Chronology of the Hebrew Kíngs, p. 68 (n. 3). The author suggests thar Daniel employs Tishri (faU calendar) years, but Jeremiah used Nisan (spring calendar) years. "Thus, according to Daniel 1:1, Nebuchadnezzar's arcack onJerusalem was made in the third year ofJehoiakim, hutaccording to Jeremiah 25:1 and 46:2, this campaign took place in Jehoiakim's fourth year." However, Jeremiah 46:2 does nor speak of a campaign against Jerusatero, and ir is possible thar Daniel and Jeremiah employed both the same calendar reckoning (cf. S. H. Hom, ''The Babylonian Chronicle and the Ancíent Calendar oE the Kingdom of Judab," Andrews University Seminary Studks 5 [1967]: 1227). 25. Hartman, "Daniel." p. 449. 26. H. C. Leupold, Exposítion of Daniel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1969), p. 50. 27. C. F. Pfeiffer, The BibUcal World (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1966), p.

126.

28. Written on the Grotefend Cylinder, KBiii, 2, p. 39, as cited in J. A. Monrgomery, The Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: Clark, 1927), p. 243. 29. Montgomery, The Book of Daniel, p. 244. 30. H. W. F. Saggs, "Babylon," in Archaeologyand Old Testament Study, D. W. Thomas (Oxford: elarendon, 1967), p. 42. 31. R. H. Pfeiffer, lntroduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1948), pp. 758, 759. 32. lbid., p. 758. 33. J. T. Milik, " 'Priere de Nabonide' et aurres écrits d'un cycle de Daniel. Fragments araméens de Qumran 4," Rellue Biblique 63 (1956): 407-415. Translarions au províded among omers in tbe French by J. Carmignac inLes te:x;tes de Qumrán traduits et annotés JI (París: Letouzey et Ané, 1963), pp. 289-294; in German by W. Dommershausen, Nabonid im Buche Daniel (Mainz: MatthiasGrünewald-Verlag 1964), p. 70; A. Merteos, Das Buch Daniel im Licbte der Textevom Toten Meer (Stuttgart: Katb. Bibe1werk, 1971), pp. 34-42; in English by G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966), pp. 229, 230; B. Jongeling, C. J. Labuschagne, and A.S. van der Woude, Aramaic Texts "Prom Qumran I (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 126-131. The restorarioos differ significandy and caunon is due in reading the various traoslations. 34. van der Woude, Aramaic Texts Prom Qumran 1, p. 127. Iralics indicate restored texto

oo.

35. Ibid. 36. So translatOO by the majority of scholars. 37. van der Woude, Aramaic Texts Prom Qumran I, p. 129. 38. Milik," 'Priere de Nabonide,' " p. 411; W. H. Brownlee, The Meaning of

64

Understanding the Ulling Word of God

tbe Scrolls for the Bible (London: Oxford, 1964), p. 37; R. Meyer, Das Cebet des Nabon;d (Berlín: Akademie-Verlag, 1962); F. Dexinger, Das Bucb Daniel und seine Probleme (Stuttgart: Kath. Bibelwerk, 1969), p. 20; etc. 39. van der Woude, Arama;c Texts Prom Qumran 1, p. 123. 40. 41. 42. 43. (New 44.

ANET Supo 560-563. van der Woude, Arama;c Texts Prom Qumran 1, p. 127. Dommershausen, Nabonid im Buche Daniel, p. 71. William H. Brownlee, The Meaning of tbe Qumrán Seralls for tbe Bible York: Oxford Univcrsity Press, 1964), p. 37. See the helpful explanarion in R. K. Harrison, lntroduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1969), pp. 1115-1117. 45. Vermes, Tbe Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p. 229. 46. D. N. Freedman, "The Prayer ofNabonidus," BASaR 145 (1957):31. 47. D. J. Wiseman, "Nebuchadnezzar," Zondervan Pictorial Encycloped;a of Ihe Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1977), 4:398. 48. Harrison, lntroduction lo the Old Testament, pp. 1117-1120. 49. F. M. Cross, Jr., Tbe Andent Ubrary of Qumran, 2d ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1961), p. 167. SO. A. K. Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (TorontolBuffalo: University oE Toronto Press, 1975), pp. 87·92. 51. lbid., p. 89.

52. lbid. 53. lbid., p. 89, Iines 11-14. 54. Attention should be drawn to the story of Nebuchadn~~ar's possession by Abydenus (2d cent. B.C.) as preserved in Eusebius, Praep. Ellang. IX. 41. 55. H. H. Rowley, "The Historicity oE me Fifth Chapter oE Daniel," Journal ofTbeological Study 32 (1930):12. 56. The cuneiEorm evidence is conveniendy collected by R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belsbatzar, Yale Oriental Series 15 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1929). 57. For complete text, see A. L. Oppenheim in ANET 312-315. 58. lbid., p.3136. 59. T. G. Pinches, Proceedings of tbe Sodety of Biblical Arcbaeology 38 (1916):30. 60. A. R. Millard, "Daniel 1-6 and History," Ellangelical Quarterly 49 (1977):71. 61. E. J. Young, Tbe Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, (1949), p. 117 (italícs his). 62. D. J. Wiseman, "Belshazzar," inZondervan Pictotial Encyclopedia oftbe Bible, ed. M. C. Tenner (Crand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1975), 1:515. 63. D. Weisberg in P. Garelli, ed., Le Palais et la Royauté, Compte tendu de la X1X e Recontre Assyriologique lnternationale (Paris: Ediciones du Cerf, 1974), pp. 447-454. 64. Millard, "Daniel 1-6 and Hístory," p. 72. 65. G. Rawlinson, "Kings," in Tbe Holy Bible Witb an Explanatory and Critical Commentary, ed. F. C. Cook, (London: Murray, 1900), 2:475. 66. C. Gordon, Tbe World of tbe Old Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1958), p. 154. 67. E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers oftbe Hebrew Kings (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951); 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965).

BibliclIl Bllckgrounds for Understanding

65

68. Thiele, A Chronology of tbe Hebrew Kings, p. 13. 69. J. C. Gadd, "The Harran Ins~riptions ofNabonidus," Anato/ian Studies 8 (1958}:60, 61; ANET Sup 540-563. 70. ANET 313. 71. This evidence is collected and investigated by G. F. Hasel, "The First and Third Years of Belshazzar (Dan 7:1; 8:1}," Andrews University Seminary Studies 15 (1977):153-168. 72. See the detailed study by G. F. Hasel, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27," Ministry (May 1976):1D-23D. 73. J. Neuffer, "The Accession of Anaxerxes 1," Andrews University Seminary Studies 6 (1968):60-87. 74. S. H. Horn and L. H. Wood, The Chronology of &ra 7, 2d ed. (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1970). 75. lbid., pp. 114, 115. 76. W. S. McCullough, "Hare," in IDB 2:525. 77. H. N. Southern, "Coprophagy in the Wild Rabbit," Nature 145 (1940):262. 78. J. CarIes, "The Rabbit's Secret," CNRS Research 5 (1977):37. For additional discussion and references to studies in scientific literature, see L. R. Brand, "Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?" Origins 4/2 (1977):102-104, to whom we are heavily indebted. 79. Fauna and Flora of the Bible (London: United Bible Societies, 1972), p. 39.

1:

... W

III Biblical Foundations for Understanding

Although there are many different attempts to understand the Bible, it goes beyond the purpose of this book to describe these manifold attempts and their results. 1 However, we find it difficult to escape the condusion, at least in general terms, that the entire history of the Christian church is the history of the interpretatío n of the Bible. 2 This observatíon on1y adds to the importance oE proper foundations for understanding Scripture. The modern crisis over biblical authority is essentially identical to the crisis of revelatíon in modern theology. The depth and breadth oE this crisis is a phenomenon that arose as a result oE conflicting methods oE treating and understanding Scrípture in modern theology. But all such methods or models of bíblical interpretation are ultimately to be tested by the self-testimony oE the Bible.

Internal Foundations The Witness of Peter The Bible provides its own method and foundations for understanding its message. Because the Bible c1aims to be the Word of God, it provides the norms by which these daims are established. Peter voiced one of these claims regarding the origin and thus nature of the Bible: "We have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Fírst of all you must understand this, that no 66

Bíblical Foundations for Understanding

67

prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, beca use no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Peter 1:19-21, R.S.V. Peter cautioned his readers that "no prophecy of scripture" may be interpreted as man wishes. Although the individual reader may be tempted to engage in his own interpretation, Peter put an end to "one's own interpretation" (R.S.V.) (or "private interpretation," K.J.V.) in the sen se of (1) the prophet interjecting his own ideas into the messages given to him and (2) the reader wishing to interpret without the guidance by the Holy Spirit. 3 Peter also informed his readers regarding the origin of prophecy, "No prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." The "prophetic word" originates from God through the movings of the Holy Spirit. This means that "prophecy" or "prophecy of scripture" or the "prophetic word,n to use the phrases employed by Peter, is not the fruit of human meditation and thought; i.e., it never came by the impulse of man but has its origin in God, who used the Holy Spirit to inspire His prophets with His message. The source of prophecy, we must then conclude, Hes in God. Prophecy is of divine origino The designation "prophecy" as used by Peter is not restricted to the prophetic parts of Scripture. 4 The Pentateuch or five books of Moses also called the T orah in the Hebrew canon was never considered to be les s than the Prophets, the second division of the Hebrew canon. The Pentateuch was considered to be written by Moses, who in the New Testament is designated as a prophet. 5 The whole of Scripture is conceived of as prophetic. 6 Like Peter, David expressed his conviction that his words originated from the Holy Spirit: "The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue." 2 Samuel 23:2, N.A.S.B. Furthermore, in New Testament times the Old Testament as a whole was considered by Jews as inspired by the Holy Spirit. 7

68

Vnderstanding tbe Living Word of God

The Witness of Paul Paul joined Peter in reeognizing the divine origin of Scripture through the work of the Holy Spirit. Paul, when wri ting to Timothy, made his decisive assertion that Seripture is inspired by God: "AH Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaehing, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16, N.A.S.B. The Greek word for "inspired by God" is theopneustos, a verbal adjective. Verbal adjectives ending in -tos can have an active meaning or a passive meaning. If active its intent is "breathing God," that is, producing thoughts about God; if passive, ¡ts meaning is "breathed by God," that is, inspired by God. However, there is no question that in 2 Timothy 3:16 theopneustos has a passive meaning beca use verbal adjecti ves ending in -tos when combined with a word signifying God (theo-) regularIy are passive. 8 Thus the literal meaning of theopneustos is "God-breathed"9 or "inspired by God."lO Thus the translation "inspired" without giving the souree as is done by The New English Bible does not meet the two aspects contained in the term itself. "It is wrong to omit the divine element from the term implied by theo-/'l1 The so urce of the inspiration is a key element in this "true doctrinal formulation of inspiration."12 The souree of inspiration is God and not the mind of mano Paul affirmed that the Scriptures originated in God and thus carry divine authority; they are not the result of men reaeting merely to adivine influence. Biblieal inspiration is the result of being "breathed [inspired] by God."13 The phrase "all Scripture" (N.A.S.B., N.A.B., T.E.V., N.I.V.) or "every seripture" (A.R.V.) is a translation of the Greek words pasa graphe." The noun graphe "is never used in the New Testament [when speaking] of a single book of the Bible."14 Nothing prevented Paul from doing so in 2 Timothy 3: 16. But the likelihood of Paul using such a restricted meaning in this text is slim. Translating pasa graphe as "all Seripture" or "every scripture" is impor-

Biblical Foundations for Understanding

69

tanto If Paul meant "every scripture," he is looking at "every passage of Scripture"15 distributively; i.e., he is looking at various parts of the Bible and saying that whatever Scripture we consider, it is inspired by God. Contrariwise, if Paul means "all Scripture," he makes clear that his reference is to the whole of Scripture of his day. Although there seems to be greater weight of evidence on the translation "all Scripture," both translations make it clear that whatever is called "Scripture" is inspired by God. The idea that there is "Scripture" not inspired by God is not the viewpoint of Paul. Scripture is not the result of human genius, human reason, or human research, but of being "breathed [inspired] by God." Support of the Biblical Witness Being "inspired by God," Scripture has God as its Author; yet it comes to us through the languages and the particular personal characteristics of the inspired writers. In thought and content the Bible is of divine origin; the language is that of meno "The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen:'16 God inspired His prophets with thoughts 11 and condescended to clothe "infinite ideas"18 with human forms of communication. The propositional content of the truth and the disclosure of this propositional content to the human instrument was due to God's revelation. Having received the divine revelation, the human penman was inspired by the Holy Spirit to communicate these divine ideas and thoughts accurately and authoritatively in the language of meno "The writers of the Bible had to express their ideas in human language."19 Thus "infinite ideas" revealed by God are expressed through "finite vehicles. "20 E. G. White has stated that "the Bible points to God as its author; yet it was written by human hands; and in the varied style of its different books it presents the characteristics of the several writers. The truths revealed are all 'given by inspiratíon of God' (2 Timothy 3:16); yet they are expressed in the words of men."21 The Bible is thus an

70

Understanding the living Word of God

inseparable divine-human combination. E. G. White continued: "The Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language oí men, presents a union oí the divine and the human. Such a union exists in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of mano Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that 'the Word was "made flesh, and dwelt among uso' John 1:14."22 The analogy of the inextricable union of the divine and the human natures of Christ as applied to the divine-human nature of the Bible gives direction for its nature and authority. The Bible has God as its Author. It is the Written Word of God as Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God. Jesus Himself affirmed that "scripture cannot be broken." John 10:35. The authority of Scripture is equivalent to the authority of Jesus.

Inspiration and the Unity of Scripture The key to the unity of Scripture rests in the unity of its divine Author. The unity of the Old and New Testaments and the unity within éach Testament has its source in the certainty that it is inspired by the same Holy Spirit. John Knox remarked rather pointedly: "If there appear any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, who is never contrary to himself, explains the same more clearly in other places: so that there can remain no doubt, but to such as obstinately remain ignorant."23 The openingverses of the leuer to the Hebrews stressed this fact: "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir oí aIl things, through whom a1so he created the world." Hebrews 1:1, 2, R.S.V. The unity of Scripture is possible because the same Author has spoken in the past through the prophets and now through the Son. At the same time diversity is recognized within unity. God spoke "in many and various ways" during a long period of time by different inspired individua1s.

B;bli,al Foundations fOT Understanding

71

Inspiration and the Human Instrument The careful student of the Bible will avoid the widespread practice to emphasize diversity in such a way as to destroy the underlying unity of Scripture. Among the many causes of diversity is the prophet's experience, education, background, language, and perception of truth. Through these di verse personal characteristics God has conveyed divine thoughts so that Uthe utterances of the man are the word of God. "24 "This diversity [of experience on the part of the Bible writers] broadens and deepens the knowledge that is brought out to meet the necessities of varied minds."25 Stressing the diversity of the subjects and aspects of subjects unfolded by the various inspired writers merely recognizes the facts and is a necessary part of biblical interpretation. Yet, there is a biblical unity in diversity. 1 Corinthians 12:4-6. The messages of the various Bible writers belong so intimately together that neither one can be fuUy understood without the other, just as the Old Testament cannot be fully understood without the New, and the New Testament without the Old. 26 Both Testaments form an inseparable whole, 27 one depending upon and illuminating the otber. 28 Inspiration and the Analogy of Faith A corollary of the unity of the Bible is the analogy of faith. The expression "analogy of faith" derives from Paul's phrase, "according to the proportion of his faith" (Romans 12:6, N.A.S.B.), which contains the Greek words analogian tes pisteos. We use the concept of the analogy of faith to express an underlying "spiritual unity, one grand golden thread running through the whole [Bible1. "29 Because of this spiritual unity a fundamental agreement of thought, teaching, and doctrine can be unfolded using the hermeneutical principIe of the self-interpretation of Scripture. This means that God, as the Author of the Bible, saw the end from the beginning-, foresaw the future even as no

72

Understanding the Uving Word of Cad

inspired writer could, and made mankind aware of this future in the words of Scripture. The inspired words of the Bible are not to be understood merely as the words of men which are conditioned by the language, thought forms, literary patterns of the times and places of che individual writers of the documents that make up the canon of Scripture. Though God spoke to specific generations (those contemporary with the writers of the biblical books), He saw to it that future generations reading the Word of God would understand therein a body of thought, teaching, and doctrine that goes beyond the local and limited circumstances during which they were produced. "Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible"30 and "to be studied through all time."31 The prophets as spokesmen of God spoke both to their own times and predicted events of the distant {uture. 1 Peter 1: 10-12. The prophets themselves longed to understand the meaning of their own words. 32 There may thus be a deeper meaning and fuller import in the inspired words of Scripture 33 which on account of their divine origin can only be uncovered by another passage of Scripture dealing with the same subject. Thus the Bible must be viewed as its own expositor. 34

Inspiration and the Supreme Authority of Scripture The Principie o{ the IIBihJe Only" The Protestant principie of the "Bible only" (sola scriptura), al so often referred to as the "Scripture principIe," was the battle cry of the Reformation. It involves the supreme authority of the infallible Holy Scriptures to the exclusion of aH human authority as regards "the standard of character, the revealer of doctrine, and the test of experience."35 It is based upon the recognition of the Bible's inspiration, unity, canonicity, and supreme authority. E. G. White has emphasized that we are to have no other creed than God's infallible Scriptures: "The Bible [is] our rule of faith and discipline."3s She has pointed out that in tbese last days "God will have a people upon the earth to


73

maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. "37 Seventh-day Adventists general1y have eefused to al10w such extrabiblical norms as tradition, creeds, science, philosophy, and extrabiblical religions, etc. (neither one nor aH of these), to determine faith, doctrine, and reforms, but have taken tlle Bible as providing the "supreme authority"38 in such martees. We are encouraged to continue this emphasis: "In our time ... there is need of a return to the great Protestant principle-the Bible, and the Bible only, as the rule of faith and duty,"39 The consistent historical position ol representative Seventh-day Adventists has been that the Bible is our only infallible rule of faith, doctrine, reforms, and practice. 40 The emphasis on the suprerne authority of the Bible calls for sorne words about the place and purpose of the writings of E. G. White. Seventh-day Adventists gene rally believe that the Holy Spirit functioned in the inspiration of the writings ofE. G. White in the same manner as in tbat of the biblical prophets. The inspired writings of God's messenger to the Adventist Church, in E. G. White's words, do nor supersede the BibJe 41 nor.are they an addition to the canon of Scripture. E. G. White herself maintains that the Bible is "rhe test oE aU inspiration"42 and "tbe test of experience."43 Concerning the relation of the writings of E. G. White ro the supreme authority of the Bible, she stated explicitly: "Litde heed i8 given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light."44 Since her writings are inspired as is Scripture, they are a light as is Scripture but neither an addition to Scripture nor aboye Scripture. The purpose of the inspired testimony of E. G. White is to direct people to the greater light of Scripture and to impress men's minds with its importance. 45 Because of the quality of the inspired writings of E. G. White, Seventh-day Adventists affirm that these writings have a superior authoriry to other writings, Scripture alone excepted. Her writings function in a subordinate role to

74


Scripture, to give a clearer understanding oí it,46 to exalt it,47 to attract minds to ir,48 to call attention to neglected truths,49 to impress inspired truths already revealed,5o to awaken and impress minds,51 to bring people back to the Bible,32 to caH attention to Bible principles,53 and to apply them ro practicallife. 54 It is, therefore, no surprise that the writings of E. G. White have a specialIy honored place among Seventh-day Adventists. E. G. White insists thar they are "nor given ro take the place of the Bible" and are nor "an addition to the word of God. "55

Scripture Its Own lnterpreter A well-recognized corollary of the principIe of the "Bible only" is the principIe of the "Scripture its own interpreter." The principie of the "BibIe only" (sola scriptura) is the formal affirmation that the Bible is its own expositor. Jesus Christ Himself, che believer's Example (l Peter 2:21), applied this principie when, beginning with the writings of Moses and continuing through the remaining Old Testament writings, He "interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke 24:27, R.S.V. The apostle PauI recommended "comparing56 spiritual things with spiritual."57 1 Corinthians 2:13, K.J.V. The idea seems to be co explain and interpret spirituaI things or truths on the basis of the Inspired Word of God. Peter's injuneríon in that "no prophecy oE scriptu re is a matter of one's own interpretarlon." 2 Peter 1 :20, R.S. V. "Prophecy," as elsewhere in Scripture, is not limired to predictive prophecy, which foretells Euture events, but applies to any inspired utterance. 58 A repeated and urgent idea in E. G. White is that "the Bible is its own expositor!' 59 This phrase comes a150 in the form of "Scripture as its own interpreter."60 The hermeneutical application of this principIe means that "scripture interprets scripture, one passage ... [is] the key to orher passages."61 The consistent admonition, "Make the Bible ¡ts own expositor, "62 reflects the principIe of the self-

Biblical Foundations fOT UndeTstanding

75

interpretatíon of Scripture as maintained by the great Reformers. U. Zwingli "saw that it [the Bible as the Word of God, the only sufficient, infallible rule] must be its own interpreter."63 This principIe was applied by W. Miller who followed the "rule of making Scripture its own interpreter"64 and is the principie to be followed by Adventists who are to be "a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of a11 reforms."6& On the basis of a proper application of this principie, E. G. White maintained: "The opinions of Iearned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or dedsions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and as discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voiee of the majority-not one nor a11 of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith."66 It is cIear that biblical interpretation among Seventh-day Adventists is grounded in the Reformation principie of "Scripture its own interpreter

[scriptura su; ipsius interpres]." "Scripture its own interpreter" recognizes that the Bible must be interpreted from within itself, that one portion of Scripture interprets another. 67 The OId and New Testaments shed light upon each other. 6s The OId Testament is the gospel embodied; the New Testament is the gospel unfolded. 69 The Old Testament is the key that unlocks the New Testament; 70 the New Testament gospel unIocks the mysteries,71 types and shadows, 72 of the Old T estamento Both Testaments are equaJly essentia1,73 for both share in mutual interpretation. Spiritual truths as reveaIed in Scripture are to be interpreted not in the light of knowledge gained from any source (e.g., history, eccIesiastical tradition, philosophy, science, extrabiblical religion, etc.) whose authority is considered aboye or equal ro that oE Scripture but in the light of Scripture itself. The principIe of the self-interpretation of Scripture"Scripture its own interpreter"-refutes the concept that every man is his own interpreter. A faithful application of this principIe will prohibit an ¡ndiscriminate stringing of

76

Understanding tbe Uving Word of God

texts together to suít one's own faney. As the OId Testament interprets the New and the New the OId, as one portion of Seripture interprets another, so one passage of Scripture is the key to other passages. 74 In its general application this implies that the passage which serves as key to other passages is cIear and thar the other passages of Scripture stand in need of interpreta tío n beca use of vari· ous degrees of obscurity. DifficuIt passages are to be interpreted with texts which are clear. A difficult or obscure passage must not be interpreted by the indiscríminate application of another bíblical passage or text-a procedure that only leads to confusion and contradiction. 75 In the process of using the principIe of self-interpretation, comparing and interpreting passage with passage or text with text, one must be guided to study only those passages or texts which deal with the same subject. 16 By viewing from every side aU passages or texts on the same subject the interpreter of Scripture is expected to arrive at the true meaning of the Bible and to shed light upon its hidden meaning. 77 In viewing together the different passages or texts on the same subject one must not restríct the study of the various passages to those of one historicaI period or circumstanee. This ís an ever-present temptation to those influeneed by the historical-criticism school with their stress upon the purely human charaeter oE the biblicaI doeuments. 78 In lettíng Scrípture be its own interpreter, the one engaged in biblical interpretation should, according to his ability, attempt to bríng together all that is said coneerning a particular subject from different times and varíed circumstances. 79 This procedure is justified on the basis of Scrípture being the Inspired Word of God; when properly applied, it does not do injustice to the varied aspects of the subject as brought out by the several inspired writers. Inspiration and Objectivity in Interpretation Anyone who engages in bíblical interpretation has already, willingly or unwillingly, a certain pre-under-


77

standing. AbsoIute objectivity is impossible. Thus there is the ever present temptation for interpreters to impute to the biblicaI words certain opinions and mean~ ings which the biblical writers did not express with their words. In order to avoid this, sorne have proposed the principie of the "empty head," a procedure by which one is preserved from "reading into" the text (eisegesis) what is not there. According to the "empty head" principIe one must drop all preconceived notions and opinions, come to the text from a completely neutral ground, and only then engage in bíblical interpretation. Yet, is this not asking for the impossible? If the interpreter knows the biblicallanguages, for example, he obviously has learned the meaning of words and gained an understanding of grammar and syntax which generations of scholars have helped to determine. No one can divest himself from such "mental baggage." The "empty head" principIe can hardly be advocated. However, every interpreter must work under the absolute mandate of seeking to be as objective as possible. He must make a conscious effort in the study of any passage to become more and more aware of his own pre-understanding and presuppositions and seek to control as much as possible his own biases. He must attempt to silence his own subjectivity to the best of his ability, if he is to obtain true knowledge. These requirements make good sense insofar as they are taken to mean that the interpreter has to silence his personal wishes with regard to the outcome of the interpretation. The interpreter must realize that his ability to understand Scripture cannot be expected to inerease through any conscious attempt to secure in himself a standpoint of neutrality or even one in harmony with Seripture. One's understanding of the Bible increases through the reshaping of his mind and heart and his total understanding ofIífe by what he hears God say in Scripture itself. God Himself through the Bible and the Holy Spirit creates in the interpreter the necessary presuppositions and the essential

78


perspective for the understanding of Scd pture. In the Bible we meet with an understanding of God, ourselves, our fellowmen, and the world around us that is unique and can be known from no other source. Because of the Bible's absolute uniqueness the revelatíon of Scripture must communicate not only itself but al so the possibility of receiving and comprehending it. To take any knowledge gained from other sources as a basis for understanding the message of Scripture can issue only in misunderstanding it. 80 The constant illumination of the Holy Spirit is needed for biblica] interpretation. The practice of employing a particular philosophy (whether Aristotelianism, Hegelianism, idealism, existentialism, process philosophy, etc.) as a prerequisite for engaging in the task of interpretation and exegesis ís to superimpose an external category, thus a superior authority, on Scripture and to make Scripture subordinate to that authority. Here the prior human self-understanding gained on the basis of a philosophical preparatíon for interpretatíon appears to become a criterion for judging bíblical truth. Human self-understanding gained on the basis of philosophy becomes the final authodty. Such an approach must be recognized for what it is because it sacrifices the authority of Scripture to that of man. 81 On the other hand the subjectivity of man is overcome by letting God speak to the interpreter in and through the text of Scripture. This listening with the heart and mind brings him into a relation with God in which he will know the truth; in this relationship his own life is laid open to the saving aedon of God through Jesus Christ and the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit. Objectives of Biblical Interpretation On the basis of these essential foundations concerning biblical interpretation-namely, the Bible's nature, uniqueness, authority, and unity (induding such hermeneutical corollaries as the "Bible only" and "Scripture its own interpreterU)-we can restate the objective of bíblical in-


79

terpretation: Proper and adequate biblical interpretation seeks (1) to determine what the inspired writer as God's chosen instrument understood and meant to communicate to his hearers and/or readers in his own time: (2) to comprehend and expound the deeper meaning and fuller import intended or implicit in the words of the prophet, whether or not he himself was aware of it;82 and (3) to translate and transmit the form and content of the Bible to men and women in our own time. Notes and References 1. Por surveys of interpretations of the Bible, see S. L. Greenslade, ed., The Cambridge History of the Bible (Cambridge: At me University Press, 1963); D. E. Nineham, ed., The Church's Use of the Bih/e, Past and Present (London: S.P.C.K., 1963); R. M. Gram, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible, 2d ed. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1963); J. S. Preus, From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament lnterpretation From Augustine to the Young Luther (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Uníversity Press, 1969); W. G. Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigatíon of lts Problems, 2d ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972); G. M. Hyde, OO., A Symposium on Bíblical Hermeneuttcs (Washington, D.C.: Bíblical Research Committee, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1974). 2. G. Ebeling, "Church History 15 the History of the Exposition of Scripture," in The Word ofGod and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), pp. 11·31. 3. D. H. Wheaton, "2 Peter," in The New Bíble Commentary, Revised, ed. D. Guthrie et al. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans 1970), p. 1254. 4. C. H. Pinnock, Biblical Reve/ation: The Foundation of Christian Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 57. S. See Luke 16:29; 24:27; John 5:45, 46; Acts 3:22. 6. See 1 Peter 1: 10-12. E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of Sto Peter (London: Macmilla;¡ &: Co. Ltd., 1946), p. 134, suggests that the term "prophets" which ís employed in 1 Peter 1: 10 wíthout the artiele has a reference wider than the Old Testament prophets in that it ¡neludes the New Testament prophets as well. 7. D. Patte, Ear/y Jewish Hermeneutíc inPalestine (Missoula, Mont.: Sebol· ars Press, 1975), pp. 21·23. 8. J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epist/es (New York: Harper &: Row Publishers, 1963), pp. 125, 126,201-204; B. B. Warfíeld, The Inspiration and Authority of the BibJe (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), pp. 245·296. 9. C. Brown, "Scripture," in Dictionary of New Testament Theo/ogy (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1978),3:491. 10. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chícago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 357. 11. Brown, "Scripture," 3:491. 12. G. Schrenk, "graphó," TDNT 1:757.

80


13. The idea thar 5cripture is "breathing out God" is not in the word theopneustos. because woros ending in rhe Greek language wirh the three lerrers -tos and are compounded wirh theo- are generally passive in meaning. Thus the idea is "breathed oflby God." 14. Schrenk. "grapho," p. 754. 15. ¡bid. 16. 15M 21. 17. lbid. 18. 15M 22. 19. 15M 19. 20. 15M 22. 21. GC vi. 22. Ibid. 23. John Knox as quoted in Pinnock, Bíblical Revelation, p. 98. 24. 15M 21. 25. 15M 22. 26. E. G. Whire explains tbar "the doors of rhe New Testament are unlocked with the key of the Old Tesrament"; in the next sentence she says, "The New Testament explains the Old."-Ev 579. uThe Old Testament sheds lighr upon the New, and the New upon the Old .... Both Old and New present truth that will continually reveal new depth oE meaning."-cr 462,463. (CE. AA 381; Ev 578.) 27. "The Old and the New Testament are inseparable, for both are the teachings of Christ."-Ellen G. White Comments, 5BC 1094. 28. "1 saw rhat che Word oE God, as a whole, is a perfeer chain, one portion Iinking into and explaining another."-EW 221. -29. 15M 20. 30. 15M 416. 31. GC 69. 32. "The prophets tO whom rhese grear scenes were revealed ¡onged to understand rheir import."-Ed 183. 33. "The Bible is its own expositor. One passage will prove ro be a key ro unlock other passages, and in rhis way light will be shed upon the hidden meaning oE the word."-FE 187 (emphasis supplied).

34. 1bid. 35. GC vii. 36. 15M 416. 'J7. GC595. 38. "We are to receive God's word as supreme authority."-6T 402. 39. GC 204, 205. E. G. White also declared thar "rhe Bible only is to be our refuge" (KH 342) and thar "the Bible, and the 8ible alone, is our rule of faith" (C5W 84). 40. A convenienr survey of this subject is provided by L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1971), pp. 91-106. 41. Note E. G. Whire's own emphasis: "The 5pirit was not given-nor can ir ever be bestowed-to supersede the Bible; for rhe 5criprures explicitly stares thar the word oE God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested."-GC vii. 42. "True Christianity receives the word oEGod as the great treasure house oE inspired truth and the tesr of all inspiration."-GC 193. 43. lbid., p. vii.


81

44. CM 125. 45. "The Lord designs to warn you, to reprove, ro counsel, through the testimonies given, and to impress your minds with the importance oE the truth of His word."-5T 665. 46. ¡bid., p. 663. 47. lbid., p. 665. 48. lbid., p. 663. 49. lbid. 50. 1bid., p. 665. 51. 1bid. 52. ¡bid., p. 663. 53. lbid., pp. 664, 665. 54. lbid., pp. 666, 667. SS. lbid., p. 663. 56. The participle sugkrinontes can also be translated as "interpreting" (so R.S.V., N.A.B.), a meaning consistendy used in the Septuagjnt. Gen. 40:8, 16, 22; 41:12, 15; Judg. 7:15; Dan. 5:12; 7:15f. CE. Arndtand Gingrich,A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 782. 57. The term pneumatikoís can be either masculine or neurer in gender. The neuter gender is preferred over the masculine in K.J.V., N.A.B., J.B., N.A.S.B., N.I.V., R.S.V. margin, Lucher, etc., whereas R.S.V. and N.E.B. prefer the masculine. In favor oE taking this term as neuter may be urged the superior epigrammatjc point oE keeping the same gender for both pneumatika, "spidtual things," and pneumatikois, and che naturalness of pneumatikois being brought into c10se relation with the sugkrinontes, "comhining, interpreting." In the Iight oE the context the neuter js to he favored. CE. L Morris, Tbe First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapid, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1963), pp. 59f. 58. Cf. Ex. 7:1; Luke 1:76f.; Acts 15:32; 1 Coro 14:3,24,25. 59. Ed 190; also the same words in different context in FE 187. 60. GC 521. 61. Ev 581. 62. CG 511. 63. GC 173. 64. GC 324. 65. GC 595. 66. lbid. 67. ") saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfeet chaio, one portion linking into and explaining another."-EW 221. 68. "The Old Testament sheds Iight upon the New, and me New upon the Old. Each is a revelation of the glory oE God in Christ. Both present truths that will continually reveal new depths oE meanlng to the earnest seeker."-COL 128. 69. lbid. 70. "Souls will be saved, •.. as che doors oE the New Testament are unlocked with the key oE the Old Testament. "-Ev 579. 71. "The gospel is the key that unlocks jts [OT's] mysteries" (COL, 133 [1900]). 72. "We should show them [the people] that the Old Testament is as verily me gospel in types and shadows as the New Testament in its unfolding power."-6T 392. "The Old Testament is the gospel in figures and symbols. The New

82

Understanding the lilling Word of God

Testarnent is the substance."-2SM 104. 73. "No human authoriry has any more right ro change rhe locarion of these [three angels') messages than ro substitute the New Testament for the Old.... One is as essenrial as the orher."-Ibid. 74. "Lead the minds of the yourh from truth to truth. up higher and higher, showing them how scripture interprets scriptllre, one passage being the key ro orher passages."-Ev 581. ''The Bible is its own expositor. One passage will prove to be a key that will unlock other passages, and in this way light will be shed upon the hidden meaning of me word."-FE 187. 75. Note chis warning: "In order tO sustain erroneous doctrines or unchrisrian practices, sorne will seize upon passages of Scripture separated from the context, perhaps quoting hall oE a single verse as proving their point, when the remainingporrion would show the meaning to be quite the opposite."-GC 521. 76. "By compadng different texts treating on the same subjecr. viewing their bearing on every side, the true meaning of the Scdpture will be evident."-FE 187. 77. See notes 74 and 76. 78. James D. Smart, Tbe Interpretation ofScripture (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), pp. 2llf. 79. "Make the Bible its own expositor, bringing together al1 that is said concerning a given subject ar different times and under varied circumstances."

-CG511. 80. R. Bultmann's emphasis on the Euncrion oE the philosophy oE existeotialism and his notion oE the "preliminary comprehension" was vigorously opposed on several occasions by K. Barrh. On the conrroversy berween Barrh and Bultmann over the notion oE "pre-understanding," which determines largely what one finds in the text, see Smart, The Interpretation of the Scriplure, pp. 47-53; R. Marlé, Introduction lo Hermeneutics (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967). pp. 58-66. E. Betti, Die Hermeneutik aJs allgemeine Methodik der Geisteswissenscbaften (Tübingen: J. K. B. Mohr, 1962), incisively criticizes Bultmann's concept of "pre-understanding." 81. R. Bultmann. "The Problem ofHermeneutics," in Essays Philosophical and Theologica/ (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955). p. 261, has no hesitation to insist that the interpreter is forbidden to consider anything true "which contradicts the truths actually presupposed in the understanding I have oE the world-the understanding which is the guide for all my activity." Here the modero, secular understanding of me world has become the final authority and judge 01 what is truth. Therefore, the urgency with which Bultmann launches his program of demythologization. 82. E. G. White explains: "The prophets prophesied of these things [mysteries which angels, prophets, kings, and righreous meo desired lO understandl. and they longed to understand that which they foreto/d; but to them this pdvilege was not given. They longed to see what we see. and to hear what we hear; but they could not."-6T 19,20. "Even the prophets who were favored wim special illumination of the Spirit did not fully comprehend Ihe import of the rellelations committed to them. The meaning was to be unfolded from age ro age, as the people oE God should need me instruction therein contained,"-GC 344. "The prophets to whom rhese great scenes were revealed longed to understand their ["full"-PK 731] imporr."-Ed 183. "One passage will prove to be a key to unlock other passages. and in this way Iighr will be shed upon the hidden meaning of the word. "-FE 187. (A11 emphases suppliedl,

IV Biblical Texts, Translations, and Understanding

The general reader of the Bible is not normally aware of the exciting but also sensitive issues relating to the original text of the Bible. The original documents of the inspired writers have not been preserved. These originals are called autographs, and none have been discovered so faro But thousands of manuscript copies for both the OId and New T estaments and parts thereof are preserved. For generations the bíblical books were copied by hand on either highly perishabIe animal skins or papyrus made from a reed native to Egypt. This practice continued until printing was invented in the fifteenth century. We will discuss fírst the biblical text of the OId Testament, then that of the New Testament, the translations that were produeed, and finalIy how this information relates to understanding the Bible. The task of recovering the original text of the OId and New Testaments is usually called textual criticism, or lower criticismo Since there are no autographs available, the two major sources for the recovery of the bíblical text are numerous Hebrew and Greek manuscrípts that have descended from the original autographs. Of next importance are the ancient translations, called versions, which were directly influenced by the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Very important for New Testament study are the quotations of Scripture preserved in the writings of the aneient church fathers. 83

84

Understanding tbe Living Word o{ God

Old Testament For the OId Testament no manuscript or a fragment thereof can be safely dated before about 400 B.e. 1 This means that it is impossible to trace back with absolute certainty the original text as written by the inspired writers. Nevertheless, overwhelming evidence indicates that the text was preserved accurately, even before 400 B.C. The Bible itself reveals an attitude to preserve carefully the Inspired Word of God. Deuteronomy 31:9ff, Joshua 24: 25, 26; 1 Samuel 10:25. Scribal activity throughout the ancient Near East reflects a conservative attitude. The most famous orientalist of this century, W. F. Albright, has stated that "the prolonged and intimate study of the many scores of thousands of pertinent documents from the ancient Near East proves that sacred and profane documents were copied with greater care than is true of scribal copying in Graeco-Roman times."2 The evidence available from the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, the Coffin Texts, and the Book of the Dead and their copies reveal this to be true, even though these religious texts were never intended to be seen by normal human beings. Other widely available evidence confirms the existence of definite standards for scribal copying of manuscripts and that scribes adhered to them faithfully in the ancient Near East. An Egyptian scribe, living in 1400 B.e. (the time of Moses), noted in his colophon, after he had copied his funerary text: "[The Book] is completed from its beginning to its end, having been copied, revised, compared and verified sign by sign."3 This care in the copying process is very important. Yet, it does not mean that scribes never revised the script and orthography according to the literary conventions of their times. Such evidence is available for Egyptian texts. Sorne were revised to conform to later forms of language and grammar. 4 Whether this practice is widely used in the OId Testament cannot be clearly established because the manuscripts are not available.

Biblical Texts, Translations, and Understanding

85

Scribal Errors Despite extreme care on the part of the scribes, certain scribal errors did occur in copying Old Testament manuscripts. The unintentional repetition of a letter or a syllable (calIed dittography) is known. Or the opposite may happen when a letter or syllable is left out (haplography). If the omission is at the end of a line, it is called homoeoteleuton; but if it is at the beginning of a line, caused by the similarity oE the beginnings of elosely occuring words, it is designated a homeoarchy. Other normal scribal errors inelude the confusion oE letters, a wrong word division, or a transposition of letters (metathesis). 5 These types oE textual errors are known from extant manuscripts and appear to have occurred from earliest times. These textual errors in no way alter the doctrinal content of the Bible. In a translation they usually cannot even be recognized.

Manuscripts From the time of the elosing of the canon oE the Old Testament atabout400 B.C.6 to about A.D.100 when the text oE the Old Testament was standardized, compelling evidence exists that proves that the tendency to preserve the text in its available form was most powerful. Prior to the year 1947 students of the Old Testament had Hebrew manuscripts available Erom no earlier than A.D. 900. This was radicalIy changed with the phenomenal discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in 1947 which produced scrolls of Old Testament books over one thousand years older than the ones then known. 7 Eleven caves in the desert of Judea near the Dead Sea have yielded many scrolls and thousands of scroll fragments, belonging to all the books of the Old Testament except Esther. The most exciting aspect is that these scrolls are "antedating by over a millennium the oldest Masoretic codices."8 One oE the great authorities oE Old Testament textual studies, Frank Cross, Jr., writes "that the new scrolls give evidence of the an-

86


tiquity of the type of textual tradition which has survived in the form of the traditional Hebrew Bible."9 In the words of Professor B. K. Waltke, the remarkable importance of these scrolls is summarized as follows, "The presence of a text type among the DSS (c. 200 B.C. to A.D. 100) identical with the one preserved by the Masoretes, whose earliest extant manuscript dates to c. A.D. 900, gives testimony to the unbelievable achievement of sorne scribes in faithfully preserving the texto Of course, this text must have been in existence before the time of the DSS, and its many archaic forms in contrast to other text types give strong reason to believe that it was transmitted in a circle of scribes dedicated to the preservation of the original text." 10 The faithfuI transmission of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is remarkably demonstrated through the phenomenal finds at Qumran. The manifold importance of the manuscript discovery at Qumran cannot be described in detail. T o illustrate their significance and how the Dead Sea Scrolls have contributed to the most exciting news in our century we note briefly the book of Daniel. No less than eight different copies of the book of Daniel are among the Dead Sea Scrolls. 11 The so-called Florilegium, a document containing Messianic proof texts with commentaries, mentions "Daniel the prophet" and quotes from the book of Daniel in the same vein as it quotes from Isaiah and Ezekiel. What light do these sources shed upon the canonical status of Daniel, the text of Daniel, and the date of Daniel?

Dead Sea Scrolls and Daniel Aside from the famous Isaiah scrolls (lQIsaa, lQlsa~ and other items, the first of the eleven caves at Qumran has provided fragments of two scrolIs containing the book of Daniel. One contains Daniel 1: 10-17 and 2 :2-6 (lQDanap2 and the other has Daniel 3:22-30 (lQDan~.13 Significandy the former fragment has the transition from Hebrew into Aramaic occurring in Danie12:4b (1 QDana), indicadng that the two languages changed at precisely the


87

place where the traditional (Masoretic) text has it. For the present we have to be satisfied with publication of the Daniel fragments from Caves 1 and 6 from Qumran. The fragments from Cave 6 are written in a cursive hand on papyrus, in contrast to those from Cave 1, which are in the normal square script on leather (parchments). The Cave 6 fragments contain Daniel 8:16, 17 (?); 8:20,21 (?); 10:8-16; 11:33-36, 38,14 Pieces of no less than four scrolls containing the book of Daniel reportedly have been found in Cave 4 of Qumran. Unfortunately they are still unpublished. 15 Nevertheless, sorne have been briefly identified. One fragment contains Daniel 2: 19-3 5 (4QDana), and another contains the transition from Aramaic to Hebrew in Daniel 7 :28 to 8: 1. 16 This transition demonstrates that the partern of HebrewAramaic-Hebrew, which follows the ancient literary device of A-B-A, is preserved where the Masoretic text has it todayY These manuscript discoveries indicate that Daniel was one of the most popular biblical books among the Qumran covenanters, to judge from the number of copies preserved. Fourteen copies are known from Deuteronomy, twelve from Isaiah, ten from the Psalms,18 and eight from Daniel. To these must be added the so-called Florilegium from Cave 4, which contains bíblical quotations introduced with the phrases "written in the book of Isaiah the prophet," "written in the book of Ezekiel the prophet," and "written in the book of Daniel the prophet."19 Thus we find here not only the designation "Daniel the prophet," just as Jesus designated the author of the book of Daniel in Matthew 24: 15, but short quotations from Daniel 12:10 and 11:32. Let us not overlook the fact that the Florilegium (4QFlor) belongs to the preNew Testament periodo The frequent appearance of Daniel scrolls from the second century to the New Testament period-together with the fact that apocryphal additions to the book of Daniel (Susanna and the Two Elders, Bel and the Dragon, and The Prayer of Azariah and the

88


Song of the Three Young Men) have not appeared at Qumran-indicates that Daniel was considered canonicapo Surprising faets surface from the Qurnran manuscripts regarding the date, textual affinity, and eanonieal status of the book of Daniel. The various fragments of Daniel already described usually are eonsidered to belong to the first century B.C. Here is an unusually difficült problem for those scholars who hold to the late composition of the book of Daniel, i.e., a date in the Maccabean period (c. 167-164 B.C.). The famousBritish scholarSirG. R. Driver has pointed out, in arguing for a later date for the Qumran scrolls in general, that the generaUy aceepted dates for the Qumran scroUs (from the third eentury B.C. to e. A.Do 67) would force an earlier dating for Daniel than the Maeeabean periodo 21 This problem is heightened for critical seholarship by the eonclusion of a reeent study that indicates that the Old Testament canon was closed in Maccabean times and not, as is often asserted, at the end of the fírst century A.D.22 In this conneetion we must be reminded of a statement by Professor Frank Mo Cross, Jr., of Harvard University, and authority on the Qumran materials: "One eopy of Daniel [from 4Q] is inscribed in a script of the late seeond century B.C."23 He then adds this remarkable comment: "In sorne ways its antiquity is more striking than that of the oldest manuscripts from Qumran"24 which date to "the late quarter of the third eentury B.C."25 No wonder liberal critieal scholars sense a serious problem for their late date for the book of Daniel. The text of Daniel has been a matter of difficulty for sorne people beca use the Greek translation in the Septuagint reveals a paraphrastic (amplified), inexact rendering. The Septuagint is attested in only two manuscripts, i.e., the eleventh-century A.D. Codex Chisianus, also designated as Codex 88, and the ineomplete Chester Beatty papyrus Codes 967 26 from the third centuryo The Syro-hexaplaric version of the eighth century also reflects the Septuagint version~ Although frequent renderings of the book of

Bíblical Texts, Translatíons, and Understanding

89

Daniel are omitted in the Septuagint, the typical features of that version are its paraphrase and expansions, which reveal wide-ranging interpretations rather than a faithful transIation. 27 The andent scholar Jerome noted that the Septuagint version "deviates widely from the truth," i.e., from the Hebrew text, and so he informs us that the church do es "not read the prophet Daniel according to the seventy transIators [Septuagint]) using rather Theodotion's edition."28 Theodotion is said to have produced a Greek translation of the Old Testament around A.D. 180. The Theodotionic version of Daniel corresponds fairly well to the Hebrew and Aramaic texto On the basis of detailed investigations-partly on the basis of materials from the Dead Sea Scrolls-it now turns out that the Theodotionic version of the book was actually the work of an earHer translator from pre-New Testament times. 29 Thus the socalled Theodotionic version not only rivals the Septuagint version in age but has gained important strength as a faithful witness to the text of the book of Daniel. The background of the Greek versions of Daniel is significant also in assessing the Hebrew and Aramaic texto The perennial question-whether the Hebrew and Aramaic Daniel text as preserved by the Masoretes and reflected in the Theodotionic version is faithful-now can be answered with certainty. The published fragments of three different scrolls from Qumran (1QDana, 1QDanb, 6QDan), which contain Daniel 1:10-17; 2:2-6; 3:22-30; 8:16, 17, 20, 21; 10:8-16; 11:33-36,38, and thus both Hebrew and Aramaic, reveal that the variants contain differences in speUing affecting only one letter, inconsequential additions, and typical scribaI errors. 30 Such differences are so insignificant that they would not show up in a modern transIation. Thus the traditional Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel has found welcome support. 31 We can say on the basis of the new light from the HebrewAramaic fragments and the Theodotionic version that the text of Daniel is today essentially the same as in the time of Chríst and before. We can, therefore, have a grcater degree

90


of confidence in the traditional (Masoretic) text of Daniel than at any other time in the history of Christianity. The importance of the Dead Sea scrolls for the book of Daniel can hardly be overemphasized, for the foIlowing reasons: (1) The published fragments of three different scrolls of Daniel that date to pre-Christian times have substantially the same text as the traditional one preserved in the Masoretic text, from which all our Bibles are translated. We may have high confidence in the essential accuracy of the preserved text, both Hebrew and Aramaic, of the canonical book of Daniel. (2) The Theodotionic version of Daniel corresponds faithfully to the HebrewAramaic text of the book. It rivals the deviant, expansionistic, and paraphrastic Septuagint version in age and is a majo! source of textual studies of greater antiquity than any other known Greek version of Daniel. (3) The early, pre-Christian canonical status of the book of Daniel is assured on account of the Florilegium quoting Daniel as Scripture on the same level as the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel. Thus serious questions must be raised about the alleged second-century B.C. date of the book of Danie1. 32 (4) The suggested early date for yet-unpublished parts of a scroll from Cave 4 further discredits a late, second-century B.C. date for the book. An earlier, pre-Maccabean date may more adequately account for the archaic script used. (5) The eight separate scrolls of Daniel found at Qumran would appear to require more time than a Maccabean date for the book would allow. (6) Although the Hebrew canon has placed Daniel in the third division of Writings, the Qumran community, as later also Jesus (Matthew 24: 15), speaks of Daniel as "the prophet" who has written the book. (7) The apocryphal additions to Daniel are absent at Qumran, indicating that they are later productions built upon aspects of the canonical Daniel. (8) The transition from Hebrew to Aramaic to Hebrew at Daniel 2:4b and after Daniel 7:28 is preserved in the Qumran fragments, this fact indicating that the book was composed in this manner.

Biblical Texts.• Translations. and Understanding

91

Text Types We have attempted to show by means oí the book oí Daniel how the phenomenal manuscrípt discoveries oí the Dead Sea Scrolls aid in a better understanding of the bibJical texto We have also indicated how scribes were dedicated to the preservation of the Hebrew text of our OId Testament. But there is also evidence for a tendency to revise the text by some andent liberal-minded scribes. They altered the text of their manuscripts for both phíl010gical and theological reasons. They modernized the text by using more recent Hnguistic phenomena; rhey inserted addítions; they supplemented the text with glosses; they substituted words snd phrases. This tendency to revise the text by these liberaJ-minded scríbes resulted in three distinct text types-the Septuagint (ca. 250-150 B.C.), the Samaritan Pentateuch (originated at ca. 110 B. C.), 33 and the text preserved by the Masoretes, the textus receptus, which is corrooorated by the discovery of the Dead Sea Serona. The Dead Sea Scrolls have províded further evidence for rhese three distinct rext types. This has given rise to the theory of three local recensions of the Old Testament, where textual variation depends on geographical separation; thus, the Hrst texr type belongs to Palestine, the second to Babylon, and the thírd to Egypt. 34 This theory has been sharply rejected by sorne schoIars with weíghty arguments. 35 For our purposes we do nor need to go into further details of this technical aspect.lt can be shown, however, rhar in the Hrst century A.D. the rnentality of rhe scribes changed to preservíng and standardizing the Old Testament texr along the lines of rhe good arehaíc texto '"By at least A.D. 100, then, the rabbis had settled on the eonservative and superbly discíplined reeension that possibly had its provenance in Babylonia. Its adaption as rhe offidal text in effect destroyed all variant lines of tradirlon in established Judaism."36 From then on later scríbes sought mainly to preserve the texto

92


Vocalization of the Text In preserving the Hebrew text various schooIs, known as Masoretes (Massoretes), consisting of Jewish scholars and their families in Babylon, Palestine, and Tiberias, were active in the copying and preservatíon of the standardized texto This activity is known to have gone on from A.D. 600-1000. These Masoretes also supplied the vocalization to the Hebrew text according to a firm tradition of vocalization. 37 These Masoretes provide us also with the oldest leather manuscript of the complete Old Testament (A.D. 1008) from which our modern translations are produced. 38 Although a number of Hebrew Bibles have been printed,39 it is this old complete manuscript that is the basís for recent scholarIy editions of the Hebrew text and modern Bible translations. Ancient Translations The attempt to recover the original text of the Old Testament includes a study of the ancient translations, such as the Septuagint (ca. 250-150 B.C.) and other Greek translations of the Old Testament such as those associated with Theodotion, Aquíla, and Symmachus. The latter survive only in fragments and quotations, but they date to the second century A.D. 40 Consideration must also be accorded to the Ararnaic translations (Targums),41 sorne of which date to pre-Christian times, and to the Syríac {Peshitta)42 and Latin translations,43 which come from later times. PrincipIes of Old Testament Textual Criticism For the recovery of the original text, there is no "strictly prescribed method of Old Testament textual criticism."44 However, there are sorne basic and time-honored principIes that are applíed in order that total subjectivity and arbitrariness is avoided. Among these are the following: (1) The Masoretic text 45 of the Old Testament is normally taken as the point of departure because it is a complete


93

standard text which was carefully preserved and transmitted. (2) Where the Masoretic text and other Hebrew manuscripts agree; and where this agreement is supported by the andent versions, then it may be assumed that the original text has been preserved. (3) Where the Hebrew text and the ancient translations differ, the age, quality, and relation of the ancient translations to the Hebrew text must be considered in order to evaluate the weight of the transtation texto (4) Normally the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) regarding language and content is best, beeause the normal tendency of translators was to smooth out diffieulties. (5) The reading that best explains the development of alternate readings should be chosen. (6) The shorter reading is usuaUy best, because the scribal tendency was to add explanations or materials from paraUel passages. (7) The use oE conjecture so prevalent in past decades is to be employed only rarely in eases where Hebrew manuscripts and aneient translations differ so radically that none offers a passable sense. "Such conjectures, however, can never be used to validate the interpretation of the whole passage in that they will have been made on the basis of an expectation derived from the whole."46 We should remind ourselves that sorne scholars do not consider conjectures to belong properly to principIes whereby che original text of the Bible is recovered. 47 The scholar or translator of the Hebrew Bible uses normalIy the standard edition of the Hebrew text based on the Masoretic manuscript of tbe whole Old Testament edited by R. Kittel, Biblica Hebraica 3d ed. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1954. There has been produced a more recent edition of the same Hebrew manuscript by the same publisher in 1977 under the title Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with a new apparatus of textual variants including the materials found in the Dead Sea Serolls.

New Testament Textual Materials As in the case of the Old T estament no autographs are

94


known to exist for any of the New Testament writings. However, more New Testament manuscripts are preserved than any other document of the andent world. At present no less than about 5500 Greek manuscripts or parts thereof are known to exist,48 as well as hundreds of copies of andent translatíons such as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic from the end of the second century A.D., in addition to the later translations into Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Slavonic, and Arabic. 49 The vastness of manuscripts for various ancient versions is immense, if one considers that there are over 8000 copies of the Latín Vulgate known. Another source of great importance for finding the original text are quotations or citations by the early church fathers. The impression should not be le& in anyone's mínd that all of the known manuscripts are complete. But an immense quantity exists. Over three hundred manuscripts are known for the book of Revelation alone, the least frequently attested of the New Testament writings, while thousands of copies are known for the four Gospels. Principies o{ Textual Criticism This wealth of material together with the fact that for 1400 years the New Testament had to be copied by hand, with the copyists making unintentional errors as well as intentional ones, calls for spedalists in the field of New T estament textual studies to sift through all this material in order to recover the wording of the original texts, the autographs. When a choice must be made between two renderings of the same texts, the specialist employs a number of criteria. Two major criteria have been traditionaHyemployed: (1) External critería that deal with the age of the manuscripts, their quality, grouping, and distribution. This means that the reading of a word or words chosen when manuscripts disagree has to have the support of aH or most of the following criteria: (a) must be attested by most manuscripts; (b) must be supported by the earliest manuscripts; (e) must be supported by the "best" manu-


9S

seripts; (d) must be supported by the widest geographical distribution of the manuseripts; and (e) must be attested by established groups of manuseripts of a particular age, eharacter, and perhaps loeation. (2) Internal eritería that deal with seribal habits, literary and ideologieal eharaeteristies of the author. This means that attention is given to the eonformity of a reading to (a) the style of the author, (b) the type of Greek (Koine or Attie Greek), (e) the Semi tic forms of expression (semitisms), (d) the noneonformity to its eontext and doctrinal views, (e) the shortest or most difficult reading, (f) an outright scribal error, and (g) what aceounts best for the presence of all other readings.:S o

Text Types This listing of evaluation criteria demonstrates why the procedures and methodologies of textual studies are complex and difficult. Not every aspect of these major criteria are equally applicable in each instanee. Since the 1920s the mainstream of New Testament textual eritieism has entered the era of vigorous discussion departing from the classical procedures for textual studies laid down by F. J. A. Hort in 1882. 51 He suggested that there are two early text types: The so-called "Neutral" text type, whose chief representatives were Codex Sinaiticus (N) from c. A.D. 350 which contained the entire New Testament, and the famous Codex Vaticanus (B) from c. A.D. 325 which included also the entire New T estament, except Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25 and the book ofRevelation. When thesetwo eodiees, called the "heavenly twins," agreed, then Hort believed that the "best" reading had been established. Since Hort, however, sorne significant papyri text finds have been made; today one speaks of four major text types. First of aH, there is a group of manuscripts that have the appearance of being "local" texts, basically from Alexandria in Egypt. It is made up of papyri from as early as c. A.D. 200 (P15, p66 in the Gospels, p12 from c. A.D. 275 in Peter andJude), codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (B, N), the citations of Origen and certain Alexandrian fathers.

96


The second text type is called "Western" and established in texts found in North Africa, Italy, and southern France. It is about as early as the Alexandrian text type and represented in Codex D, Codex Alexandrinus in John 1-8, and Codex W (Washington) in Mark 1-5, and major fathers from the locations referred to. The third text type is called "Byzantine." It is the majority text type with over 80 percent of all manuscripts belonging to it. It does not appear in history until about A.D. 350. The earliest manuscript to reflect this text type is Codex A (Alexandrinus) from about A.D. 475 for the Gospels only. The earliest full witness is Codex E (Basel) from the eighth century. A fourth text type found by sorne scholars is designated "Caesarean" in the Gospels, and at times supported by codices W (Washington), and e (Koridethi), papyrus p45, Families 1 and 13, and certain church fathers. Modern Eclectíc Methods The debate over the method to be used in textual studies of the New Testament goes on unabated. Most differences of opinion relate to the method developed more recendy called eclecticism. 52 It involves the tension between the internal/external criteria discussed aboye. One school of eclecticism is known as "rigorous edecticism,"53 opting to emphasize, in thorough fashion, the internal criteria. Each reading is treated upon its own intrinsic merit and the decisive factors are stylistic, linguistic, and scribal with disregard for early or late appearance in a manuscript or to the presumed text type to which it belongs. 54 Most scholars favor a "moderate edecticism" which "weighs against one another the relative merits of applicable criteria" 55 from the sides of internal and external evidence. New procedures for quantitative measurement of relationships between manuscripts are pioneered and its principIes analyzed and refined for their strength. 56 This brief description of methods, procedures, and criteria for the recovery of the New Testament text has indicated the complexity involved. The significance of all

Biblical Tuts. Translat;ons. and Understanding

97

this can hardly be underestimated, because it aids in deciding what the inspired writers wrote when the wording disagrees in various manuscripts. These decisions become part of translations which may be illustrated in sorne cases. The person who can read the Greek uses usually one of the following standard editions of the Greek New Testament: E. Nestle and K. Aland, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece, 25th ed. (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1963), containing an eclectic text with a small apparatus of notes containing textual variants; K. Aland and others eds. The Greek New Testament. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1966), also a careful1y prepared edition with a long apparatus of important textual variams produced by a prestigious group of scholars. Examples In the Gospel of John there are several instances of textual variants. Did John the Baptist say, "This is the Son of God" (John 1:34), or "This is God's Chosen One"? The evidence of the manuscripts is divided, even among the early text types. The word "Son" appears in the key witnesses of the Alexandrian text type (P66, p75, A, B, C, K, L, etc.) as well as in a number of Old Latin manuscripts (aue, e, f, 1, q), sorne Syriac witnesses, the Bohairic, Armenian, and Georgian versions. The Greek term rendered "Chosen One" is supported by the Alexandrian text type also of good manuscripts (PI>, H), Old Latin Manuscripts (b, e, f(2) and the Old Syriac version. 57 The issues of internal and external criteria corne into focus. The standard editions of the Greek New Testament have selected as the reading "Son" as testified to by the external criteria of the better Greek manuscripts. 58 Those who put greater weight on the external criteria argue that "Son" was changed to "Chosen One" on the basis of the sheer weight of the vast majority of the Greek textual witnesses. 59 Those who put greater weight on internal criteria argue that "Chosen One" is original and was

98

UndeTstanding the Ulling Word 01 Cod

changed to "Son" because of a theological tendency to avoid an adoptionist Christology where Jesus Christ is the Adopted One by the Father rather than God's Son60 and the attempt at harmonization with the Synoptic accounts of the baptísm of Jesus. Matthew 3: 17; Mark 1: 11; Luke 3:22. 61 In our opinion, probably the sheer weight of the manuscripts and their age puts greater confídence in the wording "Son." Furthermore, we know too Httle about an antiadoptionist attitude by New Testament writers to suggest that the wording "Son" originates from this tendency. Finally, the choice of words for theological purposes overlooks the fact of the trustworthiness of the accounts of the Gospels through the function of the Holy Spirit, who is vouchsafing the meaning of what is recorded. The textual hístory of the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) have been the subject of investigatíon for many years. 62 Briefly, here is the textual problem. As regards the external evidence, the codices Vaticanus (B) andSinaiticus (N) lackMark 16:9-20. In the former codex the scribe "knew of an ending but did not have it in the manuscript he was copying."63 The Syriac version from the fourth or fifth century omits it. It is also omitted from sorne manuscripts of the Armenian, Ethiopic, and Georgian version as well as from the Vaticanus Arabic manuscript 13. 64 The church fathers Eusebius (c. A.D. 325) and Jerome (fifth century) report that Mark 16:9-20 are missing in Greek manuscripts known to them. The manuscript Bobiensis (k) of the Old Latin from the fourth or fifth century gives a shorter ending to Mark 16,65 while Codex L (Regius) from the eighth century and a few other Greek manuscripts and a few manuscripts of the Coptic and Ethiopic versions give this shorter ending and the longer as alternatives. Mark 16:9-20 is present in the codices of Alexandrinus (A, fifth century), Ephraemi Rescriptus (C, fifth century), Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D, sixth century), and K, X, 11, and


99

others from the ninth century and latero It is contained in a fair number of Greek minuscules, the majority of Byzan· tine manuscripts, the manuseripts of various andent ver· sions and such church fathers as Justin, Irenaeus, TertulHan, Hippolytus, and Aphraates. Many seholars have concluded that Mark 16:9-20 is not an original partof Mark's gospel. 66 Sorne have argued that this passage was "probabIy attached to Mark sorne time before the middle of the second century, in order to fill the obvious gap. "67 A recent reinvestigation by a most competent scholar in the field of gospel studies, William F. Farmer, shows that there is evidence for a delibera te omission ofMark 16:9-20, which favors the original inclusion and thus authentidty of these verses. He also argues that jf this ending were not original, ir would be most difficuIt to explain the widespread early knowledge in Irenaeus, Tatian, the Old Latín and Coptic versions. 68 In addition to the considerations of the external evidence for or against the aurhenticity of Mark 16:9·20, the internal evidence of vocabulary, style, and content has been studied and is varíously assessed. A careful verse-byverse examinatíon of aH the words and phrases of Mark 16: 9-20 reveals that the case for Markan authorship seems quite strong. 69 This does not mean that there are no non· Markan elements. But there is every reason to believe, according to Farmer's view, who has produced the most detailed investigatíon of these disputed verses, thar Mark couId have been the author also of these new eIements. Accordíng to Professor Farmer the weight of evidence of both external and internal criteria in Mark 16:9·20 are in favor of Markan authorship. Aceordingly there is sufficient reason to keep this longer ending as part of the text of the GospeI of Mark as is the case in the R.S.V. (2nd edition), E.R.V., A.R. V., N.A.S.B., T.E.V., N.LV., N.A.B., and N.E.B., even though it is indicated that sorne aneient manuscripts do not have it. We have touched lightly major points of the complex procedures under which we can know reasonably weH

100


which wording is original. We are thankful for the abundance of manuscripts and for the eontinuing diseoveries of ancient manuseripts of both the Old Testament and the New Testaments that give us great confidence in the trustworthiness of the wording of the Bible. Modero translations have the advantage of all these finds as well as a better understanding of the bíblical Hebrew and Greek whích have been studied with almost unbelievable industriousness. Earlier translations, such as the highly respected King James Version (K.J.V.), first translated in A.D. 1611, were not able to benefit from these sources. It may be interesting to note that the K.J.V. was bitterly attacked for eighty years after its initial publicatíon and "denounced as theologically unsound and eeclesiastieally biased, as truckling to the king and unduly deferring to hís belief in witchcraft, as untrue to the Hebrew text and relying too mueh on the Septuagint."70 But the K.J.V. soon won widespread acceptanee and remained the only non-Catholic authorized version until the English Revised Version (R.V.) of the Bible was published in 1885 and the American Revised (Standard) Version (A.R.V.) was published in the year 1901. Both of these translations met the needs of those students of the Bible who desired a meticulously exact, literal, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew (and Aramaie) and Greek. But almost a century has gone by; and the discoveries of the Dead Sea Seroll manuscripts in 1947 and onward, the famous Chester Beatty papyri of the 1930s and the Bodmer papyri of the 1950s for the New Testament-namely, some of the earliest manuscripts of the Bible-obviously could not enrich these translations (R.V., A.R.V.)

Translations Many people rightfully ask the question, Which is the best Bible? What Bible is the closest to the original text? These questions cannot easily be answered, because how the Bible will be used by the one who asks will play a

BibUcal Texts, Translations, and Understanding

101

significant part in answering such complex questions. 71 It will make a difference whether the questioner is a beginner in the study of the Bible or whether he is a professional scholar. It will also make a difference whether he will use the Bible for devotional or public reading, and also whether the Bible is employed for personal Bible study or for proclamation and teaching. Although this is not the place to evaluate in detail the recent translations, we will note the three major categories of new Bibles: (1) paraphrase, (2) dynamic translations, and (3) formal translations.

Paraphrase The best-selling The Living Bible (Wheaton, Ill., 1971) is, according to its paraphraser Kenneth N. Taylor, not a translation at all but a free paraphrase based on several English versions. Its success indicates that it is a very readable paraphrase. uFor an accurate rendering of the teaching of the sacred Word, however, it often comes far short,"72observes a team of careful researchers. It is very unsafe to follow The Living Bible for the study of the biblical doctrines, because Mr. Taylor takes many liberties in leaving out or adding materials as a number of reviewers have correcdy noted. 73

Dynamic Translations The distinction between formal and dynamic translations is made by translation theoreticians. 74 The dynamic translations are built upon a translation system of three stages: (1) an analysis of the surface structure of the originallanguage (called source language) with emphasis on the analysis of grammatical relationships, word meanings, and meanings of combinations of words, (2) the transfer process in the mind of the translator from language A (Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek) to language B (English), and (3) a restructuring of the transferred material into the receptor language (English). This is diagramed on the following page: 75


102

A (Source language:

Hebrew, Aramaic oy Greek)

~

(Analysis)

X-------(Transfer)

(Receptor

lan~ge:

English)

.8

This transIation theory favors a meaning-for-meaning rendering over él word-for-word rendering. Several dynamic theory translations have been produced in recent years. In 1970 The New English Bible (N.E.B.) appeared in both the Old and New Testaments-a totally new translation from the Hebrew and Greek~ foHowing dynamic translation methods with meaning-for-meaning renderings. This means rhat it is less literal and exact than the formal translations and resorts~ at times~ to paraphrase and interpretation that are rather questionable. If the reader keeps in mind that he deals with a meaning-formeaning (thought-for-thought) translation, then he is not misled by the changes he discovers that may or may not be ¡ntended by the Hebrew and Greek texts. Another recent translation that follows the dynamic translation theory is the Good News Bible: The Bible in Today's English Version (T.E.V.) with the NewTestament published in 1966 and the Old Testament in 1976. This too is a new translation from the original texts. But~ in contrast to the traditional word-for-word or formal translations, it is a "transIation of the meaning of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. "76 The key word here is "meaning~" indicating that it is a "dynamic" translation of meaning for meaning~ i.e.~ dynamic equivalence. Dynamic translatíons ha ve a number of advantages such as being usually easier to read, beca use they are less bound to the wording of the original texts. The flow of thought conforms to che English language idíom.

Biblical Texts. Translations. and Understanding

103

But with the strength there is al so the weakness. T O seek thought-for-thought or meaning-for-meaning equivalence, the translator must interpret-and it is here where problems He. For instance, the T.E.V. transIates the Hebrew words "heavens and earth" in Genesis 1:1 with "universe. H This is clearly a questionabIe interpretatíon. The forty-one usages in the Old T estament of the word pair, "heavens and earth'" refer to planet Earth and the immedíately surrounding heavenly spheres. The phrase does not inelude the whole universe as T.E.V. suggests.

Formal Translations For reasons like the Genesis 1: 1 example the formal translations with an emphasis on a word-by-word equivalen ce are superior. The transIatíon system of the formal translarions is more direct and thus interpretation is under better control. In contrast to the dynamic translation system, the formal one has only two stages: (1) An analysis of the surface structure of the original languages (called source language) with emphasis on the analysis of grammarical relationships, word meanings, and meanings of combinatíons of words and (2) the transfer process in the mind of the transIator from language A (Hebrew, Aramai, or Greek) to language B, (English, called the receptor language). This is diagramed as follows:

A

(Receptor language: English)

(Source language: Hebrew. Arama;c 01 Greek)

,..........- - (Analysis)

(Restructuring)

x-------- (Transfer)

B

--...J••.

..,v

Many BibIes use this formal translation system which gives a more literal and exact rendering of the Word of

104


God because it is built on a word-for-word equivalence. The Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.) for the New Testament appeared in 1946 and the R.S.V. Old Testament was published first in 1952. The R.S.V. is not really a new translation but a revision of the K.J.V. and has met with great success despite some attack. Over 12 million copies were sold in the first decade of its publicatíon. 77 Used widely by churches in public worship, it may serve as a useful study Bible. Two Roman Catholic translations from the original languages are now available in English. The Jerusalem Bible (J.B.), published in 1966, "is considerably freer than the R.S.V."78 and "the translation of the New Testament especially seems much freer than it needs to be."79 On the whole, the translation is not homogeneously of equal quality in both the Old Testament and New Testament. The most recent complete new Roman Catholic version in English is the New American Bible (N.A.B.) published in 1970 after sixty scholars labored for three decades. On the whole the N.A.B. is a remarkable achíevement, although uneven in quality among the individual books of the Bible and lacking in consistency in the translation of the same words in the same contexts. 80 In 1971 the New American Standard Bible (N.A.S.B.) was published in the United States. This version follows the principies of the formal translations and aims for "word-for-word literalness:'81 Where such exact and literal usage was unacceptable to the modem reader, "a change was made in the direction of a more current English idiom. In the instances where this had been done, the more literal rendering had been indicated in the [marginal] notes."82 On the whole the N.A.S.B. is a significant achievement by its thirty-two translators who aimed at a conservatíve and literal rendering of the Bible. The "word-for-word literalness" makes the N.A.S.B. an outstanding study Bible for the serious student of Scripture. In 1973 the New Testament of the New International Version (N.I.V.) was published and in October 1978 the

BiblicaJ Texts, Translations, and Understanding

105

Old T estament appeared. Within four months after its 1978 publication the first edition of one and a half million copies of the whole N.LV. was sold out. Its popularity is already assured. The N.1.V. is a completely new translation by a team of over 100 scholars from various Englishspeaking parts of the world working from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Beginning in 1965, it reached its conclusion thirteen years latero The translators have striven for "accuracy of the translation," "for more than a word-for-word translation," and for "fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers."83 Among the goals for the N.I.V. was "that it would be an accurate translation and one that would have clarity and líterary quality and so prove suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing and liturgical use."84 In comparison with the N.A.S.B. the NJ.V. is not stilted and nonidiomatic. On the whole the translation is clear and reliable, idiomatic and contemporary, but for study purposes somewhat less literal than the N.A.S.B. and even the R.S.V. It is a Bible that every person whether young or old will wish to own, combining the best of the dynamic translations with a high degree of accuracy of translation and faithfulness to the thought of the inspired writers of Scripture. For study purposes the N.A.S.B. is still to be preferred, but the readability and literary quality of the N.I.V. is superior to the N.A.S.B. and even the N.E.B. and the T.E.V. The story of the Bible from the time of its origin to the present provides a fascinating insight into God's guidance as He used men and women to preserve it faithfuIly and accurately. Still no other book has ever surpassed the best-selling record of the Word of God. May it always be considered as the perfeet revelation of God's will for all men; may it always lead to a better understanding of the triune God and a fuller knowledge of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, of whom Scriptures so faithfuUy and profoundly testify.

106


Notes and References 1. B. K. Waltke, "The Textual Criticism oi the Old Testament," in Biblical Criticism: HistoricaJ, Literary and Textual, ed. R. K. Harrison ee al. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1978), p. 48. 2. W. F. Albcight, From the Stone Age to Chrístíanity (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1957), pp. 78, 79. 3. K. A. Kitchen, Andent Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: InterVarsity Pcess, 1968), p. 140. 4. K. A. Kitchen, "Egypt," in New Bible Dictionary, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1967), p. 350. 5. A good listing oE examples is provided by D. R. Ap·Thomas, A Primer of Old Testament Text Critidsm (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964), pp. 41-50. 6. See now S. Z. Leiman, The Canonkation of the Hebrew Scripture (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1976). 7. Some good introductions are by F. M. Cross, Jr., The Andent Library of Qumran, 2d ed. (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1961); M. Mansoor, The Dead Sea Scrol/s (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964). See also G. Yermes, "Dead Sea Scrolls," in IDB Sup 210-219 (good bibliography). 8. [bid., p. 212. 9. Cross, The Andent Ubrary of Qumran, p. 169. 10. Waltke, "The Textual Criticism oE the Old Testament," p. 52. 11. This number is provided by J. A. Sanders, "The Dead Sea Scrolls-A Quarter Century of Study," BA 36 (1973), p. 136. 12. Published by D. Barthélemyand T. J. Meek, Discoveries in the Judean Desert 1, Qumran Cave 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), pp. 150, 151. 13. lbid., pp. 151, 152. See also]. C. Trever, "Completion of the Publication of Some Fragments from Qumran Cave 1," Revue Qumran S (1964-1966), pp. 323-344. 14. Publíshed by M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Discoveries in the Judean Desert Ilf: Textes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962}, pp. 114-116. 15. See J. A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Ma;or Publications and Tools for Study (2d ed., Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977}, p. 20. 16. F. F. Bruce, "The Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community," in Neotestamentica et Semitica. Studies in Honor ofM. Black, ed. by E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969), p. 222. 17. R. K. Harrison, lntroduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 1107, mentions the circumstance, in 1956, of"two manuscripts of the Hebrew text being recovered from 11 Q ... to supplement portions of the work found in other Qumran caves." The present writer has discoverOO in the Iiterature to date nothing that would confirm the l1Q manuscripts. 18. The numbec of copies preserved in Cave 4. 19. Published by J. M. Allegro and A. A. Andetson, Discoveries in the Judean Desert of fordan V (Oxford: aarendon Press, 1968), pp. 53-57. 20. F. F. Bruce, Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2d oo. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964), p. 57; Harrison, lntroduction to the Old Testament, p. 1107. 21. G. R. Driver, The Hebrew Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 9, n. 5. 22. See Leiman, The Canoni~ation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Bíblical Texts, Translations, and Understanding

107

23. Cross, The Andent Library uf Qumran, p. 43. 24. Ibid. 25. F. M. Cross, Jr., "The OIdest Manuscripts from Qumran," JBL 74 (1955), p. 164. 26. Codex 88 is in rhe Vadean Library; Cadex 967 is published by F. G. Kenyon, ed., The Chester Beatty Bíblical PapyTl~ fase. VII (Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther), 2 vols. (Londan: Emery Walker Limited, 1937, 1938). 27. See F. F. Bruce, "The Oldest Grcek Version af Daniel," in Instruction and Interpretatíon Studíes ín Hebrew Language, PaJestinian Archeo/ogyand Bíblical Exegesis, ed. by A. S. van der Woude (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), pp. 22·40. 28. As quated in Bruce, "The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel," p. 23. 29. A. Schmitt, Stammt deT sogenannte El Text beí Daniel wirklich van Theodotion? (Góttinlien: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966). 30. See for 1QDan. and 1QDanb 4BC744. Theother fragments from 6QDan were studled by this writer. 31. Bruce, Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 57. 32. Gordon J. Wenham, "Daniel: The Basiclssues," Themelios 2/2 (1977}, p. 51. 33. J. D. Purvis, "Samaritan Pentateuch," IOB Sup 775. 34. So F. M. Cross, "The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts." Septuagínt and Cognate Studies 11 (1972):108-126. 35. M. H. Goshen-Gottsteín, "Hebrew Bíblical MSS," Biblica 48 (1967):243-290; S. Talmon, "Double Readings in Massoretic Text," Textus 1 (1960):144-184; ídem, "The OT Text," The Cambridge History uf the Bible (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1970), 1:194-199; D. Barthélemy, "History of the Hebrew Text," IDB Sup 878-884. 36. Waltke, "The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament," pp. 58,59. 37. Firmly established by J. Barr, Comparative Phi/ology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 207-222. 38. It is reproduced with textual notes in R. Kittel, ed., Biblia Hebraica, 3d ed. (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1937-). Formerly abbreviated BH3 it is now desígnated as BHK. Ir has been republished with better script, fuIl Masorah, and a complete revision of the textual apparatus by K. ElIiger and W. Rudolph, eds., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1977)-abbreviated as BHS. 39. See the excellent artic1e by N. M. Sarna, "Bible Text," in Encyclopedia Judaica (JerusalemlNew York: The Macmillan Company, 1971),4:831-835. 40. See K. G. O'ConneH, "Greek Versions (Minor)," IDB Sup 377-381. 41. See M. McNamara, "Targums," IDB Sup 857-861. 42. A. VOóbus, "Syriac Versions," lOB Sup 848-854. 43. J. Gribomont, "Latín Versions," lOB Sup 527·532. 44. Waltke, "The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament," p. 77. 45. See n. 38. 46. Waltke, "The Textual Criticism of the OId Testament," p. 78. 47. J. A. Thompson, "Textual Criticism, OT," lOS Sup 889. 48. See V. Taylor, The Text of the New Testament (Landon: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1961); B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford Uníversity Press, 1964); J. H. Greenlee, lntroduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964); E. C. Colwell, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1969); E. J. Epp, "Textual Criticism, NT," IDB Sup

me

108


891-895;1. N.Birdsall, "The New TestamentText," in TheCambridge History of the Bible, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1970), pp. 308-377. 49. B. M. Metzger, The Barly Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations (Oxford: darendon Press, 1977). SO. Full discussions of the method and pracrlce of textual criticism are provjded by J. H. Greenlee, lntroducuon to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964) and B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968). 51. See B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, With lntroduction and Appendix, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan Be Co. 1881, 1882). 52. Epp, "Textual Criticism. NT," IDB Sup 892, 893. 53. Chief representatives are G. D. Kilpatrick, "An Eclectic Study of the Texr of Acts," in Bíblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of R. P. Casey, eds. J. N. Bjrdsall and R. W. Thomson (Freiburg: Herder, 1963), pp. 64-77; idem, "The Grea New Tesrament Text ofToday and the Textus Receptus," in The NT in Historical and Contemporary Perspeculle: Essays in Memory of G. H. C. Macgregor, eds. H. Anderson and W. Barclay (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), pp. 189-208; and his student J. K. E1liott, The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothyand Titus (Salt Lake City, Ut.: University ofUtah Press, 1968); ídem, "Can We Recover rhe Original NT?" Theology 77 (1974):338-353. 54. G. D. Fee, "Rigorous or Reasoned EcIecticism-Which?" in Studies in New Testamenl Language and Text, ed. J. K. E1Iian (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), pp. 174-197. SS. Epp. "Textual Criticism, NT," IOB Sub 892. 56. W. L Richards, The Classificatíon of the Greek Manuscrípts of the Johannine Epistles (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977); idem, "A Critique oí a New Testamenr Text-Critical Methodology-The Claremont Pro file Method," JBL 96 (1974):555-566. Richards discusses issues raised by the Claremont Pro file method pioneered in the 19605 and the procedures employed at the Münster Institute for New Testament Textual Research oE which K. Aland is the chairman. 57. See K. Aland, M. Black, B. M. Meu:ger, and A. Wikgren, C. Martini, eds., The Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1968), p.324. 58. Ibid.; and E. NestIe and K. AJand, eds., Novum Testamentum Graece, 25th ed. (Stuttgart: Württembergische BibelanstaJt, 1963), p. 232. 59. Thus it js preferred by the standard editions of the Greek NT and the majority of English translarions. 60. G. O. Fee, "The Textual Criticism of rhe New Testament," in Biblical Critic;sm: Historical, Literary and Textual, eds. R. K. Harrison et al. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1978), pp. 152, 153. 61. R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to Jobn [-XII (Garden City, N.Y.: Ooubleday Be Company, Inc., 1966), p. 57. 62. WestcOtt and Hon, The New Testament in tbe Original GTeek, Appendix, pp. 28-51; B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (New York: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1924), pp. 333-360; B. B. Warfield, An Introduction 10 tbe Textual Críucism of the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1886), pp. 199-204; C. S. C. Williams, Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Aas (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1951), pp. 40-44; R. G. Bratcher and


109

E. A. Nida, A Trans/ator's Handbook on the Cospel of Mark (Leiden: E. J. Bríll, 1961), pp. 517-522; W. F. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (LondonlNew York: Cambridge Uníversity Press, 1974), pp. 1·124. 63. Bratcher and Nida, A Trans/ator's Handbook on the Cospel of Mark, p. 517. 64. Aland ec al., The Creek New Testament, p. 196. 65. An Englísh translacion is provided by the R.S.V. after verses 9·20. 66. So Westcott and Horc, The New Testament ;n the Original Greek, Appendix, p. 46; V. Taylor, The Gospel According to Sto Mark (London: Macmillan and Ca., Limited, 1953), p. 610; etc. 67. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospe/ According to Sto Mark (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1963), p. 472. 68. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses in Mark, pp. 1-87. 69. ¡bid., pp. 88ff. 70. L. A. Weigle, "English Versions since 1611," in The Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. S. L. Greenslade (Cambridge: At che University Press, 1963), 1:361. 71. See the very helpful book by S. Kubo and W. Specht, So Many Versions? Twentieth Century English Versions of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1975). 72. ¡bid., p. 190. 73. For instanee, R. C. Bowman, "The Living Bible: A Critique," Brethren Life and Thought 18 (1973):137-144. 74. See E. A. Nida and C. R. Taber, The Theory and Practice ofTranslation (Leiden: E.]. Brill, 1969). 75. See Ibid., p. 33. 76. Preface to T.E.V. 77. Weigle, "English Versions Sinee 1611," p. 377. 78. Kubo and Specht, So Many Versions? p. 125. 79. Ibid., p. 127. 80. J. Barr, "After Five Years: A Rerrospeet on Two Major Translations of the Bible," Heythrop Journal 15 (1974):381·405; K. Crimm, "Review," Interpretation 26 (1972):77-80; B. M. Metzger, "Review of NAB," Princeton Seminary Bulletin 54 (1971):90-99. 81. "Principies of Revision," in New American Standard Bible (Ca rol Stream, 111.: Creation House, Inc., 1971), p. vii. 82. Ibid. 83. "Preface" to che New Internacional Version (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1978), p. viii.

84. lbid.

v Understanding Biblical Words, Sentences, ana Contexts

This and the following chapters treat the subject of understanding the Bible by means of principIes of ínterpretatÍon that are in harmony with the nature of the Bible as the inspired Word of God. The student of the Bible naturally begins his attempt to understand Scripture with words-the smallest element of written communication. But words are rarely isolated from other words that are joined together to make up phrases, clauses, or sentences. Sentences are joined to make up paragraphs, paragraphs to larger units of thought which are joined to make up the individual biblical books or documents. Words and sentences must be understood within their particular contexts in time and space.

Biblical Words and Sentences We emphasize again that words, biblica] words, do not stand by themselves. They are provided with a contexto The context of a particular word in the sentence or thought unit has primacy over everything else. In other words, the neglect of context is a common cause of erroneous interpretation and irrelevant application. For example, a well-known dispensationalist writer interprets John 1:35-43 as presenting a typical picture of the Christian dispensatíon. He asserted that the phrases "the next day after John stood" (verse 35) and "the tenth hour" (verse 39) mean that "the end of John's activities were now 110

UndeTstanding Biblical Words, Sentences, and Contexts

111

reached."l This conclusion is not in harmony with the context of the Gospel of John. In John 3:23 John the Baptist is depicted as a very active preacher who engages in baptizing. The context can never be neglected in one's interpretation. Words and Grammatical Contexts Different kinds of contexts exist such as the context of a word in a sentence. The grammatical structure and syntactical relationship determine the context of words to ea eh other in a sentence. The importance of grammar is easily recognized by the following comparison: Jim hit J ack. The first word (subject) performs the action of the second word (predicate), and the third word identifies the goal of the action (object). The meaningfulness of grammar can be ilIustrated in the contrasting pairs as "NaturalIy he did it" or "He did it naturalIy." Do you see the difference, depending on the grammatical order of "naturally?" A bíblical example may be in place here also. "God is love" (1 John 4:8) or "love is God." In the first case something is saíd about the nature of God, whereas in the second case love is deified, and God is made to be less than personal. Each word within its sentence has a proper grammatical and syntactical place, relationship, and context; the meaning of the word and thus the sentence is determined by the grammatical and syntactical placement. Words tJnd Root Meanings Through the centuries a number of different attempts have been made to investigate individual words. At one point in the study of Bible words great emphasis was placed upon the "root meaning." The "root meaning,', the original meaning of a given word, was retrieved by investigating the earliest meaning of a given termo This retrieved, recovered, or reconstructed "root meaning," or original meaning, was then used as the key to the meaning of each instance in which this word appears. An example for this procedure may be instructive. The Greek word for

112


"church" is ekklesia. This Greek term is used in ancient Greek for the legal assembly of dtizens who were "called" for this task. This "meaning" arises out of the second part of chis compound termo The first part is the preposition ekwhich means "out of." Thus the Christian meaning of this word joins both aspects, that is, "to be caHed" and "out of." Thus the "church" are those "called out or' this world. 2 This idea is summed up by W. Barday as follows: "In essence, therefore, the Church, the ekklésia. is a body of people, not so much assembling because they have chosen to come together but assembling because God has called them to himself; not so much assembling to share their own choughts and opinions, but assembling to listen to the voice of God."s The definition has much merit but cannot be read into every New T estament text in which the word "church" appears, because there are many individual contextual associations of the term "church." In the writings of Paul the word ekklésia, "church," is associated wirh the idea of elecrion." At times it can refer simply to the "congregatíon" at particular places5 or to "house-churches."6 At other times it refers to the universal church. '1 The "church" can refer to the body of Christ,8 or it can connote the people of God of the last days. 9 Thus we observe, on the basis of the context of the word in its individual settings, that the word "church" can have local, universal, and eschatological aspects. 10 Any basic meaning cannot be read into every usage of this term in the New Testament. The variety of meanings a single word may carry is iUustrated by an example from the Creatíon narratíve. Genesis 1 :27 reports that God created "man ('adam )'>11 in His own ¡mage on the sixth day. The reader knows that the Hebrew rerm 'ádám is used for [he personal name oí Adam (Genesis 4:25; 5:1, 3, 4, 5; 1 Chronides 1:1) and com~ monly stands generically for "man" in the sense of man~ kind. The context of Genesis 1:27 states that "man" was created as "male and female" which shows unmistakably that in this text "man" does not mean merely Adam but

Understanding Biblical Words, Sentences, and Contexts

113

ineludes Eve, referring to man in the generic sense. The extensive complementary narrative of man's creation in Genesis 2 states, "The Lord God formed man ['adam] of dust from the ground" (verse 7, R.S.V.). The context here indicates that this time reference is made not to Adam and Eve, or man generically, but to "man" as male (verse 18), i.e., to Adam. A basic principIe of the interpretation of words, then, is to pay careful attention to the immediate context of the word in its dause or sentence and to recognize the contextual priority for the determination of its meaning along with the larger context which precedes and foHows the particular passage. Examples of these and similar types could be multiplied many times overo Careful students of the Bible will avoid reading a "root meaning"12 or any singular meaning automatically into every word of Scripture at the expense of its contexto

Words and Sentences Within the Biblical Hermeneutical Circle The PrincipIe This is the opportune moment to speak of the hermeneutical cirele. This principIe of the hermeneuticaI cirele states that one can understand the whole of a point, aspect, or truth only through ¡ts single, or individual parts. The single parts contribute to the whole. And vice versa, the whole contributes understanding to each single part, bringing new aspects to bear on them. The process of understanding is thus one that spirals to every higher level as each new part fiUs out, amplifies, and enlarges the understanding reached in the initial investigatíon.

The PrincipIe Applied Observe how the hermeneutical cirele of ever larger understanding functions in the case of a concept dear to Seventh-day Adventists. The Bible speaks often about the remnant. One of the Hebrew roots expressíng the idea of "remnant," the major root in the OId Testament, issa'ar.

114

Underftanding the Uuing Word of God

appearing in its various verbal or noun forms no less than 226 times. The English meaning of"remnant" is "what is left over, remainder, residue" in the sense of "a fragment, trace, or any small part left after the greater part has been removed."13 Stress is placed in the English word upon the smallness of what is left overo In the Old Testament, however, the idea of the remnant can be used for that part which is left over (1) after a smaU portion is removed, i.e., the larger part of the balance; (2) or after one half is removed, Le., the second haH; (3) after the larger part is removed, i.e., the smaller part of the balance; and (4) it can designate the whole without the 10ss of any part. 14 The term "remnant" can express complete meaninglessness and insignificance or, in contrast, the immense potentiality inherent in the remnant for life and existence no matter how small the remnant. The gospel prophet Isaiah, for example, spoke of the remnant as thar part which is left over after war had ravaged Israel without implying that the remaining Israel is the divinely chosen remnant. Chapter 1:4-9. At other times Isaiah spoke of an entirely different remnant, characterized as a people of genuine faith, which has gone through the purifying fire of divine judgments and emerges as the eschatological remnant described as holy.lI; Chapters 4:2ff.; 6:13. Once these various aspects in their respective contexts are studied, then the idea of "remnant" as expressed by other Hebrew terms such as paJat, málat, yathar, sarid, and 'ábarith need to be investigated in a11 their relations. 16 This can be done also by any person who does not know the original language by means of Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible. This investigation will reveal that there are three major types of remnant known in Scripture. The first one may be called an "historical remnant," made up of any survivors of a catastrophe regardless of whether or not they are religious and faithful. The second type of remnant is the "faithful remnant." This type is distinguished from the


115

former beca use of their true faith relationship with God. It is the religious-spiritual part of a national entity (Israel) or a religious entity (Jews or Christians) that exists before a mortal threat has struck. This remnant of faith carries all the promises of God's people of Scripture. The third type of remnant, most appropriately called the "eschatological remnant," consists of the last of the remnant of faith that goes through the woes ofthe end time and emerges victoriously at the day of the Lord to receive the everlasting kingdom. Let us note two New Testament contributions to the remnant church. The aposde Paul addressed himself in Romans 9-11 10 the question of the remnant. By citing Old Testament passages,17 Paul teaches that only a remnant of the Israel of the "flesh" (Romans 9:8; 11:13-24) is saved and that believing Gentiles are grafted into the new community of faith. This "remnant" (chapter 11 :5) of faith is a present reality made up of both Jews and Gentiles (chapter 9:24), the "elect" (chapter 11:7) who are "chosen by grace" (chapter 11:5, R.S.V.). As such, the remnant is the Israel of promise (chapter 9:8), the true spiritual Israel of faith. In the book of Revelation several contributions are made to the idea oE the remnant. Chapters 2:24; 3:2; 11:13; 12:17; 19:21. The high point comes when the drago n makes war against the "rest" or remnant of the woman's offspring "who keep the commandments oE God and bear the testimony oE Jesus." Chapter 12: 17. This last faithful remnant of the end time withstands the lamblike beast's fiercest persecution (chapter 13:11-18) and is saved by the Rider on the horse, while all others are slain in the apocalyptic batde (chapter 19:21). Victory belongs to the Jast remnant oE faith who keep the commandments and have the faith of Jesus. This remnant of faith i5 the eschatological remnant to whom Jesus Christ gives the kingdom of heaven. These various ideas associated with biblical words for the remnant fiU out in ever increasing spirals, from the fírst

116


book in the Bible to the last, key concepts regarding God's faithful people throughout history. Their settings within catastrophies and judgments express key aspects of the biblical coneept of judgment, hope, and eschatology (last things). The "remnant" teaching of Scripture is, in itself, a key ehapter of the biblical doctrine of the church. This example of the biblical idea of the remnant may serve to show, in one instance at least, that the total bíblical context must be considered before there is a fuH understanding of a given theme, topie, motif or subject. Every single element in every book of Scripture makes its eontribution to the understanding of the whole. In summary, we have described several kinds of contexts under what is ealled biblical context in contrast with extrabiblical context (which we will refer to later). The biblical context is made up of (1) the context of the word in its sentence, (2) the context of the sentence in its immediate thought unit, (3) the context of the thought unit within the bíblica] book, and (4) the context of the biblical book within all the books of the Scripture. Context in these relationships means the parts of a sentence, the sentence, the unit and paragraph, and the book within its immediate and larger biblical setting that determine íts meaning. In a special sense we can speak here of Scripture interpreting Seripture. The reason why the primary context and ultimate norm from the smallest word to the en tire Scripture is Scripture rests uniquely in the fact that God is the Author of the Bible whereas the inspired writers are but secondary authors.

Words and Sentences Within tbe Extrabiblical Background At this juncture we raise the issue of the extrabiblical context-how the Bible was affected by the andent Near Eastern background or environment in which the Bible writers lived. The matter of the background of the Bible in the context of the andent world beco mes an íssue of utmost importance. In the first chapter we indicated that

Understanding Bíblical Words, Sentences, and Contexts

117

dassiealliberalism, in rejecting the inspiration of the Bible,18 developed the historieal-critical method by which they interpreted the Bible as they would any other aneient document-i.e., on the basis of the aneient Near Eastern background. 19 Neoorthodox theology has largely aceepted this axiom. 20 In víew of this situatíon plus a eentury and a half of archaeological work in the Near and Middle East, every student of the Bible must come to grips with the purpose and function of the immense and valuable ínformation regarding aneient Near Eastern languages, religions, polítical and social struetures, and cultures. This informatíon has profoundly influenced the interpretation of the Bible. But the interpreter's conception of the Bible-its origin, nature, and function-will determine how this information of the andent world wilI be used. The History-of-Religions Approach In biblica] studies the term "parallelomania" has been coined to depict attempts to trace baek to the andent Near East almost every detaiI of the bíblica] story sueh as the Creation narratíve, the Flood narrative, the Israelite feasts and saerifices, and the OId Testament laws. For instance, at the turn of the century the so-caHed Pan-Babylonian school under the Ieadership of Hugo Winckler, Friedrich Delitzsch, and Alfred Jeremías attempted to show that there was nothing in the OId Testament that was not but a paIe refleetion of Babylonian ideas. 21 This school caused what is known as the Babel-Bible controversy between those who claimed that there was litde that was new in the OId Testament and those who raised a storm of protesto Defenders of the OId T estament claimed origina lity for the Bíble and objeeted to the theory of the superiority of Babylonian religion over biblical religíon. 22 Although extremes of the Pan-Babylonian school were eorrected, the comparative approaeh to the OId and New Testaments was established under the name of the "history-ofreligions school." The comparative approach still exists.

118

Understanding the Uving Word of God

The "history-of-religions" approach presupposes that "Israel's history . . . lis] ... a natural development of human institutions and thought from primitive to higher forms. Old Testament studies subsequently •.. understood [Israel' s religion] in developmental and naturaJistic terms:'23 The same is true for New Testament studies 24 where the New Testament was viewed without reservations in the light of the history of its own times. "This critical method addressed ¡tseU in the same way to the Synoptic lesus, to Paul, to the Gospel of lohn, as well as to the conventional evaluation and methodological treatment of the New Testament Canon as a whole."25 In recent decades many scholars have beeome more eautious, but the history-of-religions approaeh is still very much alive and is widely practiced. The Matter of Borrowing The eoncept of borrowing on the part oí the Hebrews may be illustrated by reference to the laws of Moses and the famous Code of Hammurabi (1728-1686 B.C.)26 which carne to light in 1902. It revealed for the first time that there existed in the andent world a comprehensive jurisprudenee antedating the traditional "Mosaie law" by several centuries. The antiquity of eomprehensive jurisprudence is further supported by the law code of LipitIshtar (nineteenth eentury B.C.),27 the laws of Eshnunna (twentieth century B.C.), 28 and perhaps also with the juridical texts from Ebla which may contain codices of law from as early as the twenty-fifth century B.C. 29 On the basis of early comparisons a great similarity exists between the Babylonian Code of Hammurabí and the laws of Moses in the Pentateueh. The conclusion was drawn that the early Hebrews derived their legal principies direetly from the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi. 30 More recent assessments by scholars who have no ax to grind are rather different. Professor T. l. Meek addressed himself to the question of the origín of Hebrew law in relationship to all known and published laws that antedate

Understandíng BíblicaJ Words, Sentences, and Contexts

119

the Mosaic law and concluded, "There is no doubt that there is great similarity between the Hebrew and Babylonian codes ..• , but the connecrion is not such as to indicate direct borrowing. No one today argues that."31 He is fully supported by Professor H. M. Orlinsky.3Z Indeed, the laws of Moses have certain points of contact, but it is not a matter of direct borrowing at aH. Professor D. J. Wiseman noted that "while similar judgments in both the Hebrew and Babylonian laws may arise from similar circumstance ... , they should not be overstressed in the light of the over-riding religious purpose and expression in the Hebrew legislation."33 The Bible must not be interpreted on the basis of the andent Near Eastern milieu and culture at the expense of ¡ts own internal witness. In the case oi biblicallaws it has been noted that a "comparíson of biblica] and extrabíblical laws has too oiten ignored the cultural backgrounds of both."34 This means that one must work out the proper distinctions whether legal, as in this case, or sociological, religious, linguistic, political, etc., within the culture of a people or religious group and one must observe and apply the differences in the values that are basic to each culture.

The Uniqueness of the Bible On the basis of sound principies one will recognize (1) where similarities exist, (2) whether there is actual borrowing going on, or (3) whether certain terros and concepts are used by an inspired writer and imbued with "new content" that is in harmony with the revelation given him and contributes to his own unique religion. lt is a methodolog-

ical necessity to apply these principIes when parallels appear between extrabiblical materials and the Bible. Lifting single terms and motifs out of their moorings in one culture and interpreting them in terms of another culture in the andent world is improper and unsound. 35 To treat such terms in isolation from their larger context is to run the danger of misreading and miscontructing elements

120

Understanding tbe Living Word o{ God

of one religion and culture in terms of another. Such a practice is bound to lead to gross distortion. Bíblical Creation and the Ancient World. The importance of this principie regarding parallels in ancient literature is illustrated by an investigation of representative terms in the biblical Creation narrative of Genesis 1: 1 to 2:4a and the myths ofbeginnings known from the ancient Near East. The first text of the Bible, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1, R.S.V.), remains without parallel in the ancient world. It is absolutely unique, and the traditional translation remains the best. 36 The situation, however, is different in Genesis 1 :2. The word "deep" in the clause "and darkness was upon the face of the deep" has been a subject of debate since 1895 when the German scholar H. Gunkel argued that the term "deep" or tehom in the Hebrew contains remnants of Babylonian mythology.37 He argued, and many foUowed him, that there is a direct relationship between the Hebrew word tehom and the Babylonian Tiamat. the female monster of the Babylonian national epic, Enuma elish. On this question there is today a marked diversity of scholarly opinion. Sorne scholars maintain that teh6m in Genesis 1:2 contains an "echo of the old cosmogonic myth,"38 other scholars argue against it. 39 However, no matter what position one would prefer, Professor A. Heidel has shown on philological grounds that the Hebrew term teh6m does not derive from the Babylonian Tiamat. 40 A widespread scholarly opinion maintains that teh6m derives from a Common Semitic root 41 from which also cognate Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Arabic terms derive. The Babylonian terms tiamtu. tamtu, "ocean, sea," as well as Tiamat are believed to stem from this Common Semitic root. This is true also of the Ugaritic terms thmlthmt, "deep(s)."42 The semantic and morphological relationship of the Ugaritic terms to the Hebrew teh6m precludes that the latter is borrowed from Akkadian 43 or Hurrían. 44 Even more convincing is the fact


121

that the term tehóm appeared in the sensational finds from Ebla (2500-2250 B.C.) providing evidence that tehóm is a Canaanite-Hebrew termo In general tehóm is a poetic term for a large body of water. 45 Invariably this term appears without the artide in the OId T estament. 46 However, to construe this lack of an article to indicate that it IS a proper name or a person is entirely erroneous. The semantic usages of teh6m in the OId Testament indicate that this term is used consistently in a depersonalized and inanimate sense. 47 Turning to the ancient Near Eastern parallels we emphasize Eirst oI aH rhar tehóm is used in other Semitic languages. The notion of the "deep" or "ocean" is an idea by no means exclusive to the Hebrew Creatíon account. Whereas no specific Summerian myth of creatíon has been recovered,48 Sumerian cosmogony can be put together from various Eragmentary myths oforigin. One text describes the goddess Nammu, written with the ideogram for primeval "sea," as "the mother, who gave birth to heaven and earth. "49 S. N. Kramer deduced from this that "heaven and earth were therefore conceived by the Sumerians as the created product of the primeval sea. "50 The Babylonian nationa} epic Enuma elish, which was not composed to tell the story of creation but to glorify the god Marduk and the cíty of Babylon,51 opens l>Y stating rhat Hrst nothing existed except the two personifíed principIes, Apsu and Tiamat,52 the primeval sweet-water and salt-water oceans, respectively. The Babylonians couId thus conceive of a time when there was neither heaven nor earth, onIy primordial waters, but "apparently they couId not conceive oE a time when there was nothing whatever except a transcendental deity."53 After an elaborate theogony in which the gods evolve from these two personified principIes, and afrer Apsu has been subdued by Ea, we find Tiamat reigning unsubdued, opposed by and suppressing the gods she has begotten. At lasr one of them, Marduk, becomes their champion, engages Tiamat in combat and slays her. 54

122


Here we need to observe that the concept of the personified Tiamat. the mythical antagonist of the creatorgod Marduk, is completely absent in the notion of teh6m in the Hebrew Creation account. In Genesis 1:2 tehóm is clearly inanimate, a part of the cosmos, nor the foe of God, but simply one part of the created world, offering no resistence to God's creative activity.55 It seems, therefore, unsustainable to speak of a "demythologizing" of a Babylonian mythical concept or the use of a mythical name in Genesis 1:2. 56 To suggest that there is in Genesis 1:2 the remnant of a latent conflict between a chaos monster and a creator-god is to read into the Genesis story a mythological concept. 57 On the contrary, the author of the Hebrew Creation account uses the term tehom in a depersonalized and nonmythical sense. Tehom is in this verse nothing else but a passive, powerless, inanimate element in God's creation. Egyptian mythology has many competing views of creation. 58 In recent years severalleading Egyptologists have pointed out decisive differences between the Egyptian cosmogonies and Genesis Creation,59 so that, even against repeated daims, one should no longer say that the Egyptian view of creation was very similar to that of Israel. The created world in Genesis 1 does not know the threat of a returo to a chaotic state as expressed in the Heliopolitan cosmogony.60 Genesis 1likewise does not know the cyclical nature of creative events. The creative events in Genesis 1 occur in "linear" succession, dated by days which end with the seventh day. This "linear" view, which inaugurates history, is opposed to the mythical concept of a primordial event which is constantly repeated in the present. 61 On the contrary, Egyptian cosmogony does not know a oncefor-all creation which took place "in the beginning" as it is expressed in Genesis 1: 1. It does know of a creation "in the first time" (sp tpy), which, however, is ever repeated in cydical fashion in such a way chat man himself experiences it. 62

Understanding Bibücal Words, Sentences, and Contexts

123

Furthermore, the idea of teh6m in Genesis 1:2 does not have the quality of a preexistent, personified ocean called Nun. The concept of teh6m in Genesis 1:2 is devoid of any such mythical qualities Ol connotations. T. H. Gaster observed that Genesis 1:2 "nowhere implies ..• that aU things actually issued out of water/'63 The fact that there is in Genesis 1:2 a complete absence of any suggestion that God accomplished the Creation of the world after the conquest of hostile forces 64 is supported by the way in which the author of Genesis 1:2 speaks of teh6m, "deep," and mayim, "waters." Both of these terms are subordinated to the motif "earth" which is the focus of this verse as the emphatic position of this term in the Hebrew text indicates. The parallelism of the phrases "over the face of the waters" and "over the face of the deep" (Genesis 1:2, N.A.S.B.) further indicates that teh6m is here a nonmythical term. 65 Thus the conclusion seems inescapable that tehóm in Genesis 1:2 is devoid of mythical features reminiscent of Egyptian creation speculations. In short, the term "deep" (teh6m) in Genesis 1:21acks any mythological connotations which are part of the concept of "primeval ocean" in ancient Near Eastern (Sumerian, Babylonia~ Egyptian, Ugaritic) creation mythology. Teh6m is used in a nonmythical context, namely, a "historical" context with its own and radically different meaníng and emphasis. The description oE the depersonalized, undifferentiated, unorganized, and lifeless state ol tehom ("deep") in Genesis 1:2 cannor be oorrowed or motivated from mythology. On the contrary, this view of teh6m, which is seemingly without paralle1 in ancient Near Eastern cosmological thought, springs from the Hebrew conception of the world and understanding of reality. In stating the conditions in which the cosmos existed before God commanded that light should spring forth, the author of Genesis 1 rejected explicitly contemporary mythological notions by using, in his own way, the term teh6m. whose cognates in other cultures and religions are deeply

124


mythological. Tehóm is not only nonmythical in content, but íts particular usage in the Hebrew cosmology in Genesis 1 shows that it is, at the same time, antimythical in purpose over against the mythological cosmologies. This somewhat lengthy illustration indicates that the carefu} student ofScripture should proceed with great care ano patience in his search for the answer to the charges that bíblical writers borrowed their concepts from Near Eastern customs and thoughts. We now will compare the biblical Creation narrative of Genesís 1: 1 ro 2:4a with andent Near Eastern ideas in three additional areas-namely, the separatíon of heaven and earth, the creation and functíon of luminaries, and the creation of mano Aftee these key ideas we will draw sorne conclusions about the extrabiblical context as applicable. The idea of the creation of heaven and earth by divísíon is common to all andent Near Eastern cosmogonies. The Sumerians present the process of separation as the sunder· ing of heaven from earth by the air-god Enlil. 66 The Babylonian epic Enuma elish reports that Marduk forms heaven out of the upper part of slain Tiamat and earth out of che lower part and the deep from her blood. 67 The Hittite version of a Hurrian myth visualizes the process of separating heaven and earth as being performed with a cutting too1. 68 In Phoenician mythology separation is described as the splitting of the world egg. 69 In Egyptian cosmogony one finds that Shu, the air-god, pushed up Nut, the sky-goddess, from Geb, the earth-god, with whom she was embraced. 70 This forced separation brings about heaven and earth. The picture in Genesis 1:6-10 is analogous to pagan mythology in that it also describes the creatíon of heaven and earth as an act of separatíon. However, notable di stinctions appear as soon as one ínquires into "how" heaven and earth separate. In contrast to Babylonian and Egyptían mythology, the raqia', "firmament" (better, "expanse"), in Genesis 1 is raised simply by the fiat of God without any struggle whatever. The waters in Genesis 1 are

Understanding Bíblical Words. Sentences. and Contexts

125

completely powerless, inanimate, and inert. The firma· ment is fashioned by separating the waters on a horizontal level with waters aboye and below the expanse. Verses 6·8. In a second step the waters below the expanse are separated on the vertical plane to let the dry land appear, separated from the waters. Verses 9, 10. Any notion of a combat, struggle, or force is absent in both of these creative acts. These significant differences indicate that the bíblical writer "does not reflect in this act of creatíon the contemporary world-view, rather he overcomes it."71 Inherent in this bíblical presentation of the separatíon of heaven and earth is again an antimythical polemic. Separation takes place without struggle whatever. It is achieved by divine fiat in two steps rather than one. In this instance Genesis 1 is again opposed to pagan mythology. Let us discuss next the creation and function of the luminaries in relationship to the ancient Near Eastern conceptions. The Sumerians worshiped as the major astral deity the moon-god Nanna and to a lesser degree the sun-god UtU. 72 In Egypt the sun in its varied appearances was the highest deity,73 whereas the moon had an inferior role. In the Hittite pantheon the chief deity and first goddess of the country was the sun-goddess Arinna. 74 Ugaritic texts speak of the sun-goddess Sapas as "the luminary of the godS."75 She plays a r91e al so in the Baal myth. 76 Sacrifices are prepared for Sapas and also the moon-god Yarih as well as the stars. 77 The Akkadians venerated the moon-god Sin in particular at Ur, where he was the chief god of the city, and also in the city of Harran in Syria, ~hich had close religious links with Uro The sun-god SamaS. the goddess of Venus, Ishtar, and other starry deities had high, though changing rank, in Mesopotamia. 78 ParentheticalIy we should note that sorne daim that the Babylonian epic Enuma elish places its "attention to the creatíon of the celestial bodies"79 after Marduk had formed the sky and the earth from slain Tiiimat. But such a

126

Understanding the Uving Ward af Cad

claim rests upon a misconception. Enuma elish knows nothing about the creation of sun, moon, and stars. There is no such reference, unless one follows the strained interpretatíon that the phrase "caused to shine uso means creation; the stars are not reported to have been created either. Marduk simply fixes stations for the "great gods ... the stars. "81 The order of the heavenly bodies in Enuma elish is stars-sun-moon whereas Genesis follows the wellknown order sun-moon-stars. The stars are likely referred to first in Enuma elish, "because of the great significance of the stars in the lives of the astronomically and astrologicaUy minded Babylonians."s2 Against the background of the widespread astral worshíp in the ancient Near East the creatíon and funetion of the luminaries in Genesis 1: 14-18 appear in a new light in the foUowing ways: (1) In the biblieal presentation the ereatureliness of all creation, al so that of the sun, moon, and stars, remains the fundamental and determíning charaeteristíc. (2) In place of an expressly mythical and primary rulership of the star Jupiter over other stars or astral deíties,83 Genesis assigns the sun and moon to rule day and night respeetively. (3) The sun as a luminary is, in Genesis, not "fr0!ll eternity/' namely without beginning, as is the sun-god Samas in the Karatepe texts. 84 In Genesis the sun and the moon have a definite beginning in relation to the earth. (4) Genesis 1 avoids the names "sun" and "moon." The names are Common Semitic terms which can designate the sun deity and moon deity respeetively. An inherent opposition to astral worship ís thus apparent. (5) The heavenly bodíes appear in Genesis in the "degrading"85 status of "luminaries" whose funetion it is to "rule." As carriers of light they have the serving or ruling function "to give light." Verses 15-18. (6) The enigmatic Hebrew phrase "and the stars" in verse 16 appears to be parenthetical; the purpose, in view of the prevalent star worship in Mesopotamia, is to emphasize that the stars themselves are created things and nothing more. They share in the creatureliness of a11 creation and have no


127

autonomous divine quality over life whether human or nonhuman. The Genesís stOJ;y places man in control of the earth; the stars have no controlling funetíon over man such as astro(ogers suggest. We can readily agree with the eondusion that "the entire passage vs. 14-19 breathes a strongly antimythical pathos"S6 or polemic, because "there comes to expression here [Genesis 1: 14-18] in a number of ways a polemic against astral religion."87 Other scholars have expressed similar views. Sil The Hebrew account of the creation, funetíon, and limitadon of the luminaries proves to be another unequivocallínk in the chain stressíng that in Genesis 1: 1 to 2:4a there is a dírect and conscious antimythical polemic. The form in which this Hebrew creation account has come down to us portrays the creatureliness and limitations of the heavenly luminaries in harmony with the world view of the Genesis cosmology and its understanding of reality. The similarities and differences between the purpose of man's creation in Sumero-Akkadían mythology and Genesis 1:26-28 requires our attention. Sumerian mythology is in complete accord with the Babylonian AtraQasis Epic and Enuma elísh in depicting the need by the gods for the creation of man so that the gods are relieved from laboring for food and other physical needs.l>9 In other words, in ancient myth the creadon of man is an afterthought and not a part of the original creatíon. Genesis 1 :26-28 contradicts this concepto The fírst chapter of the Bible depicts man as the "pinnade of creatíon. "90 Man is not made as a kind of afterthought in order to take care of the needs of the gods. He appears as the one "blessed" by God (Genesis 1:28); he is "the ruler of the animal and vegetable kingdoms/'91 AH seed-bearing plants and fruit trees belong to him for food. Genesis 1 :29. Here the divine concero and care for man's physical needs are in antithesis to man's purpose to care for the physical needs of the gods in Sumero-Akkadían mythology. When it comes to defining the purpose of man's creation, Genesis

128


combats pagan mythological notions while at the same time it depicts the glory and freedom of man who is created in the image of God to rule the earth for his own needs. 92 In considering the role and function of man, again the Hebrew conception of the creation of man is iotally opposed ro that of the ancient Near East. Time and again the biblical account of Creation contradicts ancienr Near Eastern myths of beginnings and contains a conscious antimythical polemic. 93 The biblical writer attempts to portray the total reality of the world and man at Creation. These realities can not be known empirical1y. In contrast to other notions common in the ancient Near Eastern myths the exalted and sublime conception of Genesis 1 pictures at its center a sovereign God who as supreme and unique Creator speaks the world and everything in it into existence; the center of the Creation of this world is mano This Genesis cosmology unveils the main pillars upon which the biblical world view and the bíblical understandíng of reality resto The Genesis Creation narrative addresses itself to the intellectual questions of the origin, nature, and constitution of the physical world-namely "how" and "when" the world was made and "what" was made; it also speaks to the existential questions of "who" God is and "what" He is able to do! Since Christ, who is the Father's creating Agent (Hebrews 1: 1,2), is the Creator of the world and all that belongs to it, since He is the Maker of the forces of nature, He can use these forces to implement His will in the processes of time through mighty acts and powerful deeds in nature and history. -The opening chapter of Genesis is thus a record of events which answers the questions "who," "how/' "what" and "when" of Creation. In the description of the biblical account of Creation the writer has chosen to use, with many safeguards, certain terms and expressions commonly used in the anCÍent Near East. At times these terms related to concepts ofthe anCÍent Near East that were cosmologically, ideologicalIy, and theologically incompatible with the Genesis story. But the

Understandíng Bíblical WOTds, Sentences, and Contexts

129

biblical writer imbued these terms with a "new content," a meaníng and emphasis expressive of the world view, understandíng of reality, and cosmology of divine revelation. Although the bíblical writer lived in the andent world, wrote in a language of the ancient world, and was acquainted with cosmologíes of the anclent world, he did not adopt the context of the surrounding cultures but confronted them polemically with the knowledge of origins gained from divine revelation. Ancient Ebla and the Bible. One of the most sensational archaeological discoveries of the second haH of the twentieth century is just now unfolding and may serve as an illustration of the use and misuse of the cultural context of the Bible. Before the year 1975 only a few specialists knew of the name Ebla. Today Ebla is a household word beca use of one of the most phenomenal discoveries of anclent texts. Ebla, the name of an anclent city in northern Syria, is located at Tell Mardikh, the name of the modem village where the ruins of andent Ebla resto Anclent Ebla had a population of 260,000 people94 during the middle of the third millennium B.e. The marvelous archives of ancient texts began to appear in 1974 with 42 tablets, in 1975 with 16,000 tablets,95 and by 1977 reportedly 20,000 tablets had been found;96 in 1979 another 20,000 tablets have been reported discovered. 91 Although it is uncertain whether these figures will remain that high, it is certain that these tablets are most sensational beca use of their language, content, and date. The Italian excavator, Professor Paolo Matthiae of the University of Rome, dates these sensational f¡nds of thousands and thousands of cuneiform tablets between 2400 and 2250 B.e. 98 whereas the renowned epigrapher of the excavation, Professor Giovanni Pettinato of the same institution, prefers a date of around 2500 B.C.99 With the appearance of this treasure trove of unbelievable numbers of tablets, it was evident that an unknown language was ¡nvolved. The cracking of this new language was a tough job for epigrapher G. Pettinato. He found the

130

UndemaHding tbe Living WOI'd

01 God

key to decipherment primarily in bilingual tablets which contained the Sumerian cuneiform (wedge~shape writing) signs and the new language. The cIne was found at the end of some tablets that contained the notatíon dub-gar (Sumerian) which means "tablet written." In other tablets he noticed that the tast Sumerian cuneiform signs weregal balag. meaningless in this association. But the same signs could a1so be read as ik tubo In the latter he recognized the West Semitic word ktb, "to write," which obviously expressed the same idea as dub-gar. With that due and the aid of bilingual tablets containing glossaries of the same words in Sumerian and the new language, the language at Ebla was deciphered. About 80 percent of the Ebla tablets are certainly Sumerian and 20 percent in Paleo-Canaanite of Ebla, or as others call it, Eblaite. Eblaite has a welldefined pronominal and verbal system about which Petti nato has expressed the opiníon that the new language is closely akin to Hebrew and Phoenician. The language of the Ebla texts is designated by G. Pettinato as "Paleo-Canaanite/' an ancient West Semitic language, "different from those nearest in time, namely OId Akkadian and Amorite ..• [with] strict affinities with Ugaritic and even more with Phoenician and Hebrew."l00 Other scholars have simply dubbed the language as "Eb· laite."tol At present it i8 debated whether it is really a form of West Semínc (so Matthíae, M. Dahood) Or a form of East Semiric (l. J. Gelb)10Z or just another Semitic lan~ guage. 103 It seems at present that it is an ancient Semi tic language with affinities in various directions. It has been said that the new language is "possibly the granddaddy of the native language spoken more than 1300 years later in Canaan when Israel entered the land,,'lo4 One of the most significant contributions of these texts from Ebla is the informatÍon they provide for the rewriting (this is precisely what ir means) of the history of the ancient Near East in the third millennium B.C. It ís reported that about 5000 different dty names are mentioned in the tablets which indicates significant urbanizatíon at about


131

2500 B.C., several centuries before the time of Abraham. The kings of Ebla had extensive economic, political, military, and social relations with Akkad, Assur, Mari, and other centers of civilizations in the Tigris-Euphrates areas. AlI of this is of greatest importance for many reasons, and its significance can hardly be overemphasized. It is like finding authentic historical information of first magnitude for an early American civilization that was shrouded in mystery. Professor Matthiae, the excavator, sums up the sensational finds by emphasizing that "the chief value of the Ebla archives is that they show a great state in the third millennium B.C. in its administrative, economic, social, and religious structures. But, in a broader sen se, we have here a complete new and unknown world-a northwestern Semi tic culture that was the foundation for later brilliant Syrian successors. An empire that alters forever our perception of ancient history."105 It is not our purpose to describe here in detail the secrets that the royal archives of andent Ebla have yielded. The bulk of the tablets consist of economic records which contain commercial transactions between Ebla and other city-states, cities, and towns throughout the Near East. Other tablets are of an administrative nature, listing food and drink allotted for the journeys of messengers and functionaries. 106 Most of the economic tablets are "accounts of international textite trade, while a smaller but not insignificant part deals with the payments of taxes and tribute in metals, chiefly silver and gold."lo7 Then there are lexical texts with scientific lists of fish and birds, geographical atlases, professional and personal names, lists of objects. Among the most pleasant surprises are tablets with historical and historicaHudicial texts that contain "royal ordinances, edicts, state letters or letters of state officials, lists of cities subject to Ebla, assignments of prebends, state marriages."108 "There are some international treaties, the most important being that between Ebla and Assur,"109 "concerning the statutes of a commercial center."110 The historical-juridical texts deal with con-

132

Understllndinc the Living Word o{ Cod

tracts of purchases and sales, the partition of goods, «and perhaps also with corlices of law."ll1 Finally, we must mention the literary texts which contain andent myths, hymns to dívinities, incantarions and collecrions 01 proverbs. Among these is supposedly a UCreation story"U2 or better "a hymn ro the Lord ol creatíon."113 Modero oral tradition about rhis creation hymn is known to daim that it assigns to one divine beíng the creation of heaven, earth, sun and moon at me time when there was nothing yet made. Speculation whether the idea of creation out of nothing is present oc implied is premature and has to await me publication 01 this texto A flood story has also been reported. 114 The flood story [rom Ebla "is closer to the previously known Mesopota· mian flood stories than to the Bíblical account. "115 In any case this is ar present the oldest known flood srory from Syria-Palestine. The religious-mythological texts found in 1974·1975 mention the names ol about 500 deities which reveal a syncretism between che deities oE Sumeria and Akkad and the West Semitic gods.11 e The chief god of Ebla is supposedly Dagan 117 which appears in "Dagan of Tuttal," "Dagan ofSivad," and "Dagan of Canaan."U8 It has been noted that me appearance of the word "Canaan" neady "demonstrates the antiquity of thís term"119 and the soundness of the hypothesis that the ethnical designarían "Canaanite" is much older than generally believed. In orher words~ a short sentence like uThe Canaanites were then in the land" (Genesis 12:6, N.I. V.), wbich played a large part in the history of the bíblica} criticism that denied the early date of the Pentateuch, is certainly no anachronism or a reflection oE a la ter period when Canaanites no longer l¡ved or existed in Syria~Palestine. Such a statement aEñrms that contemporaneous to the time oi Abraham ethnic CanaanÍtes were in the land promised to him. The early use of such as emnic designatíon is now assured and corroborates such usage in Genesis. 120 There were omer novelries rhar carne as weJcome sur-


133

prises to the student of the Bible. For instance, Abraham paid for the buríal cave Machpelah in silver rather than ín goods. Genesis 23:1-16. We learn from the Ebla texts that silver was the primary standard of exchange. One tablet tells of a payment by Mari of2193 minas of silver and 134 minas of gold (39,394 and 2212 ounces respectively).l21 We know that silver was the standard exchange in Mesopotamia, but this custom is also attested now for Syria in the second half of the third millennium B.e. It appears that a number of personal names known only from later times and some only from the Bible have appeared in the Ebla archives. Of particular notice are the names Mi-ka-il = Michael, U-miz-U = Ishmael, Ab-ra-mu = Abra(ha)m, Sha-u-lum = Saul, U-ra-il = Israel, Da-'udum = David, among others. 122 Such biblical-type names-although not all-have been found throughout the Near East from many different times. For instance, the names Abra(ha)m is found from the second half of the second millennium onward rather frequently in extrabíblical texts. At Ebla is the first usage of Abra(ha)m we know of-a millennium earlier than other extrabiblical texts previously known and several centuries before the bíblical Abraham. Probably among the most startling discoveries was the name of one of its kings, Ebrum, "whose name is written' Eb-uru-um, with two possible readings: Eb-ru9-um. whose resemblance to Eber, the father of the Semites according to Genesis 10:21, is truly surprising, or Eh-ri-um. which inevitably elicits cihrí. "Hebrew. "123 Professor Matthiae prefers the fírst reading and concluded, "If something of the andent splendor of Ebla has remained in the tradition of the Syro-Palestinian atea, it ís perhaps only the name of the great king Ebrum, which probably became Eber in Bíblical tradition and was inserted in Shem's genealogy [Gen. 11:14]."124 This suggestion remains highly tenuous beca use the bíblical genealogy has the following sequence: Eber - Peleg - Reu - Serug. Genesis 11: 14-22. The father, son, grandson, etc., sequen ce of the

134


Eblaite Eber is different: Eber - Ibbi - Sipis - Dubu~u Ada. 125 Since there is no internal textual reason to question the sequence oE the bíblical genealogy, it is hardly possible to suggest that the Eber of Ebla is identical with the bíblical one. Another controversial issue relates to the problem of "11" and "Ya" in such names as Mi-ka-il andMi-ka-ya and Is-ra-il and IS-ra-ya. Professor Pettinato suggests that the cuneiform sign read -ia at the end oE these and other names 126 represented the divine name "Ya" as the sign -il stands for the deity 11 or El.1 27 He believes that "Ya" is a shortened form of Yahweh, the personal name of the Hebrew God of the Bible. Thus Ebla is believed to give new evidence, and the earHest at that, for the origin of the name of the God oE the Hebrews. The importance of this, if correct, can hardly be underestimated. Two major objections have been raised against this interpretation: (1) The element -ya is but a shortened (hypocorístic) form, "used for endearment and then becoming common usage. The names like Mika-il which beco me Mika-ya have nothing to do with Yahwism.... Michael/Mickey is an exact Semantic paralleI to the Ebla Mika-il/Mika-ya."128 (2) The second objection comes from a famous cuneiform specialist, Professor 1. J. Gelb, of the Oriental Institute in Chicago. He suggests that the cuneiform sign -ia, interpreted as "Ya," can also be read "-ni," which means "me, my, us, our."129 In this view Mika-ya should be read Mika-ni, and may be translated as "Who is like me/us?" Obviously the question of Ya at Ebla is not settled. The knowledgeable person wonders whether we are not already in an Ebla-Bible controversy similar to the Babel-Bible controversy of an earlíer periodo The specter of paralIelomania is on the horizon. It will be interesting to see what may be done with the observation that, at Ebla, there were two dasses of prophets, the mahhit and the nabi'utüm. The former means "ecstatic" añd refers to a person at Mari associated with Assyrian or Babylonian magic and divination and the

Understandíng Biblical Words, Sentences, and Contexts

135

latter is said to find "a natural counterpart in the Old Testament. To explain the biblical phenomenon scholars have hitherto looked to Mari for background, but in the future Ebla will also daim their attention."130 50 far the only thing that can be suggested is that the Hebrew term nabhi', "prophet," has a linguistíc relationship with ancient Ebla. Formal1y the term nabhi' was onIy known from Hebrew. The Hebrew prophet is so far unique in his calling and tasks in the andent world. The city of Ebla, situated weIl to the west of the Euphrates river in northern Syria, was oriented in its economic and trade reIationships to the west and south. The Ebla texts include an impressive appearance of place names. Here as eIsewhere the reIationship of Ebla to the world of the Bible ís as obscure as it is íntriguing. From the middle of the third millennium place names known from the Bible such as Vr, Jerusalem, Megiddo, Hazor, Byblos, 5idon, Gaza, Ashdod, Akko, Lachish, Joppa, and Dor appear to one's great surprise. This is fantastic and exceeds along with the other surprises anything an archaeologist couId have dreamed of. Even more startling, it was fírst reported that the five "cities of the pIain" (Genesis 14:2, 8)-namely, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela (also called Zoar)-were found on one tabIet in exactly the same sequence. 131 (Latest information, however, now indicates that thís precise sequence does not existo See pages 136-138.) Two major points are currently under discussion. The intriguing reference to "Ur in Haran"132 has caused much attention because it has raised the question whether the city Vr from which Abraham originalIy carne was in the territory of Haran or in southern Mesopotamia, more than a 1000 miles to the south of Haran. Professor Cyrus Gordon has buttressed his earlier argument that the "Ur of the Chaldees" (Genesis 11 :31) is not the Sumerian Ur in southern Mesopotamia as usually suggested but "that Abraham's birthpIace is to be sought somewhere in the Urfa-Haran regíon."133

136

Understand;ng tbe Living Word of God

However, it has been shown that Urfa, modern Edessa, which is twenty miles northwest of Haran, ís not Ur on account of philological reasons. "Moreover, such an identification would require Abraham to retrace his steps eastwards before setting out west towards Canaan. u134 If it cannot be identified with Urfa, but with another "Ur in Haran," i.e., an Ur located in the territory of Haran, it would have to be a different place than Urfa. This suggestion would imply that Abraham moved from an Ur in the territory of Haran to the city of Haran. In this case, the information of Genesis 24:7 where Yahweh took Abraham "from the land of my birth" to move him to Haran would no longer make sen se, beca use Haran is stiU in the same "land of his birth." In short, on the basis of the informatíon available the "Ur of the Chaldees" cannot be as easily identified with "Ur in Haran." Now we return to the five cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela or Zoar which, in Genesis 14, are associated with alliances of kings who were defeated by Abraham. Professor D. N. Freedman, a noted University of Michigan scholar, has used the information of the existence of the five cities to indicate that "the amazing correlation of the number, order, and names of the Cities of the Plain between the Ebla tablet and the biblical record indicates that the Genesis 14 narrative should be understood in the setting of the third millennium, not in the second or even the first millennium as scholars have previously thought."135 This means for Freedman that "the Genesis account [of chapter 14] derives from the same period ... the third millennium B.C."136 On the basis of parallels between Ebrium and Eber he has boldly suggested that Ebrium was Abraham's ancestor and that Abraham should be dated to about 2500 B.C.137 This is correlated with Abraham's involvement in Genesis 14. Thus it is concluded, "It appears, therefore, that Abraham and his clan emerged in the first great civilizatíon, the Early Bronze Age, and more particularly EB III [ca. 2800-2400 B.C.], when the great dties of the Near East flourished and

Understanding Bib/ica{ Words. Sentences, and Conte,,"

137

sustained a vast network of commercial and cultural relations, which induded the pyramid builders of Egypt, the Sumerian dynasties of Mesopotamia whose cities were already as old as time, and the rulers of city-states in the areas between and around those primal centers of wealth and power. This was the first Internationalism of recorded history/'138 This reconstruction is part of a stormy controversy already sweeping over the world of scholarship with opinion sharply divided between those who see in the fabulous finds of Ebla the background and origin of the Hebrews and those who argue flatIy that no conneetíon between the Ebla finds and the Bible existo An "Ebla-Bible" controversy seems to be in full swing. Lec us recurn to the supposed Abraham-Ebla conneetion. The danger of parallelism is ominous. In 1929 the famous discovery of the city of Ugarit was made and in che years thereafter we experieneed what has been called Pan-Ugaritism. It foUowed the Pan-Babylonianism of the prior decades. Pan-Ugaritism refers to the tendency to interpret Hebrew language, religion, and culture in terms of Ugarit. A noted scholar of Ugaritic texts and culture warned in the middle 1970s that Ugreat eaution should be observed in using Ugaritic for the elucidation of the text of the Hebrew Bible. UnfortunateIy the number of superficial compara ti ve scudies in this field are far too great, and there is a deplorable tendency to overestimate the indebtedness of the Israelites to the Canaanites."139 This counsel has a place a]so when it comes to the Ebla materials. Let us be more specific. The biblical evidence dates the beginníng of the age of che patriarchs tú the eacJy second mi11ennium B.C. or at the earliest to the twenty-first century. The Ebla tablets were written sorne 400 plus years before. Thus great caution muse be exercised regarding a redating of the early patriarchs. To date Abraham in the first millennium B.C. HO is ¡ust as much in conflict with the bíblical data as to date him to the middle of the third millennium B.C.

138


Second, there is not the slightest evidence that Ebrium is the biblical Eber or for that matter the ancestor of Abrahamo Ebrium and Eber shared a common name, if the present reading of the former name can be maintained. Third, the alleged claim that Tablet No. 1860 contained the five names of the Cities of the Plain is now denied. "The first two names, Sodom and Gomorrah, [are] quite certain, but ... he [G. Pettinato] i5 no longer ready to defend the next two city names beca use of his improvement in the reading of the signs .... In any case, the cities 3 and 4 [Admah, Zeboiim] of the Genesis 14 list do not occur in the same tablet." H 1 Thus the allegedly strongest link in the Ebla-Abraham argument has been broken. Fourth, the alleged link between Ebla, Genesis 14, and Abraham may be nothing more than that sorne of the cities of Genesis 14 appear for the Hrst time in sorne tablets from Ebla and that the name Abraham appears for the first time at Ebla. At the moment no evidence links the biblical Abraham with the one centuries earHer at Ebla. Both individuals happen to carry the same name. In short, on the basis of previous experience it may take decades before the obscurity of a relationship between the world of the Bible and the world of Ebla can be lifted with any degree of certainty. A primary concern for the rehearsal of these major aspects connected with the sensational discoveries of the third-millennium city of Ebla was to illustrate the complexity involved in the assessment of the ancient Near Eastern background of the Bible. Every student of the Bible wilI enrich himself or herself by gaining as much knowledge as is possible of the immense wealth of information provided by aneient Near Eastern languages and relígions, as well as politícal, social, and cultic structures. The illuminating experience of one immersed in the world of the ancient Near East can hardly be overestimated. The investigatíon of the thoughts of the ancient Near East aids in understanding the uniqueness of the bíblical faith. The student wilI read the Bible withín the context of divine

Understanding Biblical Wo,ds, Sentences, and Contexts

139

revelatíon. Wrote the prophet Isaiah, "For my [God's] thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah SS :8,9, R.S.V. Biblical revelatíon provides its own context and content within the context of the larger world of the inspired wríters. The world view of the inspired writers is determined by the reality of divine revelatíon where real Reality communicates truth authentically, authoritatively, and guides in a trustworthy process of communication. Notes aOO References 1. Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of tbe Gospel of Jobn (Swengel, Pa.: Bible Truth Depot, 1945),1:75. 2. R. C. Trench, Synonyms of tbe New Testament rev. ed. (London: Macmillan &: Co., 1865), 1, seCo 1. 3. W. Barclay, New Testament Words (London: SCM Press, 1964), p. 70. 4. K. L. Schmidt, Tbe Church (London: A. and C. Black, 1950), p. 57. 5. Rom. 16:1; Gal. 1:2, 22; Col. 4:16; etc. 6. Rom. 16:5; 1 Coro 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2. 7. Rom. 16:16; 1 Coro 4:17; 11:16; 1 Thess. 2:14. 8. See Rom. 12:5; Eph.l:23; Col.l:18,24,28¡ 2:19; 1 Coro 12:12-27. Cf. D. E. H. Whiteley, Tbe Theology ofSt. Paul (London: Basil Blackwe11, 1964), pp. 190-199. 9. See Eph. 1:23-2:10; 3:8-12; Col. 1:21-27; d. Heb. 12:22-24; Rev. 1:10. 10. L. Coenen, "Church, Synagogue," in The New lnternational Dictionary 01 New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1975-1978), 1:291-307. 11. F. Maass, "'adbiim:' in Theological Dictionary of tbe Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974), 1:75-88. 11. On the problem of "root fallacy" and "etymologizing," see J. Barr, Tbe Semantics of Bíblical Language (London: Oxfotd Universiry Press, 1961), pp. 100-106,111-157,159,160,290,191. 13. Webster's New World Dictionary: College Edition (OevelandINew York: World Publ. Co., 1959), S.V. "remnant." 14. G. F. Hase). "Semantic Values oE Derivatives of the Hebrew Root s'r," Andrews Uníversity Semínary Studies 11 (1973):152-169. 15. G. F. Hasel, The Remnant. ld ed. (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews Universiry Press, 1974), pp. 216-370. 16. G. F. Hasel, "Remnant," in IDB Sup 735, 736. 17. Isa. 10:22-23; 1:9; Rom. 9:27-29. 18. See particularly the work ofJ. S. Semler, Treatise on tbe Free Investigation ofthe Canon (Halle: n.p., 1771-1775) 4 vals. CE. G. F. Hasel,New Testament Theology: Basic lssues in the Currellt Debate (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 10-28.

140

Understanding the Uving Word of Cod

19. E. Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (PhiJadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975); G. Maier, The End of the Historieal-Critical Method (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1977). 20. L Gilkey, Namíng the Whír/wind: The Renewal ofGod-Language (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1969), pp. 31-106. 21. F. De1itzsch, Babel and Bible (Chkago: Open Couct Publishing Co., 1903). 22. See W. W. Wardle, /sraeland Baby/on (London: Clarendon Press, 1925), pp. 302-330; 1. W. King, History of Babylon (New York: F. A. Stokes, 1919), pp. 291-313. 23. E. Achtemeier, "Interpretatlon, Histoty of," in IDB Sup 455. 24. W. G. Kiímmel, The New Testament: The History ofthe Inllestigation of lts ProbJems (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1972), pp. 206-324. 25. [bid., p. 281. 26. ANET 163-180. 27. [bid., pp. 159-161. 28. [bid., pp. 161-163. 29. G. Petrinato, "The Royal Archives ofTell Mardikh-Ebla," BA 39 (May 1976):45. 30. J. Halevy, "Le code d'Hammourabi et la législation hébraique," Revue sémitique 11 (1903):142-153,240-249,323-324; M. J. Lagrange, "Le code de Hammourabi," Rellue Biblique 12 (1903):27-51; A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Liebte des Alten Orient (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1904), pp. 222-224. 31. J. T. Meek, Hebrew Origins, 2d ed. (New York: Harper I Row Publishers, 1960), pp. 68, 69. 32. H. M. Orlinski, "Whíther Biblical Research," JBL 90 (1971):8. 33. D. J. Wiseman, "Hammurabi," in Zondervan Pietarial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. M. C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1977),3:25. 34. K. A. Kitchen, Andent Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1966), p. 148. 35. N. M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New York: Ktav, 1970), pp. 4-10; C. Westermann, "Sinn und Grenze religionsgeschichtlicher ParaIlelen," TLZ 40 (1965):489-496. 36. See G. F. Hasel, "Recent Translations of Genesis 1: 1," The Bible Translator 22 (1971):154-167; ¡dem, "The Meaning of Genesis 1:1," Minístry 46 (1976):21-24; H. Shanks, "How the Bible Begins," Judaism 22 (1972):51-58. 37. H. Gunkel, Schópfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895), pp. 29ff.; idem, Genesis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Be Ruprecht, 1901), pp. 109-112. 38. B. W. Anderson, Creatíon versus Chaos (New York: Association Press, 1967), p. 39; B. S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, 2d ed. (London: SCM Press, 1962), p. 37: "Philologically tehOm is rhe Hebrew equivalent ofTiamat"; S. H. Hooke, "Genesis," Peake's Commentaryon the Bible, ed. H. H. Rowley and M. Black, (London: T. Nélson, 1962), p. 179; R. Kilian, "Gen. 12 und die Urgotter von Hermopolis," VT 16 (1966):420. 39. C. Westermann, Cenesis (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975), p. 149; W. Zimmerli, Díe Urgeschiehte. l. Mose 1-11 (Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1967), p. 42; K. Galling, "Der Charakter der Chaosschilderungin Gen. 1,2," ZThK 47 (1950):150ff.; Kitchen,Andent Orientand Old Testament, pp. 89, 90; D. F. Payne, Genesís One Reconsidered (London: The

Understanding Biblícal Words, Sentences, and Contexts

141

Tyndale Press, 1968), pp. 10, llo 40. A. Heidel, The Baby/onian Genesis, 2d ed. (Chicago: University oí Chicago Press, 1963), pp. 99, 100, has pointed out that rhe second radical of the Hebrew term tehóm, i.e., the letter .M , in corresponding loan words from Akkadian would have to be an N. If "Tiamat" had been taken over into Hebrew, ir would have been left as it was or it would have been changed to tile'ama (C1Ml'1).

41. O. Kaiser, Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Agypten, Ugarit und Israel, 2d ed. (Berlin: W. de Gruyter Verlag, 1962), p. 115; P. Reymond, L'eau, sa vie, et sa signification dans l'Anden Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958), p. 187 and 187 n. 2; W. H. Schmidt, Die SchOpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift, 2d ed. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967), p. 80 n. 5; Kitchen, Andent Orient and Old Testament, p. 89; Heidel, The Babylonían Genesis, p. 99; Westermann, Genesis, p. 146; D. Kidner, Genesis (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), p. 45; L. 1. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1970), p. 13; M. Dahood, Psalms n, 51-100, Anchor Bible (Garden Cíty, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1968), p. 231. 42. For thm, dual tbmtm, plural thmt, in Ugaritic texts, see G. D. Young, Concordance ofUgaritic (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1956), p. 68 No. 1925. 43. This was claimed by Gunkel. Note che studies oí the batde with the dragon morif by D. j. McCarthy, "'Creation' Motifs in Ancient Hebrew Poetry," CBQ 29 (1967):87-100; Westermann, Genesis, pp. 39ff. 44. j. Lewy, "Influence hurrites sur Israel," Revue de études sémitiques 5 (1938):63-65, regarded teh6m írom a linguistic point oí view as a Hurrian adjective, derived írom the roOt thm wirh an appended suffix (mh »m. 45. Cf. Job 28:14; 38:16; Isa. 51:10; Ps. 36:6; 107:23; 135:6. 46. In all instances except Isa. 63:13; Ps. 106:9. 47. M. K. Wakeman, "The Biblica) Earth Monster in the Cosmogonic Combat Myth," JBL 88 (1969):317. 48. S. N. Kramer, ed., MythoJogies oftbe Andent World (Garden City, N.Y.: Douhleday & Co., 1961), p. 95. 49. S. N. Kramer, Sumerjan Mythology (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), p. 39; d. T. H. Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 3. 50. S. N. Kramer, History Begins at Sumer (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1959), p. 83. 51. Kramer, Mytbologíes, p. 120. 52. ANET 60,61. 53. Heidd, Babylonian Genesis, p. 89; F. G. Brandon, Myths and Legends of tbe Andent Near East (New York: Crowell, 1970), p. 37: "In che beginning [in Babylonian cosmogony] there was no heaven and earth. There was nothing hut water." Parentherically we should be reminded that the idea of the priority in time of water figures in cosmogonies from all over the world among peoples living in most diverse geographical areas. Cf. Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament, pp. 3,4. 54. See R. Labat, "Les origines et la formation de la rerre dans poeme Babylonien de la création," Studia Biblica et Orientalia 3 (1959):205-207. See also Lambert, JTS, n. s. 16 (1965):293-295. The auchor points out that three ideas concerning the primeval state were known in Mesopotamia: (1) the priority of the earth, out of which everything carne forth; (2) crearion out of the

142


primeval oceanldeep; and (3) time is the souree and origin of all things. Compare a)50 Th. Jaeobsen, "Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article," JNES 5 (1946): 128-152. 55. Payne, Genesis One Reconsidered, p. 10; J. Skinner, Genesis, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: T. &: T. Oark, 1956), p. 48; N. H. Ridderbos, "Genesis 1: 1 und 2," OTS 12 (l958):235ff.; S. Aalen, Die Begriffe 'Licht' und 'Finsternis' im Alten Testament, im Spatjudentum und im Rabbinismus (Oslo: Puster, 1951), pp. 10f.; Westermann, Genes;s, p. 146. 56. So still W. F. Albrighr, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday &: Co., 1968), pp. 184, 185, who is, however, foreed ro admit thar Gen. 1:2 as it now reads does not eontain the idea. Albright surmises that vs. 2 originally conrained a statement of the triumph of God over the grear Deep (Tehom), "which was later deleted." Such subjeetive guesses are without basis. Objections againsr the view of demythologizations in Gen. 1:2 are presented by W. H. Schmidt, Die Schopfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift, p. 81 n. 5; Westermann, Genesis, p. 146; Payne, Genesis One Reconsidered, p. 11. E. D. James, "The Conception oE Creation in Cosmology," in Liber Amicorum. Studies in HonorofProf. Dr. C.J. Bleeker,Suppl. toNumen 12 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969), p. 106, sums up his study of the ancient Near Eastern cosmologies by pointing out thar Gen. 1 is "without any reference to the struggle between Yahweh and Leviathan and his host as in ... the Psalms and the book of Job, or to the batde between the gods and the víctory of Marduk over Tiamat in the Enuma elish." W. Harrelson, "The Signi6cance of Cosmology in the Ancient Near East," in

Translating and Understanding the Old Testament. Essays in Honor of H. G. May, ed. H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1970), p. 247: .. All vesriges ofthe conflia of Yahweh with powers ofrhe universe have been eliminared as the story now stands." 57. Westermann, Genes;s, p. 146: "Von einem Kampf mit ;"Itlt4n , entsprechend dem Kampf Marduks mir Tiamat, zeigt Gn 1,2 keine Spur." 58. H. Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion (New York: Columbia University Press, 1948), pp. 19f., poims out that Egyptian creation rhought is distinaive through its "multiplicity of approaehes" and "multiplicity of answers." Cf. R. Anthes, "Mythologies in Ancient Egypt," in Mythologies of tbe Anáent World, ed. S. N. Kramer (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), pp. 17fE. Detailcd diseussions of Egyptian eosmogonic speculations are provided by Brandon, Myth$ and Legends of tbe Ancient Near Ea$t, pp. 20ff. 59. H. Brunner, "Die Grenzen von Zcit und Raum bei den Ágyptern," AFO 27 (1954/56):141-145; E. Hornung, "Chaotische Bereiehe in der geordneten Welt," ZAS 81 (1956):28-32; S. Morenz, Agyptische Religion (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1960), pp. 167ff. 60. E. Würthwcin, "Chaos und Schopfung im mythisehen Denken und in der biblischen Urgeschichte," in Wort und Exístenz (Gomngen: Vandenhoeek &: Ruprecht, 1970), p. 35. 61. Brunner, "Die Grenzen von Zeit und Raum bei den Ágyptern," p. 142, points out that "niemals ¡st ein Mythos 'historisch' im Sinn der israelitischen oder cinter spiteren Gesehiehtsbetrachtung gemeint, niemals will er ein einmaliges, unwiederholbares Ereignis schildern. • • . Die Zeit, die der Mythos meinr, isr vielmehr stets auch das Hier und Jetzr." 62. Morenz, Agyptische Religion, pp. l76f. 63. T. H. Gaster, "Cosmogony, in IDB 1:703; d. Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 13. The priority oE water in ancient cosmogony and mythology may


143

be due to the fact that water, havíng no fixed shape and appearing to be ungenerated, comes by nature to be regarded as somerhing that must have exísted befare aIl other things wece made. 64. This has been eIaborated by Würthwein, "Chaos und Schopfung im mythíschen Denken und in der biblischen Urgeschichte," p. 35. 65. So Galling, "Der Charakter der Chaosschílderung in Gen. 1, 2," p. 151. 66. Kramer, Sumerlan Mythology, p. 37. 67. ANET", p. 67; B. Landsberger and J. V. Kinnier Wilson, "The Fifth Tablet of Enuma Elis," JNES 20 (1961):154-179. 68. O. R. Gurney, The Hittites, 2d ed. (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966), p. 193; H. G. Güterbock, "The Song ofUllikummi," JCS 6 (1952):29. "They carne and cut heaven and earth asunder with a copper tool." 69. H. W. Haussig, ed., Worterbuch deT MythoJogie Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1961), 1:309-310. H. Ringgren, "Ar den bíbelska skapelsesberattelsen en kulttext?" SEA 12 (1948):15, shows thar rhe word meTal¡epe!. should not suggest any conception of cosmic egg. 70. Morenz, Agyptische Religion, pp. 180-182; Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, pp. 57ff. It is aIso significant [hat in this cosmogonic presentation the heavenlsky is feminine whereas [he earrh i5 masculine. 71. Westermann, Genesis, p. 160. 72. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, pp. 41ff.; H. Schmokel, Das Land Sumer (Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1962), pp. 129ff. 73. Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion, p. 28. 74. A. Goetze, Kleinasien. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, fIl, 2d ed. (München: Beck'sehe Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1957), pp. 89, 136ff. 75. A. S. Kapelrud, The Ras S"hamra DiscoveTies and the Old Testament (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), p. 45. 76. ¡bid., pp. 47ff. 77. S. Kirst, "Sin, Yerah und Jahwe," Forschungen und Fortschritte 32 (1958):213-219; A. Caquot, "La diviniré solaire ougaritíque," Syria 36 (1959):90-101; T. H. Gaster, "Moon," IDB 3:436. 78. B. Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien (Heidelberg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1925) 1I:18-21, 25ff., 398ff.; Ch. Virolleaud, "Le dieu Shamash dans l'ancienne Mésopotamie," Eranos-Jahrbuch 10 (1943):57-79; J. Lewy, "The Late Assyro-Babylonian Cutt of [he Moon," HUCA 19 (1945/46):405-489; E. Dhorme, Les religions de Babylonie et d'Assyrie (París: Presses universitaires de France, 1949), pp. 53-94. 79. Heide1, The Babylonian Genesis, p. 116. 80. ANEP, p. 68. 81. lbid. 82. Heidet, The Babylonian Genesis, p. 117. 83. Enuma elis, Tablet V:5-7. 84. W. H. Schmidt, Die SchOpfimgsgeschichte der Priesterschrift, p. 118, n. 9. 85. lbid., p. 119. 86. G. von Rad, Genesis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), p. 53. 87. W. H. Schmidr, Die Schópfungsgeschichte deT Priesterschrift, p. 119. 88. J. Albertson, "Genesis 1 and the Babylonian Creation Myth," Thought 37 (1962):231; H. Junker, "In Prindpio Creavit Deus Coelum et Terram. Eine Untersuchung zum Thema Mythos und Theologie," Bíblica 45 (1965):483; Payne, Genesis One Reconsidered, p. 22; Sarna, UndeTstandíng Genesis, pp. 9f.; etc.

144

Understanding the Lilling Ward af Gad

89. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, pp. 69, 70, quotes the Sumerian myth Enki and Ninmah, which shows that the purpose of man's creation was the same as in Babylonian mythology. The newly recovered and published Tablet 1of the Atrabasis Epic states, "Let man carry the mil [for physical support1of che gods." W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-yasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), p. 57. Enuma elish, Tablet IV: 107-121, 127; V:147, 148; VI:152, 153; VII:27-29 in ANET", pp. 66-70, contains the same tradition. For a critical discussion of the problem on the origin and nature of man in the Atrabasis Epic, which is now the most important single witness to the Babylonian speculation on man's origin and nature, see Wílliam L. Moran, "The Creatíon oE Man in Atrahasis 1 192-248" BASOR 200 (Oec. 1970):48-56, who quotes many relevant studies. 90. Sarna, Understanding Genesis, p. 14. 91. Gaster, "Cosmology," IOB 1:704. 92. See also the chapter "Man as Ruler ofthe World" in O. Lóretz, SchOpfung und Mythos (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968), pp. 92-98. 93_ This is also iIIustrated in the concept of creation by word and the creation of the "sea-monsters" (R.S.V.) in Gen. 1:21, see G. F. Hase!, "The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology," The Ellangelical Quarterly 46 (1974):81102. 94. G. Pettinato, "The Royal Archives of Tell Mardikh-Ebla," BA 3912 (1976):47. 95. [bid., p. 45. 96. O. N. Freedman, HA Lerter to Readers," BA 40/1 (1977}:2. 97. See "Recent News from Ebla," Biblica/ Archaeology Review 4/1 (1978):7 suggests that "it is believed thar ultimately between 30,000 and 40,000 tablets will be recovered from the site." 98. P. Matthiae, "Ebla in the Late Early Syrian Period: The Royal Palace and the State Archives," BA 39/3 (1976):99. 99. Pettinato, "The Royal Archives," pp. 44-52. 100. [bid., p. 50. 101. Cf. D. N. Freedman, "The Real Story of che Ebla Tablets: Ebla and the Cities of the Plain," BA 41/4 (1978):146. 102. I. J. Gelb, "Thoughts About Ibla," Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 1/1 (1977):5. 103. P. C. Maloney, "Assessing Ebla," Biblical Archaeology Relliew 4/1 (1978):7. 104. [bid. 105. P. Matthiae; cited by H. LaFay, "Ebla: Splendor of an Unknown Empire," National Geographic 154/6 (1978):740. 106. Matthiae, "Ebla in the Late Early Syrian Period," p. 101. 107. Ibid. 108. Pettinato, "The Royal Archives," p. 45. 109. Matthiae, "Ebla in the late Early Syrian Period," p. 102. 110. Pettinato, "The Royal Archives," p. 45. 111. [bid. 112. Freedman, "A Letter to Reaclers," p. 3. 113. Freedman, "The Real Story of Ebla," p. 147. 114. [bid. 115. H. Shanks, "The Promise of Ebla," Biblical Archaeology Review 2/4 (1976):42

Understanding Biblical Words, Sen ten ces, and Contexts

145

116.. Pettinato, "The Royal Arc;hives," p. 48. 117. Freedman, "A Letter to Readers," p. 3. 118. Pettinato, "The Royal Archives," p. 48.

119. lbid. 120. See Gen. 10:18,19; 12:6; 13:7; 15:21; 24:3, 37; 34:30; 38:2. 121. G. Pettinato, "Relations Entre les Royaumes d'Ebla et de Mari au Troisieme Millenaire," Akkadica I/2 (1977):27. 122. Pettinato, "The Royal Archives," p. 50; Freedman, "A Letter to Readers," p. 3; Maloney, "Assessing Ebla," pp. 8, 9. 123. Pettinato, uThe Royal Archives," p. 47. 124. Matthiae, "Ebla in the Lace Early Syrian Period," p. 109. 125. Pettinato, "The Royal Archives," p. 47. 126. See che examples by Maloney, "Assessing Ebla," p. 9. 127. Pettinato, "The Royal Archives," p. 48. 128. A. F. Rainey, "Querles? and Comments!" Bíblical Archaeology Review 3/1 (1977):38. 129. See Maloney, "Assessing Ebla," p. 9. 130. Pettinato, "The Royal Archives," p. 49. 131. Pettinato; cited by Shanks, "The Promise of Ebla," p. 42; Maloney, "Assessing Ebla," p. 7. 132. "The Promise of Ebla," p. 42 (italics his). 133. C. Gordon, "Where Js Abraham's Ur?" Biblical Archaeology Review 3/2 (1977):20. 134. D. J. Wiseman, "Ur of the Chaldees," in New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, Mic;h.: Eerdmans, 1965), p. 1305. 135. Freedman, ''The Real Scory of che Ebla Tablets," p. 143. 136. lbid., p. 152. 137. D. N. Freedman, "A City Beneath che Sands," in Science Year: The Wor/d Book Science Annual (Chicago: Field Enterprises Educational Corp., 1978), p. 194; ídem, "The Real Story of the Ebla Tablets," p. 157. 138. Freedman, uThe Real Story of the Ebla Tablets," p. 158. 139. J. C. de Moor, "Ugarlt," in IDB Sup p. 930. 140. SO J. van Seters and Thomas L. Thompson rec::ently. 141. M. Dahood in a letrer to D. N. Freedman in BA 41/4 (1978):143.

4n

111 ,.,

VI Understanding Units

Identifying words and sentences is fairly simple and something taught in school from the early grades on. Defining a unit is not so simple. May we suggest that a unit is a larger whole made up of a series of sentences tbat, in turn, make up a particular thought, an aspect of a larger thought or chain of thoughts. Units ultimately form a whole biblical book. Units are thus essential parts of a larger whole. They contribute in the understanding of the smaller parts and, in a spiraling way, of the larger whole of which they are a parto

Units and Chapters and Verses Bibles in their present form contain chapter divisions. However, when Paul wrote his letters or when the Gospel of Matthew was written-as is true of any writing in either T estament-no chapter divisions existed. Chapters The Bible of roday is divided into chapters which form certain units. The division into chapters originated in the Latin V ulgate and is credited to the illustrious Archbishops of Canterbury, Lanfranc (ca. 1005-1089) and Stephen Langton (died 1228), and also to Hugo de Sancto Caro (thirteenth century). The first chapter divisions noted were found in the Hebrew Bible in the thirteenth century. The convenience 146

UndeTstanding Units

147

of the chapter division was gradually recognized. The first Bible to introduce chapter numbers in the Hebrew text was the edition of Arius Montanus in 1571-a Hebrew Bible with Latin interlinear translation. The earHest completely Hebrew Bible with chapter divisions was printed in 1573-74. The verse numbers were introduced in the Hebrew Bible with the edition of Athias in 1559-61. 1 Verses The firsr Bibles with verse divisions had them in the margins. Although the system is not in much use today, it was used in Pagnini's Hebrew-Latin Bible of 1528 printed by Du Ry of Lyons in France. 2 The verse division as used in our modern Bibles was introduced by Robert (Estienne) Stephanus of Paris who placed it in his Greek-Latin New Testament in 1551 and in his French Bible of1553, "which is the first Bible to use his verse-division throughout."3 Thus the chapter and verse divisions became part of our Bibles. At this point we must note that the chapter and verse divisions are as Httle a part of the design of the biblical writers as are the systems of punctuation used in the present editions of the original texts. These are later inventions and are not part of the documents as they were produced by the inspired writers. The interpreter should, therefore, not consider these divisions as sure and safe guides for setting thought units aparto The same holds true for the open and dosed paragraph divisions of the Hebrew Bible as were customary among the Jews. In some measure these paragraph divisions are of an early date and were primarily employed for the reading of the Torah (Pentateuch) in worship over a three-year period. 4 Thus, the chapter and verse division, as well as the paragraph division of the Hebrew Bible, are not sure guides 10 the thought units, or literary units, of the Bible. These divisions do not consistendy combine the parts that belong together. Frequently they separate what properly

148

Understanding the Living Ward af Gad

belongs together according to form contento That such is the case may be demonstrated in the first two chapters of the Bible. The biblical Creation account begins in Genesis 1: 1 and comes to an end in Genesis 2:4a. The content and the literary structure indicate this. The complementation of this creation account begins in Genesis 2:4b and ends in Genesis 2:25. Thus we note that (1) the chapter division between Genesis 1 and 2 does not fit the unit and (2) the verse division in Genesis 2:4 is also improperly selected for the condusion of one unit and the beginning of the new unit.

Determination of Units The determination of literary units is dependent on the criteria which should be employed to determine the limitations of a unit and its internal consistency.

Units and Source Criticism in the Old Testament The determinatíon of literary units has been associated with two hundred years of source criticismo Source criticism, arising in the Age of Enlightenment with the emergence of the historical-critical method, seeks to determine whether a biblical book is made up of a unity or whether it is the result of composite sources which may be reflected in its units. The earliest form of source criticism for the Old Testament is the search for sources underlying the books of Moses. Pre-Reformation Christians generally accepted the view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. The French Roman Catholic priest Richard Simon (16381712), a former Protestant, claimed in 1678 that the Pentateuch is not a unity but contains material from Moses down to Ezra. His views and those of B. Spinoza and others were the beginnings of Pentateuchal criticismo By the eighteenth century the sources of the Pentateuch were analyzed by H. B. Witter (1711) and particularly Jean Astruc (1753) on the basis of the divergent use of divine names. The latter argued that twelve different sources

Understanding Units

149

were used in Genesis. The process of fragmenting units of the Pentateuchal text had thus begun. The essential subjectivity of the approach led to widely differing condusions regarding "documents," their dates and authorship. The classicalliberal view regarding Pentateuchal source criticism was formulated by K. H. Graf (1815-1869), A. Kuenen (1828-1891), and J. WeUhausen (1844-1918). The synthesis of the latter posited four major documents: J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deuteronomist), and P (Priestly document). They were dated respectively to 880 B.C., 770 B.C., 621 B.C. and 450 B.C.& Today, the documents are considered to be source strata, and the dates are pushed up in the average by 100 years. 6 However, within the last fifty years a number of scholars from within the ranks of source criticism have raised significant questions. The existence of the supposed E stratum has been questioned by P. Volz and W. Rudolph in 1933 and S. Mowinckel in 1964. Now the antiquity and independence of the J stratum is questioned, 1 and sorne argue for a second millennium date of the P stratum. 8 Source critles are "in search of new approaches in Pentateuchal research." 9 The list of Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant scholars of distinction that have reacted negatively to Pentateuchal source criticism is too large to be enumerated completely.lo The criteria of the differing divine names,l1 the variations in language and style,12 supposed doublets and repetitions,13and aIleged contradictions and anachronisms 14are no longer valid on the basis of new investigations and recent information. In the view of source critics a classical case of a double account, or differing units, is the Flood narrative of Genesis 6:5 to 8 ;22. 15 It reports about the divine decision to bríng the Flood and to save Noah, his family and every kind of animal. Noah is instructed to build the ark, men and animals enter, the flood comes, stays, and subsides. Finally the flood is over, the saved ones disembark, and God promises not to send a flood again.

150


So far SO good. But source critics claim that disturbing repetitions and irreconcilable discrepancies existo The classical example of the latter type involves the command to take a single pair of every kind of living creature into the ark (Genesis 6:19, 20), whereas later it is stated that Noah is to take seven pairs of clean beasts and only one pair of the undean into the ark. This is seen as evidence that two independent Flood stories have been united. 16 In chapter two we have already shown that in Genesis 6:19 the word "two" (R.S.V.) translates the Hebrew term senayim which is a dual form, denoting "pairs"17 of things, so that a proper translation is "You shall bring pairs of all living creatures, male and female." The undefined expression, "pairs,u of the general statement (Genesis 6:19) is made specific in Genesis 7:2 where "seven pairs of aIl c1ean animals" and only "one pair" of the unclean are to be taken into the ark. Thus on close examination no evidence here calls for the charge of discrepancy and thus a call for more than one source. In terms of the Hebrew narrarive styIe, a general statement is followed by a detailed one. The supposedly differing time tables for the length of the Flood by Hfting two periods of forty days from the total (Genesis 7:12; 8:6), reducing them to one period, adding three weeks (Chapter 8:6-12), and setting this total of sixty-one days against the year and ten days of the whole account, 18 is an exercise built on principIes alien to the text itself. A reading of the text as it stand s reveals a selfconsistency that can be diagramed. See page 151. This reckoning follows the Egyptian calendar with 12 months of 30 days each, adding up to 360 days for the year and not the solar year of 365 days of the lunar year of 354 days. If the writer were Moses, it would be natural for him to employ the Egyptian calendar. It is not too much to say with the famous Assyriologist A. Heidel, "There is here no discrepancy whatever."19 We condude that the Flood narrative is a seIf-consistent and united unit which extends from Genesis 6:5 to 8 :22. Ir

U/lderstanding Uníts

151

is part of a larger surrounding context of the continuous ongoing narrative of Genesis. The incidence ofGenesis 6:1-4 which describes the marriage of the sons of God with the daughters of men is also a unit. Though called an "isolated fragment,"zo in its Genesis

Events

Day-Month-Year of Noah's Life 17-2-600

7:11

Flood starts

7:12

Rain till 40th day

(26-3-600)

7:24 (8:3)

Water Irevaíls till 150th ay

(16-7-600)

8:4

Ark aground

17·7-600

8:5

Mountains visible

1-10-600

8:6,7

Raven sent

(10-11-600)

8:8

Dove sent

(17-11-600)

o

8:10.11

Dove and teaf

(24-11-600)

f

8:12

Dove departs

(1-12-600)

8:13

Ground dried

1-1-601

8:14-16

Disembarkation

.... N

27-2-601

(In me reconstruction of dates tbe day rec:koned as pan of one perlod of days is not counted again for the followiug perlod of days.)

present setting it is hardly isolated. It describes a situatían that introduces the Flood narrative by explaining why God decided to destroy all mankind in the antediluvian world. Readers of Genesis 6:1-4 have always been interested in the meaning of the union of the "sons of GodH (as the Hebrew text reads 21 ) with the "daughters of men." The "sons of God" have been identified as (1) "ange1s,"22 (2) divine beings,23 (3) sons of aristocrats,24 and (4) the soos of the godly line. 25

152

Understanding the Living Ward of Cad

Several considerations may aid here. First of aH, the phrase "took wives for themselves" (N.A.S.B.) is the usual expression for legal marriage in the Old T estamento 26 This rules out a promiscuous relationshíp. Second, "the sons of God" can be heavenly beings (Job 1 :6; 2: 1), but ample evidence also exists that God's people are called Hís sonso This is so in the Pentateuch (Exodus 4:22, 23; Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5, 6, 18, 19); the prophetic writings (Isaiah 1:2,4; 30:1; 43:6, 7; 45:11; 63:16; Jeremiah 3:14,19; 31:9; Hosea 1:10 [Hebrews 2:1]; 11:1); and the Psalms (73: 15; 82:6, 7). Since only two passages speak of "sons of God" as heavenly beings (Job 1:6; 2:1),27 and over a dozen passages from various parts of the Old Testament refer to sons of God or the like as human beings, the weight of evidence goes in the direction of the "sons of God" as human beings. On this basis, to adopt the theory that the "sons of God" were angel s or divine beings is not necessary. In view of the abundant instances in the Old Testament where the faithful ones are caIled sons of God, it has been suggested that the only possible meaning of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6: 1-4 is that they belong to the line of the faithful. 28 The unit of Genesis 6:1-4 is part of the introductíon of the Flood narrative in that it describes certain aspects of the immense growth of sin that led to the approaching world crisis. The unit of Genesis 9:1-17, the covenant of God with men and animals, is the counterpart of chapter 6:1-4, because it describes God's blessing and grace despite man's inherent sinfulness.

Units and So urce Criticism of the New Testament Turning to the New Testament we select rather arbitrarily the GospeI of Mark as an iIlustratíon of the determinatíon of units. Mark 1: 1-8 contains a unit that describes the ministry of John the Baptist. (Parallels are found in Matthew 3:1-12 and Luke 3:1-18.) It is followed by the unit of the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:9-11) which, in turn, is foHowed by the unit of the temptation (verses 12, 13).

Understanding Units

153

In Mark 1:14 to 3:6 we find several units that make up this first major seetion of Jesus' Galilean ministry. This is followed by the later stages of Jesus' ministry in Galilee. Mark 3:7 to 6:13. Within that major section are again various smaller units. Jesus' ministry outside Galilee is found in the next major division. Mark 6:14 to 8:26. In Mark 8:27 to 10:52 we find Jesus journeying to Jerusalem where He ministers (Mark 11:1 to 13:37) umil the passion begins (Mark 14:1 to 15:47). The narrative of the resurreetion eoneludes this gospel. Mark 16:1-20. That the three first Gospels of the New Testament, ealled Synoptics, are related to eaeh other has been recognized from earliest times. A fascinating history regarding the attempts to reconcile relationships between Matthew, Mark, and Luke would ¡nelude such matters as oral and written source theories. The oral theory holds that the Gospels were eventually written independently from the eyewitnesses that first transmitted their authentic reports by word of mouth; this oral transmission from one generation to another continued until the reports were committed to writing. 29 This theory holds that no written materials were available before the Gospels of the New T estament were written. Although there is renewed interest in oral tradition, gaíning able supporters in reeent decades,30 most seholars assume that a high proportion of the Synoptic Gospels carne from literary sources. The theory of so urce erities attempts to solve the probtem of the similarities and differences of material in the Synoptic Gospels by proposing that Mark was the earliest Gospel. This Laehmann hypothesis 31 argues that Matthew and Luke agree in sequence only when they agree with the sequence of Mark; thus Mark has priority. From this developed the two-source hypothesis which suggested that in addition to Mark there was a Sayings source designated by scholars with the siglum Q (from the German term Quelle)32 which was used by both Matthew and Luke. In

154

Understanding the Living WOTd of God

the 1920s the four-source hypothesis was developed with

Q containing material common to Matthew and Luke and M (special material unique to Matthew) and L (special material unique to Luke) sources for material peculiar to Matthew and Luke. 33 This was more or less the consensus for a quarter of a century. The hypothetical source Q has been heavily attacked by those who hold the priority of Mark 34 and the priority of Matthew. 35 Indeed the view of Augustine who had argued in A.D. 400 for the priority of Matthew is again prominent. A number of prestigious scholars have argued recently that Matthew is the earHest Gospel. 36 A person who is thoroughly familiar with the questions of source criticism oí the Gospels has recently concluded, "All in aH, the changing fortunes of source criticism show that literary criticism has not achieved and cannot achieve conclusive results in the examination of the origins of the Gospels. "37

Principies for Determining Units Depending on what view is adopted regarding the sources, the length and content ol the units are determined. In order to control subjective judgments and the fashions of scholarly hypotheses, a sound procedure for the determinatíon of units within the books of the Bible is to proceed from the given text in the form it comes to uso In other words the reconstructed prehístory of the biblical books, as interesting as it may be for other reasons, does not provide a sufficient base for the determination of the beginning and end of units. A more permanent basis is the determinatíon of the units based on the biblical text as it is given to us in the fixed, final form of the canonícal books of the Bible.

Classification of Units The task of classifying units, either large or small, is one of great importan ce. In contrast to attempts which trace the supposedly preliterary stage or stages of the smallest units and their sociocultural settings of life, we need to

Understanding Units

155

attempt to classify the units found in the Bible on the basis of the biblical text in its final canonical formo Classification and Form Criticism Form criticism, developed at the end of the ninteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, is a part of the historical-critical method and was developed in the wake of the barrenness of source criticism of both the Old and New Testaments. It attempts to trace on the basis of principIes of linguistics, anthropology, and sodology the sociocultural forces that affected the preliterary stages of the biblical texto The relation of bíblical texts to their reconstructed sociocultural contexts is described by the phrase "setting in life" (Sitz im Leben), or simply "setting." A basic assumption in form criticism is that sociocultural institutions or forces shaped the traditions until they reached their final formo This means, of course, that the same laws at work in linguistics, anthropolgy, and sociology are at work in shaping the biblical materials. Basic to form criticism are al so the assumptions of (1) origínal1y small units that grew to larger ones and (2) an evolutionary movement from primitive to advanced forms. The interest in dassifying units according to types (or genres, Gattungen) serves to identify their sociocultural "settings in life. "38 Scholars who acknowledge the indivisible divine-human nature of inspired Scripture have not been able to accept the premises, procedures, and goals of form criticism, but have found the proper and unique interpretational context within Scripture itself. H. Gunkel, the founder of form criticism, asked the question, "Are the narratives of Genesis history or legend?"39 Having accepted the modern world view, he had already decided that they could not be history and suggested that Genesis 1-11 contains mythical sagas without any kernel oftruth. Genesis 12-50, however, was made up of a variety of sagas, such as historical, etiological, ethnological, etymological, ceremonial sagas, which have

156

Understanding the Living Word ef Cod

their setting in folklore in the sense that they started out as a fairy tale but moved to saga, saga chain, and finally noveIla. More recent form crities folIow Gunkel by and large or suggest "guilt and punishment" narratives (Genesis 1-ll), "family" narratives (Genesis 12-36), and novella (Genesis 37-50).40 Form critícism, when applied to the Decalogue, condudes that the Decalogue is not a gi& of God on Mount Sinai but "is seen as the expression of centuries of human striving to put in words once and for all how God's will rules his chosen people."41 The form-critical approach to the Psalms is not simply an attempt to describe or dassify their literary types but is inextricably joined with the procedure of reconstructing the sociocultural setting in life out of which they grew. In the case of the Psalms, scholars have suggested su eh events as an "enthronement festival/'42 "covenant renewal festival, 43 or "royal Zion festival"44 as the major occasions for which the Psalms were produced. It has been noted, however, that the concrete data for such festivals is lacking, so that the "New Year Enthronement Festival or Covenant Renewal Festival, at times looks like a specter or a bag of bubbles. "45 The superscriptions of the Psalter which are an integral part of the Hebrew text are totally disregarded, although 115 oE them contain key words or phrases that indicate the type or nature of the respective psalms. 46 It should be evident by now that in contrast to those who classify biblical units from the standpoint of.divine revelation and a fixed canon, form crities dassify biblical units on an altogether different basis. The application of form criticism to the Synoptic Gospels was started in 1919. The multiplication of sources and the doubts cast on the historical value of the Gospel of Mark,41 supposedly at the time the earliest GospeI, led to the attempt of form criticismo It seeks to go behind the available written sources to the supposed stage of oral tradition; this oral stage required the reconstruction of the sociocultural lífe of the church-its "setting in life."

Understanding Units

157

One of the fathers of New Testament form criticism, M. Dibelius, suggested that among the aims of form criticism in the Gospels is "to test the trustworthiness of the tradition of the life of jesus."48 A fundamental hypothesis, according to Dibelius, is that in the initial stage of the tradition "we find no description of che life of jesus, but short paragraphs and pericopae."49 (A pericopae, or pericope, is a portion of Scripture usually read in worship services.) R. Bultmann was even more radical regarding the historical reliability of the Gospel material assigning most of it to the creative imagination of the early Christian communities. 50 He conceived the task of form criticism as "discovering what the original units of the Synoptics were, both sayings and stories, to try to establish what their historical setting was, whether they belonged to a primary or secondary tradition or whether they were the product of editorial activity."51 Foundational in all of this is the assumption of a setting in life "which is not, however, an individual historical event, but a typical situation or occupation in the life of a community."52 Bultmann recognized that the form-critical method moves "in a cirde. The forms of the literary tradition must be used to establish the influences operating in the life of the community, and the life of the community must be used to render the forms themselves intelligible. "53 Such circularity nevertheless raises a set of problems about the adequacy of the method itself. Among the insurmountable problems of form criticism to which scholars have pointed are the following: (1) circularity of the method, (2) disregard of eyewitnesses,54 (3) disregard of earwitnesses, (4) assumption of the need of the Christian community to give rise to materials, (5) application of the principIe that the "shorter is 0Ider,"55 (6) the assumption of a creative community, (7) the rejectíon of reliability of fixed forms in oral tradition that go back to the originator of the Sayings,56 (8) an outmoded folkloristic basis of past studies in anthropology,57 (9) contradictory results,58 and (10) the assumption that the

158

Understanding the Uving Word af God

early Christians were not interested in history.59 Form criticism lea ves too many questions unanswered. 60 Classification Through Internal Criteria Biblical units are most properly dassified through inter~ nal criteria. The text in its fixed form, as it meets the eye, is normative. This implies that we are not interested in either a supposedly preliterary stage or its reconstructed setting in life but in the literary conventions empIoyed by the biblical writers in the context of the Scripture text as it is available to uso In the past it was assumed that the whole range of andent Near Eastern texts from such cultures as Egypt, Babylonia, the Hittites, Greece, and Rome was to be used in determining the classification of units in the Bible. The basic presupposition was the uniformity and agreement of ancient civilizations. Today ample evidence exists that the view that "the andent Near East was a unified, monolithic block, is becoming more and more dubious. "61 For conservative scholars the bíblicaI faith is the formative eIement and working principIe that explains the unique literature for the Israelites and early Christians. Once the units are classified on the basis of the internal principIes in the respective texts, then they can be compared with rhetorical forms in surrounding cultures. The temptation to understand the bíblical forms of units in terms of those of surrounding cultures must be carefully checked. A yielding to that temptation leads to distortion and misinterpretation. Genesis 1-11, for exampIe, is conceived by form critics to be "primeval history" in the sense of a type ofliterature that is nonhistorical legend or saga. 62 As a matter of fact Genesis 1-11, if analyzed as a whole, contains a history of beginnings, such as the beginning of the earth, life, and man (Genesis 1: 1 to 2:4a), the beginning of the Sabbath (Genesis 2:1-3), the beginning of marriage (Genesis 2:4b25), and the beginning of sin (Genesis 3). Genesis 5 and 11 are chronogenealogies, if the genealogy and the time fac-

Understanding Units

159

tors are recognized. Aside from certain poetic pieces (Genesis 2:23; 3:14-16, 17b-19; 4:23-24; 9:25-27; 49), the whole of the book of Genesis is prose. 63 The various units in Genesis can be generally designated as narratives in prose formo These historical prose narratives are at times interspersed with sorne poetical lines, lists, chronogenealogies, sayings, dreams and visions. An exhaustive description of all Old Testament classifications of units would go far beyond the limitations of spaee but would indude speeches,64 sermons,65 prayers, 66 records,67 letters,68 lists,69 laws,70 visions,71 dreams,72 proverbs,73 riddles,74 songs (hymns),75 prophetic sayings,76 blessings and curses,77 and para bIes. 78 When the biblical units are investigated on the basis of their internal eriteria, one may attempt to compare them with extrabiblical materíals. As an example, the parables of Jesus may be selected and compared to those of the rabbis whose parables can be dated to New Testament times shortly thereafter. This work was recently aecomplished 79 and allows sorne interesting eondusions. Ir has been suggested that the parables of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels and those of the rabbis have basieally the same formal eharacteristies based on their morphology. Among them is the observation that the explicit explanation at the end of many parables is commonplace. 80 This means that the form-critical assumption that the explanation is secondary and does not belong to the parable has to be discarded. But there is also a marked contrast between the parables ofJesus and those of the rabbis when it comes to intent and function: "The gospel parables seek to turn conventional values and expectations upside down; the rabbinic parabIes seek to reinforce them. The former surprise; the latter confirmo The parables mostly expound the Kingdom."81 This study of parables offers a most instructive example. Even where biblical writers employ a tradicional external form, they often would fin it with new content as regards its intent and funerion, thus illustrating the danger of

160


reaching condusions on the basis of form alone without a careful study of contento

Interpretation of Units Following is a case study that illustrates the principIes of interpretatíon so far described on the basis of a unit. We will attempt to achieve our goal by selecting the famous "Song of the Vineyard" found in Isaiah 5:1-7. Although this unit is employed as a model, the following five divisions of analysis can be applied to all units in the BibIe. Historical, Cultural, and Religious Background A basic prerequisite for a full appreciation of the meaning of a unit is to become acquainted with the broad setting of a unit in terms of its historical, cultural, and religious background. In the case of a unit from the book of Isaiah this implies a knowledge of the contemporary political history of Israel, a basic grasp oE the decadent socio economic conditions where the upper dasses were primarily concerned for material possessions and physical pleasures (Isaiah 3:16 to 4:1, 5:11, 12, 22), where idolatry was widely practiced (Isaiah 1:29-31; 65 :2-5), even induding child sacrifice to Molech (Isaíah 57 :5). Isaiah the prophet enters this situatíon as God's messenger to the covenant people in the country of Judah. Setting and Date The setting of a given unit within the book is important for ¡ts contextual meaning. It must have careful attention because the biblical writer pIaced it there for a purpose. The setting of the "Song of the Vineyard" in terms of ¡ts presentation to the peopIe of Judah may have come at a time when the city of Jerusalem was crowded with people. Whether it was at one of the great feasts can only be guessed. Since the content of the song deals with the harvest of grapes, it is possible that ir was sung at the harvest or vintage festival, commonly known as the Feast of Booths (Tabernades) of which Exodus 23: 16; 34:22;

Understanding Units

161

Deuteronomy 16:13-15; and Leviticus 23:39-43 speak. The date of this song is not explicitly mentioned; but since it appears early in the book, a date in the early ministry of Isaiah is likely. This is supported by the series of woes described in Isaiah 5 :8-23, none of which giving any evidence of incursions by the Assyrian army that began as early as 734 B.C. 2 Kings 16:7; Isaiah 7:1-7. Form and Content Most recent translations of the Bible reveal that the "Song of the Vineyard" is written in poetry. We have already emphasized that part of the genius of Hebrew poetry is the fact that all essential characteristics can be translated into modero languages because it is built on parallelism and not on rhyme. In terms of its literary form it is to be classified as a "song," even as it is explicidy designated in Isaiah 5: 1. In terms of the content this song appears to be a parabolic songo Here we note once again how form and content are inseparable. That is, this song, by means of the symbols and metaphors employed, draws out the parabolic intento Some parables ofJesus in the New Testament appearto be based on this parabolic song of Isaiah. The parabolic "Song of the Vineyard" has four subdivisions, called stanzas. The first stanza (verses 1,2) describes the origin of the vineyard and its owner's care for it; the second (verses 3,4) makes an appeal for judgment between the owner and the vineyard; the third (verses 5, 6) contains an announcement of judgment; the fourth (verse 7) provides the climax of the song with an appeal to return to the loving God. Words and Sentences* At this stage we are ready to analyze the meaning of the words and sentences of this unit. The opening words of the first stanza (verses 1,2) indicate that Isaiah makes a strong entreaty, "Let me (pIease) sing." Isaiah poses thus as a '"AII che .8ible quotations in this sec:tion are me auchors own uanslation.

H-III W

162


singer or minstrel befo re his listeners. The phrase "song of my beloved" expresses the idea that the song is not Isaiah's but God's and that the prophet is but God's mouthpiece or spokesman. The song is thus of divine and not human origino The message of the song carries divine creclentials. God is two times called the "beloved." With the aid of the concordance we learn that this term appears only five times in the Old Testament and never, aside from Isaiah 5: 1, for deity. In the other passages, "beloved," is associated with the word "friend." God is the "Beloved" or "Friend" who lives in the closeness of covenant relationship with His people. In the Hebrew text the term "vineyard" stands first in the clause for the sake of emphasis. It is a major theme in this parabolic song-the first of a series of symbols representing other things. This verse does not give any hint of the symbolic nature of the vineyard as "the house of Israel" of which the reader learns latero Two things should be noted. Fírst, Isaiah's "Beloved" does not have a vineyard just anywhere. He has a vineyard at that very spot which gets the most sun during the day. Second, he has chosen not only an ideallocation in terms of light exposure but also a choice location in terms of rich, fertile soil. For the Palestinian setting the quality of the ground is supremely important. This opening verse contains one oí the finest exhibitions of Hebrew poetic skill and power in the whole Old Testamento Indeed one cannot but be struck by the musical assonance of verse 1. Note the following assonances which are even noticeable in English: sing song for my beloved beloved concerning his vineyard vineyard beloved beloved vineyard hillside hillside son of oil (fertile)

Understanding Units

163

Unfortunately the beauty of these assonances cannot be captured entírely in translatíon. Isaiah was one of Israel's poetic geniuses. The second verse opens with the idea that the Owner is engaged ín the activity of deep digging and spading of the ground in preparatíon for the planting of a new vineyard. The Owner spared no effort to prepare the ground well for His vineyard. The next step in preparation for the planting of the new vineyard is the clearing of stones. Through this act the value oE the field is materially enhanced; that which couId inhibit growth and prevent a rich harvest is removed. This careEul, step by step, natural progression in preparing for the planting indicates the great care which the Owner expended on His prospective vineyard so that it may produce rich fruit. After the ground is adequately prepared, the Owner "planted choice vines." This clause reads literally "he planted it choice vines" containing the idea that "he planted it with choice vines." According to the basic meaning of the term used for "choice vine," it must have been a kind of light red grape. The prophet Jeremiah made the point that Israel's covenant God had pIanted Israel "choice vine of fully tested stock" (Jeremiah 2:21), thus throwing light upon the idea of "choice vine." What the Owner planted in His vineyard was not just choice vine of a new kind, but one which was of a stock fully tested over a long period of time. One is ímmediately reminded of the heroes of faith such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, who were the patriarchal forefathers of the Israelites. Out of this famous stock carne Israel which was established by God in Canaan after the victorious and miraculous Exodus events. Cf. Deuteronomy 7: 6ff. That the Owner of the vineyard attempted to set up a model vineyard should be obvious. A part of the model vineyard is the "watchtower" (migdal). ElIen G. White explained that "as the tower in the vineyard, God placed in the midst of the land His holy

164


temple. "82 The temple as a symbol of protection is known from Jeremiah's famous "Temple Sermon" (chapter 7:1~ 34) in which the idea that the temple assures the nation's protection developed in popular belief into a hard~and~fast dogma. Isaiah's parabolic song could have preserved later Israelites from making the mistake of believing that since God's na me dwells in the sanctuary/temple the city of Jerusalem is inviolable. The message here, as in other prophetic books, is that not even the towerltemple (that is, the God who dwells in the temple) will provide protection if men's actions are in conflict with His will. Obviously vineyards in the ancient Near East have winepresses. "And he hewed out a winepress in it." The winepress here was hewn out of rock as the verb indicates, probably bedrock. In any case the picture reveals that it was an arduous task. A winepress of this sort consists of a large upper trough on which the grapes were pressed or trampled down (Isaiah 63:3) and a lower, srnaller trough, often carved out of solid rock, which received the grape juice. 83 The prepartion of the winepress indicates that the Owner expected that His vineyard should yield a rich harvest of grapes. Before moving to the last part of verse 2 which intro~ duces two new thoughts, we should observe that, so far, stress has been placed upon the activity of the Owner. Aside from His choice of a fertile hiU, the verbs "dig," "clear," "plant," "build," and "hew out" are all verbs describing activity. These verbs indicate hard labor and persevering work with great expense. The purpose of this description is to drive horne clearly and unmistakably that the election and choice of God's people is not the result of human merito It also indicates that insofar as God's activity was concerned there was nothing else He could do. He showered rich blessings upon them and bestowed His divine goodness. God had done for His people as much as He couId even as the owner who sets up a model vineyard does aU he can to make it a success. In the last part of verse 2 the picture changes. Activity is

Understanding Units

165

followed by eager expectation. "And he expected that it should bring forth grapes." After all the investment of time, energy, and money, the Owner is not said to await merely "good grapes" but that particular qualíty of grapes which all the actívíty, the fertile soB, and the choice of vines would let the Owner hope for. Certainly His hopes were justifiable. However the words "But it yielded sour grapes" bring shock waves to the hearers and readers. Sorne versions transIate "wild grapes." K.J.V., R.S.V., N.A.B., N.E.B. The word translated either "sour" or "wild" is used only once in the BibIe and thus to determine its exact meaning ís dífficult. The picture nevertheless is clear. The expected crop of grapes was worthless. The whole enterprise of the divine Owner with the chosen vineyard Israel-His care in choosing them out of the best stock, His labor in preparing them to bring fruit, to serve as the ones to spread the knowledge of the God of heaven and earth to the ancient nations-ended in a tragedy. The vineyard of choice vines only produced worthless fruit. The second stanza of this poem (verses 3, 4) switch es to God as the speaker. Even before the explicit interpretatíon in verse 7. the addressees can recognize that the Owner of the vineyard is the Lord. He now speaks as the Owner and addresses His people, "And now, O ínhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah." Verse 3a. The inhabitants of Jerusalem are mentioned fírst because they were the residents of the capital where wickedness was especial1y rampant. The Hebrew terms of both "inhabitants" and "men" are in the singular but have a collective force. The collective singulars are employed to address each resident of Judah individually. Individual responsibility is implied in collective responsibility! "Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard!" Verse 3 b. The emphatic partide in Hebrew is translated "1 pray you" (K.J.V., R.S.V.) but should not be omitted in English translations (N.E.B., N.A.B., N.A.S.B., N.I.V.). Through it the divine command is softened into a most earnest en-

166


treaty. The vineyard's Owner has the right to caH His peopIe to judge the rightness of His cause. His peopIe are asked to take over the function of arbiters in order to prono unce who is to blame for the disappointing yield of the Lord's model vineyard. What couId the divine Owner of this model vineyard have done more, or still do, to assure a bountiful spiritual harvest, the bearing of good and plentiful fruit of moral and spiritual living, and the grafting into Israel of vine from other nations? The singer and his Friend, the prophet and God, are identical in verses 3-6, while in verse 7 the third person speech comes back. The fact that the prophet speaks as if he were the beloved Friend Himself shows that the Revealer of His mysteries is so united with His human spokesman that when the latter speaks it is as if God speaks Himself. The contribution of this for an unde~ standing of the prophet, biblical inspiration, revelation, and authority is immediately transparento When the prophet speaks, it is not the man speaking but God speaking through him. The searching "why" brings the second strophe to its climax. Verse 4. This "why" does not ask for the reasons God should expect and hope for grapes but for the reason of the disappointment. Why did My vineyard bring forth rotten, sour, stinking grapes? This must not be misunderstood to imply that God was ignorant of this reason. It invites the listeners to ask themselves the question "Why?" in order to hold inventory. The listeners to this divine word should find out for themselves what they did wrong. In this connection the goal of asking rhetorical questions is to lead the hearers to draw implications about their guilt. The third stanza (verses 5, 6) brings again a change in tone and thought by the opening expression "But now" as in verse 3. Whereas verses 3 and 4 made an appeal for judgment between Owner and vineyard (the people of Judah) now comes the pronouncement of the judgment by the Owner Himself. In most vivid imagery God tells His people what He would do to them.

Understanding Un/ts

167

The vineyard's "hedge" and "waIP' is designed to protect it from the destruction of wild or even domesticated grazing animals. The protecting "hedge" may have consisted of prickly pears which are found as protective enclosures in Palestine today. The "wall" was certainly made of the abundant field stones. Cf. Numbers 22:24. Removing the hedge and the breaking down of the wall would lead to the "grazing" and trampling" of the vineyard. The "trampling" parabolicaUy speaks of destruction by enemy forces. The lsraelite couId hear through these words the sure end result of the breaking down of the hedge and wall. The removal of protection leading to the "grazing up" and "trampling down" of the vineyard prefigured destruction brought about by enemy armies. Isaiah 28:18; Micah 7:10; Daniel 8:13. The land so carefully and diligently prepared by God for the growth of Israel would not only return to its former state but would beco me like a deserto To see this happen brings grief and pain to the Owner whose loving care was expended for nothing. The severity of the punishing destruction is heightened in verse 6 with the opening declaration: "and 1will make it into ruin." This ruin and devastation is also the result of negIecting the vineyard. The "pruning" and "hoeing" belong to the regular care of the vineyard. According to Leviticus 25:3 the pruning of the vines is just as important for the harvest as the sowing of seed in a field. Pruning of vines took place twice. The first pruning carne in the spring when those shoots were removed which would not bring grapes; the second pruning carne after the time of blooming when the fruit would start to develop and the barren branches were removed (d. John 15 :2) so that as much sap as possible would flow to the developing grapes. The lack of hoeing causes thorns and briers to overgrow the vine s which normally spin along the ground. "Thorns and bríers" like the "thorns and thistles" in Genesis 3: 18 and Isaiah 7:23-25 are a symbol of the punishment and judgment of God. The imagery of the prophet Isaiah is dependent upon earlier pictures used in

168


the Old Testament. Inspiration provides the key for the interpretatíon of symbols. The Owner also states, "1 will command the douds that they rain no rain upon it." Verse 6c. This sentence is important for a variety of perspectives. Isaiah affirms that the Owner even has power over the elements of nature. Among Israel's neighbors the Canaanite god Baal carried the appellation "Rider of the Clouds" and is depicted as the god of rain or "dew of heaven." This god was credited with preventing the withering of trees and plants; by bringing the raín, trees and pIants grew and matured. The prophet Hosea exposed the worship of Baal in the Northern Kingdom (Hosea 2:14f.; 4:12-17) and showed that what they believed Baal did for them was actually the work of Yahweh. Isaiah, ministering at about the same time as Hosea but in Judah, the Southern Kingdom, seems to anude here to che same facc thac Yahweh gives rain and fertility to the land (d. Isaiah 27:2,3) and not che pagan deity Baal, as some in J udah believed as weU as many in Israel. The lack of rain means that those shoots of vine which would survive the destruction caused by the grazing animals would also have to die. The picture is clear. God is in charge of the affairs of Judah; He brings destruction by means of armies, followed by a natural catastrophe, droughc. The land reverts to a desertlike wasteland where only thorns and briers grow; though they need no rain, they do not support human life. Note the divine "1" in verses 4-6. This divine "1" not only stresses the beneficial activity of God in behalf of His people, but al so His judging and punishing activity. The inhabitants of Judah should not misinterpret the coming calamities; they are the result of the activity of their own covenanc God, although He does not delight in bringing punishment. An allusion to the identity of the Owner oi che vineyard is provided by che fact that He will withhold rain; thus, the Owner couId not be a mere mano

169

Understanding Unít$

The grand clímax of Isaiah's parabolic song is reached in this concluding stanza. Isaiah 5:7. The first two Unes con· tain a chiastíc structure which is nor uncommon in Hebrew poetry. Notice how the subject at the beginning of the first' Une lS parallel to thar at the end of the second Une and how the object at the end of the first Une is parallel to that of the begínning of the second lineo Such a chiasm shows the elegance of elevated poetic style. lts recognition aids in interpretatlon, for it shows whieh parts are paral1e1 to ea eh orher. The fol1owing pícture may aid in recognizing the elements of the chiasm (ABBA): A

the víneyard oí the Lord oí hosts

B

che men 01 Judah

B ís tite house of Israel

A are bis pleasant planting

The expressions under A:A be10ng together as do those under B:B. This paralleHsm shows that the "vineyard" and the "pleasant plantíng" are identical alld contain synonymous rhoughts. The questíon arises whether the expressions "the house of IsraelH and "the men of Judah" are synonymous or whether the former expression refers to the northern kingdom of Israel and the latter to the southern kingdom of Judah so that the picture of the vineyard and His plantíng refers to all of Israel of both kingdoms. The prophet Hosea employed "house of Israel" ro designate rhe Northern Kingdom (Hosea 1:4 ~ 6; 11: 12) in contrast to the "house ofJudah" (Hosea 1:7) as does also Amos (Amos 5:1. 3, 4, 25; 6:1, 14; 7:10; 9:9), both of whom prophesied in the Notthern Kingdom. lt is thus possible that Isaiah, who is a later contemporary of both Amos and Hosea, either employed the term as they did or that he used it differently. At the time when Isaiah ministered in Judah, his contemporary Mícah also spoke of the "house of Israel" in

170


contrast to the "house of Judah." Micah 1:5; 3:1, 9. The expression "house of Israel," appearing only three more times in the book of Isaiah (chapters 14:2; 46:3; 63:7), refers to all Israel, the whole people of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, just as in the Pentateuchal passages. Isaiah 46:3 is ambiguous because "the remnant of the house of Israel" can refer to those few left in the territory of the Northern Kingdom after the faH of Samaria in 722 B.C. or to Judah designated in the same verse as "house of Jacob" which escaped as a nation from Assyrian destruction and was indeed a remnant. This investigation on Isaiah's use of the phrase "house of Israel" as compared with other prophetical works, earHer, contemporary, and later, would seem to indicate that "house of Israel" in chapter 5: 7 designates all the people of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, with "men of Judah" singling out a segment of them. The expression "Lord of hosts" or better "Yahweh of hosts" is employed 60 times in Isaiah. The name Yahweh by itself appears in Isaiah 450 times. Worship in the name of Yahweh is mentioned as early as the time of Seth. Genesis 4:26. God revealed the meaning of His name in Exodus 3:14 (R.S.V.) as "1 Am Who I Am" which means as muro as "1 am the One who will show you in My words and deeds that I am your God and how 1 will be and want to be your God." Cf. Exodus 6:6. Yahweh is the name of God and God's name expresses His nature which, in turn, is His activity. Yahweh's self-presentation and thus the knowledge of His name and nature takes place through His deeds in history. In our text the personal name Yahweh is joined by the genitive form, "of hosts." "Hosts" generalIy refers to all bodies, multitudes, masses in general, the content of all that exísts in heaven and on earth. In the choice of this designation Isaiah emphasized a universalistic tendency: "Yahweh of hosts" is Yahweh the Almighty. His might will now be experienced by His people as destructive punishment whereas it was shown before in establishing

Untkrstanding Units

171

them 'aS a powerful nation and in guiding them in their eventful history. The last part ofIsaiah 5: 7 states explicit1y what Yahweh expected of His people: "and he looked for iustice~ but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry!" Isaiah again resorts to the poetic technique of assonance, using Hehrew words that are similar in sound but have a drastic contrast in meaning! Our translations cannot reflect this. Verse 7 expresses the full crisis in the relationship hetween God and His people: Instead of"justice" (mispat) there is injustice and even violence (d. Isaiah 1:16ff.; 3:14, 15), and instead of righteousness (fedaqah) there is the indifference to the sufferings of the oppressed who raise their voices in a cry of distress (d. Genesis 18:21; 19:13; Exodus 3:7,9; 22:22,23) which Yahweh does not forget (Psalm 9:12). When God turns to His people, He expects that they will respond to His election and protecting favor with justice and righteousness in their interhuman relations. This message of the OId Testament is again stressed in the New Testament. Cf. Matthew 5:20; Romans 12:1ff.; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 5:13f.; Philippians 4:8f.

Theological Motifs Deep theological motifs surface in this "masterpiece of world literature U that embodies many of the most fundamental concepts and emphases of biblica} revelation. The Nature of God. Genuine faith and tme religion is not a plant growing wild among men but divinely cultivated in human history. God's merciful actions on behalf of His people come well planned and cover a long period of time. The recapitulation of all that the Beloved did for His vineyard does give so me idea of the almost infinite patience and sense of purpose with which Yahweh tends His people throughout the centuries. God engages in His educating activity over a long, long period of time. He is not short-tempered or impatient hut slow to anger and a

172


long-suffering God. Exodus 34:6, 7; Numbers 14:18; Psalm 103:8; Jonah 4:2; Jeremiah 32:18. Isaiah 5 clearIy depicts how far God goes in relating to His people; thus we lea ro much about the very nature of God. Human Response. The Lord expects from the people of His gracious, covenantal election the fruit of righteousness. Election involves responsibility. The contract of the vineyard with its pleasant planting of choice vines and the worthless fruit it produced uncovers man's utterly incomprehensible ingratitude toward a faithful God who had pro mi sed (Leviticus 26:4; Deuteronomy 11:14; 28:12, 24) and fulfilled His promises regarding material and spiritual blessings. The vineyard was planted to yield righteousness and justice. Ir was not barren. But it brought forth fruit opposite to what was rightly expected. Utter tragedy! Man's Irresponsibility. The divine planting does not beco me spoiled by any inactivity on the part of God. It is spoiled by man's rebellious unwillingness to accept divinely given responsibilities toward other men and nations. As a father brings up sons, so the Lord has reared sons, "but they have rebelled against me." Isaiah 1:2. Their "hands are full of blood." Isaiah 1: 15. Their leaders are like the "rulers of Sodom," and the people are like the "people of Gomorrah." Isaiah 1:10. They are an "offspring of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly" (Isaiah 1:4, R.S.V.), because they have forsaken their Lord and despised the Holy One and are utterIy estranged. God had challenged them, "Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow." Isaiah 1:16, 17, R.S.V. He pleaded with them, "Come, let us walk in the light oi the Lord." Isaiah 2:5, R.S.V. That His people remain rebellious and unwilling to execute their responsibility is a shocking tragedy. Each one who sees this reality is confronted with the piercing question of how he himself relates to God and ro his fellowmen! ]udgment. Judgment and punishment are the results of

173

infidelity and apostasy and come in the form of a withdrawal of protectíon and gradous influences. Judgment is nor the result of any capriciousness on the part of God bu! inevítably issues out of man's apostasy. "Theír speech and their deeds are againsr rhe Lord, defying his glorious presence." Isaiah 3:8, N.I.V. ThereforeJudah has fallen and ]erusalem has stumbled. God has not devoured the víneyard; the leaders wíth the people are responsíble for the inevitable catastrophe. "It is you who have devoured the víneyard." {saiah 3:14. (The Bíble, of course, provides many addirional aspecrs of judgment. which when taken together form the doctrine of divine judgment. No single aspect can be expected ro provide the whole picture.)

Divine Love and Pain. Deep sorrow, painful grief, and crushing disappointment on rhe pan of God, who lavishes His love upon His people, comes implicidy through every tine of this songo Ir ís a song about God's love for His planting. His divine love i8 frustrated; His goals are thwarted. The punishing judgment thar comes upon His people ís extremely distasreful and painful ro God. Just as the parem's pain in punishing ís deeper than the child's paln in being puníshed, so God's pajn is deeper than the pain suffered by His people in punishment. The anger or wrath of God is a tragic necessity, an emoríon God deplores and does not deIight in. "He does not wiHingly afflíet or grieve the sons of men." Lamentations 3 :33, R.S.V. Cf.1eremiah 44:7f. The hope of God, who must punish, is that He can someday say abour the pleasam vineyard: "1 have no wrarh:' Isaiah 27:3. The view thar "love is nothíng but quenched wrath" exemplifies a misinterpretation of bíblical teaching. Divine anger is a transíent state (Jeremiah 18 :23; Isaiah 26:20), occasioned and conditioned by man, but not desired by God. "For 1 wi1l nor contend forever, nor wilI 1 always be angry." Isaíah 57:16, R.S.V. Divine Wooing and Human Response. The ultimare purpose of rhe message of the song of the vineyard is not to

174


harden the heart of man but to induce to repentance and to lead man to genuine faith. Totear this song out of its total context can only lead to misinterpretation. The message of the loving care of the vineyardts Owner, the bestowal of continued protection and its unwilling removal, with the constant aHusions to the pain and grief on the part of God are all intended to arouse sorrow and genuine repentance in mano Godts primary desire is for men and women to return to the covenant God so that they may live in a relationship with Him built upon unfaltering faith. Jesus Christ took up the picture of the vineyard in His parable of the wicked husbandmen. Matthew 21:33-44; Mark 12:1-11; Luke 20:9-18. Here again the vineyard is Israel; the tenants, Israel's rulers and leaders. The owner is God, the messengers are the prophets, and the son is Christ. The punishment symbolizes the ruin of Israel, and the other "people u (Matthew 21:43, T.E.V.) are the emerging community of Christian believers. The distinguishing characteristic of genuine faith, which issues in right actions in everyday life, is one of the many common features in both Isaiahts parabolic song and Jesus' parable. God will always have a people of faith, even if ir is only a remnant which keep His commandments and have the faith of Jesus. Revelation 14: 12. The caH can be heard through Isaiah and Jesus that, in answering the wooing of divine lave, the listener will find himself; identifying himself as a branch connected with the True Vine, he wiU return wholeheartedly to the Beloved and thus to be used as a tool through which God reveals His character to the world. This can of God and challenge to serve Him come down through the years to a11 of uso The exposition of the "Song of the Vineyard is a mode! of how the words, phrases, sentences, and stanzas of this unit lead to an ever-increasing understanding of the Living Word of God. U

Understanding Uníts

175

Notes and References 1. I. M. Price, The Ancestry of Our Englísh Bible, 3d ed. (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1956), pp. 36, 37. 2. M. H. Black, "The Printed Bible," in The Cambridge History ofthe Bible, ed. S. 1. Greenslade (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1963), p. 436. 3. Ibid., p. 442. 4. E. Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1979), pp. 20, 21. 5. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1st ed. 1878; Cleveland: World Publishing Company, 1957). 6. G. Fohrer, lntroduction to the Old Testament (Nashville, Tenn: Abíngdon Press, 1968), pp. 143-191. 7. H. H. Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976); R. Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1977); ídem, "the 'Yahwist' as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism," Journal for the Study ofthe Old Testament 3 (1977):2-10. 8. Y. Kaufmann, The Religíon of Israel (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 175-199; S. R. Külling, Zur Datierung der 'Genesis-P-Stücke (Kampen: Verlag J. H. Kok N.V., 1964). 9. H. H. Schmid, "In Search ofNew Approaches in Pentateuchal Research," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 3 (1977):33-42. 10. See G. 1. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), pp. 73-250; R. K. Harrison, Introductíon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1969), pp. 3-82, 495-662. 11. See for a critique, U. Cassllto, The Documentary Hypothesis Uerusalem: Hebrew University, 1961), pp. 15-41; K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chícago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1968), pp. 121-127. 12. W_ J. Martín, Stylistic Critería and the Analysis of the Pentateuch (London: The Tyndale Press, 1955); and the studies by Archer, Harrison, Cassuto, Kitchen already dted. 13. Far a critique, G. C. Aalders, A Short Introduction to the Pentateuch (Londan: The Tyndale Press, 1949), pp. 43-53; Cassuto, Documentary Hypothesis, pp. 69-83; M. H_ Segal, The Pentateuch Uerusalem: Hebrew University, 1967}, pp. 32-34. 14. FOI a critique, see chapter 2. 15. See N. Habel, Literary Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975); C. Westermann, Genesis (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977), pp. 550-618; G. Fohrer et al., Exegese des Alten Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer, 1973), pp. 49, 50. 16. H. Gunkel, Genesis, 7th ed. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), p. 131; Wesrermann, Genesis, pp. 569, 574, 575. 17. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, p. 120. 18. See Westermann, Genesis, p. 535_ 19. A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testllment Parallels, 2d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), p. 247. 20. E. A_ Speiser, Genesis (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1964), p. 45. 21. The transIatíon "supernatural being" (T. E. V.) oc che Iike has no suppart in the Hebrew texto It is an interpretation but not a translation.

176


22. 50 the 5eptuagint and recendy the commentators F. Delitzsch, J. 5kinner, U. Cassuto, etc.

23. 50 most modern critical scholars. Among them are E. A. Speiser, O. Loretz, C. Westermann, B. S. Childs, etc. 24. So M. Kline, "Divine Kingship and Gen 6: 1-4," Westminster Theological ¡oumal24 (1962):187-204. 25. SO J. Murcay, PrincipIes of Conduct (London: Tyndale Press, 1957), pp. 243-249; G. E. Closen, Die Sünde deT "S6hne Gottes" (Rome: Papstliches Bibelinstitut, 1937), pp. 157-184; F. Dexinger, Sturz deT G6ttersohne oder Engelvor de Síntflut? (Wien: Herder & Co., 1966). 26. Closen, Die Sünde, p. 28. 27. Possibly also Job 38:7; Ps 29:1; 89:7. 28. So recendy, H. Moller, Der Anfang der Bibel (BerHn: EvangeJischer Verlag, 1978), pp. 62-69. 29. B. F. Westcott, An lntroduction to the Study ofthe Gospels (London: The Macmillan Company, 1887). 30. 5ee H. Riesenfeld, "The Gospel Tradition and lts Beginnings," Studia EI/angelica (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959):43-65; B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1961). 31. K. Lachmann in Theologische Studien und Kritiken 8 (1835):570ff. 32. See H. G. Jameson, The Origin of the Synoptíc Gospels (Oxford: Basil Blaekwell, 1922). 33. B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan and Ca., Limited, 1924). 34. So A. Farrer inStudíes in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham (Naperville, IlI.: A. R. AlIenson, Inc., 1955), pp. 55ff. 35. B. C. Butler, The Originalíty of Sto Matthew (Cambridge: At me University Press, 1951); W. F. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysís (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964). 36. See note 35 and more recently B. Orchard, Matthew, Luke and Mark (Manchester: Koinonia Press, 1977). The most detailed attack ílgainst the priority oE Mark comes from H. H. 5toldt, Geschichte and Kritik der MarkusHypothese (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupreeht, 1977). 37. D. Guthrie, "The Historical and Literary Criticism of the New Testament," in Biblical CTiticism: Historical, Literary, Textual, ed. R. K. Harrison et al. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1978), p. 101. 38. See D. O. Via, Jr., ed., in Foreword to Edgar V. McKnight, What Is Form Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), p.vi; G. M. Tueker, "Form Criticism, OT," IDB Sup 342-345; C. E. Carlston, "Form Criticism, NT," IDB Sup 345-348; J. H. Hayes, ed., Old Testament Form Criticism (San Antonio: Trinity Umversity J>ress, 1974). 39. H. Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis (New York: Schocken Books, Ine., 1964), p. 1. 40. See C. Westermann and R. Albertz, "Genesis," IDB Sup 358-359. 41. K. Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969), p. 5I. 42. S. Mowincke1, Psalmenstudien ¡-IV (Oslo: J. Dybwad, 1924). 43. A. Weiser, The Psa/ms (philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962). 44. H. J. Kraus, Die Psafmen, 5th ed. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978). 45. E. Gerstenberger, "Psalms," in Old Testament Form Criticism, p. 197.

Understanding Units

177

46. See R. D. Wilson, "The Headings of the Psalms," Prineeton Theologieal Review 24 (1926):353-395; B. S. Childs, "Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis," Journal of Semitie Studies 16 (1971):137-150. 47. William Wrede, The Messianie Seeret (German original, 1901; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), argued that the secrecy motif in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus veiled His mission was not based on theJesus ofhistory but was the product of the thinking of the early church in the form of a theological reflecrion. For a survey of the problem of the Messianíc secret, see C. Brown, "The Messianic Secret," in The New Internatíonal Dictionary of New Testament The%gy, ed. C. Brown (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1978),3:506-511. 48. M. Dibelius in Exposítory Times 42 (1930):42. 49. M. Dibelius, Cospel Criticism and Chrístology (London: l. Nicholson & Watson, Límited, 1935), p. 27. 50. R. Bultmann, Hístory of the Synoptie Tradition (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1963). 51. [bid., pp. 2,3. 52. [bid., p. 4. 53. [bid., p. 5. 54. See D. E. Nineham inJTS 9 (1958):13·25,243-252. 55. See A. B. Lord, The Sínger afTa/es (New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1968). 56. See particularly H. Riesenfeld, The Cospel Traditíon and lts Beginníngs (London: A. R. Mowbray & Co., Ltd., 1957). 57. Th. Boman, Die Jesus-ÜberliefeTung im Liehte der neueren Vo/kskunde (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). 58. ef. K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Ceschiehte Yesn (HerHn: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1919) with M. Dibelíus, From Tradition to Cospel (London: 1. Nicholson and Watson, 1934) and the twO former wirh R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptie Tradition (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1963). 59. S. Neill, The Interpretatíon of the New Testament 1861·1961 (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp. 258-261. 60. ef. E. Güttgemanns, Offene Fragen tur Formgeschiehte des Evangeliums (München: e. Kaiser, 1970). 61. Fohrer, [ntroduction to the Old Testament, p. 34. 62. Gunkel, The Legends of Cenes;s, pp. 13-24. 63. See Ibid., pp. 37, 38, and many others. 64. Most ofDeuteronomy is Moses' farewell speeches. See also Ex. 4:10·16; 2 Sam. 20:14·22; 1 Kings 2:1-9; 1 Chron. 28:2-10; etc. 65. Jer. 7:1 to 8:3; Ezek. 20; Matt. 5-7; the sermons in Acts; etc. 66. Judges 16:28; 1 Kings 3:6-9; 2 Chron. 20:6-12; 1 Kings 8:23-53; Dan. 9:4-19; Ezra 9:6-15; etc. 67. Ezra 1:2-4; 4:17-22; 7:12-26. 68. 1 Kings 21:8-10; 2 Kings 10:1·3; Jer. 29; Ezra 4-6; all NT letters. 69. Ex. 25:21-29; Num. 1; 26; 31:32-46; 33; Ezra 2:68,69, etc. 70. See Ex. 20;1-17; 21:12-17; Lev. 19;3-12; etc. 71. Jer. 1; Num. 22-24; 1 Kings 22:17·23; Zech. 1-14; etc:. n. Dan. 2; 7; 8;1-14; 10-12; etc. 73. See Prov., etc. 74. Judges 14:12·18; 1 Kings 10;23,24. 75. Num. 21:17, 18; Isa. 5:1-5; the Psalms figure here also. 76. See the prophetic books.

178


77. Gen. 3:14; 9:25; 12:3; Num. 22-24; Deut. 27:15-26; Joshua 6:26; etc. 78. 2 Sam. 12; al! of Jesus' parables. 79. See R. M. Johnston. Parabolic Interpretatíons Attributed to Tannaim (Ph.D. dissertation; Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1977). 80. R. M. Johnston, "The Study oI Rabbinic Parables: Some Preliminary Observations," in Seminar Papers: SBL (Missoula, Mont.: Scho)ars Press, 1976), p. 347. 81. Ibid., p. 355. 82. PK 18. 83. See the pictures provided in S. H. Horn, The Seventh.day Aduentist Bible Dictionary (Washington, D.e.: Review and Herald, 1960), p. 1148, no. 524.

VII Understanding Books

Biblical books come to us within the framework of the canon-the collection of bíblical wrítings that are authoritative for the Christian church. This canonical form is also normative for understanding Scripture. Books, in turn, are the result of the joining of smaller uníts to each other. We use the term "book" in a loose way for each of the sixty-six documents that we have in the Bible. The Old Testament is made up of thirty-nine books and the New T estament of twenty-seven books.

Books and Authorship and Unity Understanding the books as a whole depends to a significant degree on authorship. Not all books in the Bible have a single author. The book of Psalms is clearly an exception to single authorship. For the most part, definite information about authorship is provided in the superscriptions of the individual psalms. Seventy-three psalms are ascribed to David, twelve to Asaph (Psalms SO, 73-83), ten to the sons ofKorah (Psalms42, 44-49,84,85, 87, 88), at least one to Solomon (Psalm 127), and one each to Moses (Psalm 90), Heman the Ezrahite (Psalm 88), and Ethan the Ezrahite (Psalm 89). The Psalter is thus nor a unified book in rerms of authorship. It may, therefore, be advisable to investigate as a group the psalms that are ascribed to each person so that the !deas or theology of 179

180

Understanding tbe Living WOTd of God

each group of psalms may appear. There is no real internal evidence that other books have a similar situatíon in terms of authorship. Most New Testament books have cIear indications of authorship. Thirteen letters are attríbuted to the apostle Paul. They should be individuaIly ínvestigated as separate letters. The results of che thoughts expressed in each contributes to the understanding the whole of Paul's theology. T o these letters need to be added the speeches of Paul in Acts. The historical study of Pauline thought and theology is checkered and has yielded contradictory results. The batde for the significance of Paul in New Testament thought began in a powerful sense with F. C. Baur, the facher oE the so-called Tübingen school. 1 By the 18505 he conduded that only Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians are genuine. Having adopted the Hegelian philosophy, he viewed the history of early Christianity as a struggle between the thesís of Jewish Christíanity (petrine tetters, Matthew, Revelatíon) and the antithesis oE Gentile Christianity (Galatíans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Luke) out of which emerged the synthesis of earIy Catholicism (Mark, John, ActS). 2 Although this Hegelian view did not prevail, his ínfluence is still felt in circles of liberal scholarship to the present day. 3 After Baur, at the end of the nineteenth and che beginning of the twentieth century, a liberal interpretation of Paul appeared in which the idea oE justification by fairh and sanctification receded and the ethical view of a rationalistic-idealistic morality moved to the forefronr. 4 Paul beca me a teacher of a moral-rarional conception of religíon. At the same time Paul was interpreted by orher scholars by means oE the history~of-religions mechod. On that basis they daimed that Paul's thought was profoundly condítioned by a pre-Christian Gnosticism and the so-caBed franian Redeemer myth. 5 Other scholars under the influence of Albert Schweitzer daimed that the eschatological

Understanding Boolu

181

motif is the key idea in Paul. These contradictory results in Pauline studies cause the discerning reader to wonder whether the real Paul may be discerned. May the real Paul, al so called Saul, please stand up! The real Paul can indeed stand up if he is allowed to do so on his own terms. The first principIe of research toward this goal is to follow the claims of authorship as the letters of Paul daim for themselves. In other words the whole corpus of Paul"s writings must be studied together. As ea eh of Paul's letters is studied on its own terms and in relationship to each other, the diversity of subjects and emphases appears as well as the unity within this diversity. Paul's letters must be allowed to interpret each other in the same way as the whole of Scripture has a bearing on Paul's letters as they in turn will have a bearing on the whole of Scripture. This inductive canonical approaeh-to let Scripture interpret Scripture-has a primary role over any other approach, especially that method that would make the sociocultural setting of the letters of Paul the primary principie for interpretation. Although the sociocultural setting will be of great value for illuminating the background of the Pauline letters, the biblica} context of canonical Scripture should always daim primacy. Otherwise the writings of Paul, of Peter, and of the other writers of the Bible would be reduced to the level of mere human documents. A recognition of the divine element in Scripture makes this theological-historical approach a necessity.

Books and Biblical Prophecy The nature of bíblical prophecy and the books produced by Bible prophets is something quite different from prophecy in the ancient world in general and our modern world in particular.

Biblical and Nonbiblical Prophecy An ecstatic type of prophecy was known throughout the ancient world. 6 Among the Babylonians and Assyrians the

182

Understanding the Uuing Word of God

practice of divination was wide1y used. The diviner, called was both priest and foreteller of the purposes of the gods. He was a professional; his office was hereditary.7 For a time the daim was made that Egypt had prophecy dosely akín to biblical prophecy. 8 But this today is generally denied. 9 AJthough there is divination known in Anatolia among the Hittites and in Canaan, Syria, and the ancient city of Mari, 10 the Israelite prophet, as an inspired speaker and writer-under divine commission or constraint, who publicly announces an immediate revelation from God-is unjque in the ancient world. The biblical prophet in the ancient world is a type sui generis. 11 In our modern world a phenomenal, almost unbelievable interest exists in prophecy, astrology, and fortune tening. It is estímated that every day every fourth American consults daily horoscope readings in twelve hundred newspapers. 12 A direct line of continuity connects ancient pagan divination and astrological speculation to such modern practices as reading horoscopes and fortune teHing. 13 Christians must denounce this interest as being opposed to bíblical faith. 14 bárU~

Schools of Prophetic lnterpretation Dispensationalism. In 1970 dispensatíonalism was widely dísseminated by Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth,15 which reportedly sold over six mili ion copies in less than six years. This book has popularized the dispensational approach to prophetic interpretations, although ir has aroused refutations.16 Dispensationalism is usuaIlyregardedas founded by J. N. Darby (1800-1882), a Plymoutb Bretbren leader. "Dispensationalism is the view that there is much variety in che Bible, that God has dealt differently with men during different eras of biblical history. "17 In terms of prophetic interpretatíon dispensationalism is a particular type of premi1lennialism 18 which is also caBed "futurísm"u or "dispensational premíllennialism"20 or "pretcibulationism."21 Many studies by different writers support this view of propbetic interpre-

Understanding Books

183

tation 22 which at present is an interdenominational and intercontinental system of prophetic interpretatíon that opposes the historicist premillennial interpretation held by 5eventh-day Adventists. A typical characteristic of dispensationalism with its pretribulational premillennialism is the teaching that the second coming of Christ takes place before the millennium but not in one grand appearance. It is divided into two aspects which, it is assumed, are separated by the great tribulatíon. The Hrst phase of Christ's return is called the rapture when all believers are secretly and invisibly removed and caught up into heaven. 23 This is followed by the tribulation lasting seven years. 24 This view requires the so-called gap theory of Daniel 9:24-27 where the seventieth week is separated by a large gap or parenthesis from the 69 weeks. This separatíon has no exegetical support. 25 During the tribulation, when the antichrist appears, multitudes of Jews and Gentiles will receive individual salvation. 26 Then, after the seven-year tribulation period, the visible revelation of Jesus Chríst will take place as the second phase of His second coming which will be evident to all the world. Is this the view really taught by the Word of God? There have been writers that have analyzed this "dispensationalism premillennialism" and have found it to faH far short of the New Testament teaching of Christ's coming,27 the Old Testament teaching in Daniel 9:24-27,28 and the underlying principIes of interpretation. 29 A millennialism. 50 far we have described only one peculiar school of prophetic interpretation. Other schools of prophetic interpretatíon are known as amillennialism, postmillennialism, and historicism. In contrast to dispensationalist premillennialism which teaches that the secret rapture, tribulation, and visible appearance of Christ precedes the thousand-year reign of Christ, amillennialism30 denies the thousand years of Revelation 20 as a literal period in time. The assumption is that all figures have only symbolic value. The binding oE Satan foc a thousand years

184


simply means that he is completely and ful1y bound. The amillennialists suggest that the present age between the first and second comings of Christ is the fulfiUment of the miHennium. In short, there will be no more millennium in the future foUowing the second coming of Christ. Postmil/ennialism. PostmiUennialism reaches back to Joachim of Fiore (ca. 1135-1202), who taught a three-age theory of which the last was to begin in A.D. 1260 and last for forty-two generations of thirty years each. Then Jesus Christ would come again. 31 The modern term was popularized by the Unitarian free-thinker Daniel Whitby (1638-1726), who he1d that "the world would be converted to Christ, the Jews restored to the Holy Land, and the pope and Turks defeated, after which the world would enjoya time of universal peace, happiness, and righteousness for a thousand years. At the close of this millennium Christ would personally come to earth again and the last judgment would be held. "32 Postmillennialism enjoyed immense popularity in Britain prior to World War 1, but it is stiU held today, 33 though not as widely as before. Historicism. Historicism describes a school of prophetic interpretation that conceives the second coming ofJesus to take place atone time only before the rnillennium (Revelation 20) during which the earth will be in a desolate stage and thus Satan will be bound. This indica tes that it is also premillennial, but historicist premillennialism, not dispensational premillennialism. The latter holds that the antichrist is future and has not yet appeared, thus following the "futurism" regarding antichrist as first proposed by the sixteenth century Spanish Jesuir scholar Francisco Ribera. 34 Historicist premillennialism, on the other hand, interprets the "little horn" of Daniel 7 to be the historical papacy coming up from the ten divisions of the fourth, or Roman, empire. As regards the seven churches in Revelarion 2 and 3 historicist prernjJ)enniaJism holds that these churches symbolize the seven historical phases of Christianity from New Testament times to the second advent oE Chrisr. This historicist or historical school refuses to let the

Vnderstanding Books

185

time aspects in the books of Daniel and Revelation be interpreted in symbolic ways as is done by amillennialists. Historicists argue for a literal interpretation of the 1260 days, 2300 days, 1235 days on the basis of the application of the day-for-a-year principIe which was applied in Europe already by the end of the thirteenth century A.D.35 The prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 is also literally applied as commencing in 457 B.e. and ending consecutively with the last week of 7 years when Christ's ministry commences (A.D. 27), followed by His death in the middle of the week (A.D. 31), and conduding the 70 weeks of 490 years at the time (A.D. 34) when the gospel is preached to the Gentiles, the early Christians scattered, Stephen stoned, and when Paul may have been converted. 36 This historical-Messianic interpretation "does not appear to be subject to the kind of chronological, computational, exegetical, and historical difficulties encountered by other interpretations."37 It has the support of many prominent scholars to the present. 311

Apocalyptic lnterpretation and the Book of Daniel This brief section on apocalyptic interpretation will concentrate on one of the most prominent apocalyptic books of the Bible, the book of Daniel. Apocalyptic is a type of biblicalliterature that is characterized by a comprehensive coverage ofhistorical events in which God brings about something final and beyond history. This divine intervention bursts apart the present política} and historical structures and delivers the redeemed from the present order into a new and transformed order at the end of time. The time is that of the change from one age to the new age, from the present aeon to the aeon to come. The first full-fledged bíblical apocalyptic outlook with its rich symbolic imagery is in the book of Daniel. It will be our purpose to analyze key ideas and propheticapocalyptic emphases in the book of Daniel. Space does nor permit this for the book of Revelatíon. 39 The book of Daniel has many exciting features. With

186


superb symbolie imagery the reader perceives fresh understanding regarding earthly existence and God-given explanations of heavenly seerets. New insights into the continuing batde between superhuman powers in the age-old great controversy are provided. An eager expectation of a sudden and glorious breakthrough at the time of the cataclysmic establishment of the divine kingdom by the Prince of princes permeates the book. These issues leave no person in our age untouched. Therefore E. G. White's mandate that "as we near the close of this world's history, the prophecies recorded by Daniel demand our special attention"40 can hardly be overemphasized. World History Unfolded. The statesman-seer Daniel has provided a most unique insight into the eourse of world hístory. His ehronological sequence prophecies reach from his own day to the end of the world history. Nowhere else in Scripture do we find such an overview of world history. Instead of a story of human manipulatíon or uneontrollable circumstances we learn of the outworking of a heavenly Ruler who "removes kings and sets up kings." Daniel 2:21, R.S.V. This sublime philosophy of history reveals that aneient and modern nations are not judged by theír own power but by their faithfulness with which they fulfill God's purpose and Iive up to His principles. 41 The divine, overruling purpose is working through all movements so that God's determined plan of salvatíon moves on to its climactic, victorious eonclusíon. This historicaI process clímaxes with the supernaturaI establishment of God's eternal kingdom (Daniel 2:44f.) and the resurrection of the righteous "to everlasting life" (Daniel 12:2). The reader ofthe book ofDaniel is confronted with two ehoices: either a meaningful existen ce now and everlasting life later or the eontinuous alignment with the forees of evil until eternal damnation at the end. Daniel is relevant beca use the reader is personally confronted with unavoidable ehoiees for life or death. Focus on End Time. The book of Daniel has spedal relevanee for our time beeause the undeniable focus of its

Undet'standing BQok$

187

dreams and visíons in chapters 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 is world events at the end of time. The special focus of the dream with the multimetal image which symbolizes the last four world empires (a scheme known in andent Babylonia and not borrowed from Greek or Persian ideas42) and the succeeding national entities that do not mix is on "what shall be in the tatter days." Daniel 2:28. "The latter days" denote the closing period of the future as divine ínspiration envisaged the total range of time-the period of time just before the end of world hístory when the stone cut from a mountain by no human hand inaugurates the establishment oí God's eschatological kingdom. Daniel 2:35, 44, 45. The apocalypticvision ofDanie17 moves in rapid strídes from the time of the world empires and the lirtle·horn power to the judgment scene (verses 9, 10, 13, 14) which follows the time when the war of the liule horn against the saints has come to an end (verse 21). Then rhe Andent of Days gives judgment in favor of the saints of the Mos! High. Verse 22a. This judgment is followed by the saints receívíng the kingdom (verse 22) thar shall not be destroyed (verse 14). The focus on the time of the end is maintaíned. The majestic vision of Daniel 8 explicitly states that its focus is on "the time oí the end." Verse 17. The angelinterpreter emphasizes several times that what he reveals to Daniel "shall be at the latter end" {verse 19, R.S.V.} because "it pertains to the appointed time of the end" (verse 19, R.S.V.). Thís is the time when "the sanctuary shal1 be purified." Verse 14, N.A.B. "The time of the end" is mentioned again in Daniel 11 :27, 35, 40 and in Daniel 12:4, 9. The end time ís envisaged ro begin w,tth the closing oí the 2300 day-year prophecy and to come to an end with the establishment of the everlasting kingdom. Thus the heart oí Daniel's message focuses on the heavenly judgment scene at the time of the end where the Andent of Days and the Son of man are engaged in a pre-advent judgment. FoUowing this judg-

188

Undemanding the Ulling Word of God

ment the saints receive the everlasting kingdom. In a real sense Daniel climaxes with the resurrection. Daniel 12: 1-4. Jesus Christ counseled that those who prepare for His coming should be weH aware of "the prophet Daniel ... [and] understand." Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14. Only those who have been purified and made white (Daniel 12:10) shall be able to understand. "Those who are wise shall understand" (verse 10b, R.S.V.) words that "are shut up and sealed until the time of the end" (verse 9, R.S.V.). These words pertain to that part of Daniel's prophecy which relates to the last days.43 Divine Revelation. God's revelation comes in a variety of forms and modes in this apocalyptic book. Let us first consider "dream:' In Daniel 2: 1 it is reported that the Neo-Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar "dreams." The plural "dreams" may be ¡ntended to refer to a dream experience in which the various parts come to the king. 44 The singular "dream" is employed throughout the remainder of the chapter. Verses 3-5, 6ff. Later Nebuchadnezzar again has a "dream" (Daniel 4:5, 7-9, 18, 19) which reveals his future madness. The recipient of the third "dream" is Daniel himself. Daniel 7:1. The term "dream" appears in no other chapter in the book of Daniel. It may, therefore, not be inappropriate to distinguish the "dream" from the "vision" which shall be considered la ter. A "dream" can also be designated as a "night vision." Daniel 7:2, 7, 13. These designations and phrases apparently indicate that the dream consisted oE vísions as is explicitIy stated in Daniel 4:9 ("the visions of my dream") and carne while the recipient was asleep.45 The next form of divine revelatíon in Daniel is desígnated by the term "vision." Although this mode of revelatíon is related to the former (Daniel 8: 1), it may be properly considered as an independent formo What is related in the various parts of Daniel 8, 9, 10, and 11 is singularly designated as "visíon" without the customary indications as to the manner (viz., "dream"), time (viz., "night"), and

Vndersttlnding Books

189

location (viz., "bed") of the reception of the vision. 46 The impression is that these were day visions, i.e., visions which did not come to the recipient in a dream by night. Cf. Daniel 8 :17. Thus two major modes of revelation seem to be used in the book of Daniel-nameIy, the "dream" which comes with its visions to both the pagan king and the godIy servant and the "vision" which, in this book, comes only to Daniel himself. Although the "vision" in the Old T estament comes only to a prophet, this is not the case with the dream as we have seen. The on1y other mode, or form, of revelation in the book of Daniel is the ominous handwriting on the waH when BeIshazzar feasted. Daniel 5 :5 -28. Obviously this is a form oi revelation distinct from vision and dream. Although writing on the plaster of the banqueting hall couId be observed by others as weH as the king, the wise men were unable to read and interpret it. Daniel 5 :8. As always in the book, only Daniel couId solve the problem, for only he was endowed with intelligence and wisdom such as only God can bestow. Daniel is the inspired interpreter for the dreams of others or for the interpretatíon of the handwriting. Daniel 5:11, 12. Angelic Interpretation. Beginning in Daniel 7 interpretation is provided through a divinely sent angel or prince who is heard and/or seen in a visionary experience. The ultimate source of the revealed interpretation remains in aH cases the only true God. He aJone can provide the interpretation, for in Him dwells light. Daniel 2:22. He is known as the God "who reveals mysteries." Daniel 2:28. Cf. verses 29 and 47. For this reason the interpretation is "sure." Verse 45. Having investigated the revelatory nature of the interpretations, we will now reflect on the purpose of the interpretation of the three modes of revelation in Daniel, namely, dreams, visions, and handwriting. There are two types of interpretations in the book of Daniel. The first type is provided in the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar's madness (Daniel 4 ) and in the interpre-

190


tation of the mysterious handwriting in Belshazzar's banqueting haH (Daniel 5). Both interpretations have immediate historical fulfillments which pertain to the personal experience oí the respective rulers on the throne of Babylon. In these two instanees, which must be considered as belonging to one type of interpretatíon, no futfillment of the events in the distant future is intended. The emphasis rests sole1y upon the present, the time of Daniel. This is in sharp contrast to the second type of interpretadon which has predominance in the other parts of the book oí Daniel. There the focus is primarily upon events in the future with an ultimare focus on the time of the end. The type of interpretadon with the immediate historical fulfillment has important functions in the book of Daniel without which the second type would he ¡ncomplete. Firs! of all ir iUustrates the reality that no king or potentate can overstep his divinely appointed lirnitations and get away with it. The madness of Nebuchadnezzar proves to the living "that the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will, and sets over it the lowliest of men." Danie14:17, R.S.V. In similar fashion the mysterious handwriting on the wall finds ¡ts aim: "You •.. have not humbled your heart, ... hut you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven." Daniel5:22f., R.S.V. These immediate historieal fulfillments illustrate the effectiveness ofGod's sovereign rulership over history as He "sílently, patiently [is] working out the counsels of His own Will."47 These immediate historical fulfillments are undoubtedly intended to provide an ohjective proof that the events revealed in dreams and visjons about the more distan! future with its focus on the time of the end wilJ as surely come to pass as those already fulfilJed. The second type of interpretations with distant historical fulfillments has predominance in the book of Daniel. The "dreams" and "visions" of Danie12, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are explicitiy directed toward the fulfillment in the future. They are long-range prophecies covering the history from the time of Daniel to the time of the end, in most

UnderstQnding Books

191

cases with a special emphasis on the end time. Though the emphasis on the future with its focus on the end time i8 not expressly stated in Daniel 7 and 9, the context of both chapters indicates that events are described which are to occur in the distant future. This leads us then to the conclusion that in contrast to the revelation and interpretation in Daniel 4 and 5, which have their fulfillment in immediate history, the "dreams" and "visions" of Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 have their fulfillment at a time far into the future from the days of Daniel, with a special emphasis on the eschatological end time. Prediction and Fulfillment. The span of time between the divine revelation and the actual fulfillment of the predicted event varies, depending on the events. Some fulfillments took place almost immediately (Daniel 4 and 5), others so me decades later (viz., the faH of the Babylonian Empire with the rise of Medo-Persia), and so on to the time of the end. A recent writer emphasized that "just as the span of time between the revelation and its fulfillment can be of differing lengths, so the lengths of time between the revelation itself and its interpretation can also differ. "48 This is an important observation which pertains a1so to the relationship between Daniel 8 and 9. From time to time some have objected that since Daniel 9:1 refers to the first year of Darius the Mede, which cannot possibly be earHer than 539 B.C., and Daniel 8: 1 to the third year of the reign ofBelshazzar, 548/47 B.C.,49 the time span of about nine years is of such a length that the two chapters cannot be connected in their interpretation. This argument favors the position that Daniel 9:24-27 must interpret the seventy years of Daniel 9:2 and not the only unexplained part of the vision of Daniel 8, namely, the 2300 year-day time feature of Daniel 8:13f. Those who would contend that Daniel 9:24-27 is an interpretation of the seventy years mentioned in verse 2 of the same chapter gain nothing in their time-span argumento To the contrary, since Daniel 9:2 is believed to alIude to the seventy years mentioned by the prophet

192


Jeremiah in the oracle ofJeremiah 2S: 11ff. (which is dated to about 605/4 B.e. 50) and mentioned again in Jeremiah 29:10, when about ten years had passed, the interval of time between the revelatíon (to Jeremiah) and ¡ts supposed interpretation by Gabriel in DanieI9:21ff. would be about sixty or seventy years. In other words, the time span between the revelation in Daniel 9:2 and its supposed interpretation would be six to seven times longer than the approximately nine years between Daniel 9:24-27 and "the vision of the evenings and morning" (R.S.V.) of Daniel 8: 13, 14, 26 (which had not been previously explained). In the light of this fact the argument against the linkingofDanieI9:24-27 with chapter 8:13,14,26, based upon the dates provided in 8:1 and 9:1, is shortsighted and without force. Furthermore, a unanimous consensus exists that Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are closely related. Both of these chapters are separated from each other in time by no less than fifty-three years. 51 Further considerations which give additional support to the positíon that Daniel 9:24-27 is actually the interpretatíon of the unexplained time element of the vision of Daniel 8 are as follows: 1. The book of Daniel nowhere provides an interpretation for a revelation that has come to another Old Testament prophet. Every interpretatíon provided in the book ofDaníel explains "dreams" or "visions" or the handwriting (Daniel S), each of which was revealed to a person in the book but not a person from outside the book. T o put it differently, ifDaniel9:24-27 were to interpret a revelation given to Jeremiah, it would be the only place in the entire book where an interpretatíon of another prophet's prediction is provided. This does not mean that such an anomaly is impossible; but at the same time, in view of the unique nature of the revelation in this book in terms of "dreams/' "visions," and "handwriting," it seems highly unlikely that a revelarion to another prophet was thrown in so haphazardly. Therefore one may maintain on grounds of internal evidence that Daniel 9:24-27 does indeed inter-

Understanding Books

193

pret a "vision" revealed previously in the book itself (Daniel 8) as is consistent with the general nature oE revelation in the book oE Daniel. 2. The tie-in between Daniel 8 and 9 can be further strengthened by the unusual Hebrew term for "vision" used in crucial sections in both of these chapters in contrast to the regular term /¡azon (vision). In Daniel 9:23 Gabriel states, "Understand the vision {mar'eh)." R.S.V. The Hebrew term mar'eh is identical with the one used in Daniel 8:16, 26f. In Daniel 8:26 Gabriel explicitly refers to "the vision [mar'eh] of the evening and moming" which is not interpreted because Daniel feH ill by what he had already heard. It is this mar'eh which the very same angel Gabriel again mentions in chapter 9:23. This undeniable connection is recognized also by vacious critical scholars. The noted commentator O. Ploger pointed out that mar'eh in chapter 9:23 shows that this term "is formulated by depending on Chapter 8:16."52 3. S. R. Driver53 and more recently A. Bentzen 54 maintain correcdy that the words "as at first" in the phrase "in the vision as at fírst" (chapter 9:21, R.S.V.) refers back to chapter 8: 16. 4. In Daniel 8 the angel-interpreter Gabriel addresses Daniel with the imperative "understand" (haéen) (Daniel 8:17), and Daniel is again addressed with the same imperative "understand" (halzen) in Daniel 9:23 by the same angel-interpreter. s. The close conneetion between ehapters 8 and 9 is further solidified by the reference to the idenrical angelinterpreter Gabriel mentioned in both chapters. Ploger wrote on this point, "The connection with Chapter 8 is also established in that Daniel recognizes in the messenger [of ch. 9] the very Gabriel mentioned in Chapter 8."55 These considerations give additional support to the soundness of the interpretaríon that the seventy weeks in Daniel 9 explain the only unexplained aspect of the symbolic vision of Daniel 8, namely, the time frame of the 2300 days-years. Well supported intemal evidence exists

194


to relate Daniel 8 to Daniel 9:24-27. The question of double fulfillments, multiple fulfillments, and the deeper meaning of prophecy will now be discussed. A Saving Message. A major aim of the message ofDaniel is to prepare men and women for the most stupendous crisis that has ever existed, "a time of trouble such as never has been since there was a nation." Daniel 12:1, R.S.V. This time of trouble will eonstitute the supreme test for the saindy remnant that "~hall be delivered" (verse 1) through the victorious returo of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven (d. Aets 1:9-11). Just as the Messianic Servant makes by His knowledge "many to be aecounted righteous" (Isaiah 53:11, R.S.V.), so the holy remnant will have followed their Master's footsteps and carried out the great eommission (Matthew 28: 18-20), being effective instruments "who turn many to righteousness" (Daniel 12:3, R.S.V.). While the book of Daniel aims at the deliveranee of the saints, it admonishes those who "understand" its prophecy for the last days to share their knowledge so that many "turn to righteousness" and join the growing remnant of the Most High who recei"e the kingdom to possess it forever and ever. Daniel 7:18. This seemingly unexpected evangelistic thrust in the book of Daniel reveals that those who "understand" Daniel hear a message aimed at saving as many as are willing to hear. Eaeh one who truIy understands Daniel will respond in evangelistic outreaeh, sharing DaniePs message which brings unimaginable insight into the elosing scenes of the great eontroversy between Christ and Satan. As the saving activity of the Son of man is lifted up, many will be drawn to Him. Daniel's unsealed apocalyptic mystery redirects man's sheer curiosity for the future into a meaningfuI participation with the ongoing process of a divinely directed history. This involvement deepIy satisfies man's innermost quest, providing a sense of purpose and meaningfuI existence. The ancient prophet supplies key insights into the

Understanding Books

195

redeeming work of the Andent of Days and the Son of man (Daniel 7:9-14) in the earthly (Daniel 9:24-27) and heavenly phases (Daniel 8:13, 14) ofTheir ministry. Great comfort is found in reviewing what God has accomplished in Jesus and through Him in the pasto This past is a pledge and guarantee for that which is yet to be fulfilled in the future. The book of Daniel does not jump from the past to the future. The present with the divine saving, deansing, and vindicating activity of the heavenly High Priest has the center of attention. As Christ is engaged in the purification of the heavenly sanctuary from the defilement of the sins of the penitent believers, God's people on earth are encouraged to engage in a "special work of purification. "56 Christ provides the power for this work of purificatíon and sanctification. Indeed Christ is the center of this twofold activity in behalf of man's salvation. Christ provides the benefits of the heavenly mediatíon, and Christ provides the power for victorious living on earth. Our salvation is wholly dependent on Christ. "AH need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill."57 Fulfillment, Conditionality, and the Deeper Meaning The idea of prophetic fulfillment, particularly of lastday events, is understood differently by various schools of interpretation. The dispensationalist, amiHennialist, postmillennialist, and historicist schools (of which we have spoken earlier) are all determined in their conceptions of prophetic fulfillment by the reference point of the thousand years in Revelation 20 and the events associated with this periodo Fulfillment of Prophecy. Scripture gives no support to those modern views which understand biblical prophecy in terms other than prediction and literal fulfillment, where prophecy "is not the prediction of coming events for

196


the realization of which we have to wait."58 The Bible is explicit in its assertion of valid predictions, "1, the Lord, have spoken; surely this will Ido." Numbers 14:35, R.S.V. Disbelief in prophetic fulfillment 59 was countered already by God in Numbers 11 :23: "The Lord said to Moses, 'Is the Lord's hand shortened? Now you shall see whether my word will come true for you or not.' " R.S.V. The book of Deuteronomy conceives the fulfillment of prophecy to be so significant that predicitons unfulfilled are the signs of a false prophet. "When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him." Deuteronomy 18:22, R.S.V. On the positive si de, this text implies that a genuine prophecy which has not yet been fulfilled will eventually be fulfiUed. The prophet Micah concluded his book with the words: "Thou wilt show faithfulness ... as thou hast sworn to our fathers from the days of old." Micah 7:20, R.S.V. In Zechariah a retrospective view is provided by the Lord: "My words and my statutes, which 1 commanded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers? ... As the Lord of hosts has purposed to deal with us for our ways and deeds, so has he dealt with us." Zechariah 1:6, R.S.V. The Bible makes clear on its own terms that there is predictive prophecy which leads to genuine and valid future fulfillment. Many passages in the Old Testament indicate fulfillment,60 and the same is true of the teaching of Jesus 61 and the New Testament in general. 62 The identificatíon of fulfillment and the methodology for ascertaining the fulfillment of biblical predictions must proceed with great care. The basic principie is that the Bible itself must be permitted to give direction for the proper procedure for determining the intended fulfillment or fulfiUments. Thus we address ourselves to the kinds of fulfillment, whether literal or spiritual; partíal or complete; primary or secondary; single, dual, or repeated. Every Bible student must guard himself against those per-

Understanding Books

197

sonal and thus subjective judgments that interfere with proper study procedures. The procedure for identifying prophetical fulfillment must follow the norms of inspiration. This is mandatory for the control of personal opinion on the part of the interpreter. In this case the contextual and scriptural aspects of identification are normative. For the sake of illustration, we will use several examples. The dream of Daniel 2 predicts that the "stone" that struck the image at its feet and destroyed it is God's kingdomo The question emerges, Is this the kingdom established at the first advent of Jesus Christ or at His second coming, or does it refer to both? Interpreters can be found for all three positions. The context of Daniel 2 and the details about the "stone"="kingdom" carry the key for ¡ts fulfillment. The context indicates that Daniel 2 is a dream regarding world history, depicting a succession of four world empires of declining value but increasing influence, strength, the last of which divides ¡tself into pardy strong and pardy weak toes. God's kingdom will be set up while the toes existo The foUowing indicators regarding the appearance of the kingdom of God are provided in the texto 1. Time Element. "A stone ... smote the image on its feet of iron and clay." Daniel 2:34, R.S.V. This indicates that the kingdom of God comes after the appearance of the four world empires and not during the existence of any one of the four. This is fortified more explicidy in Daniel 2:44: "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom." R.S.V. The phrase "in the days of those kings" also indicates the time elemento Who are these "kings"? Stricdy speaking none except Nebuchadnezzar have been mentioned in Daniel 2. It is doubtful that the term "kings" refers to the four kingdoms absorbed in Rome,63 because these kingdoms remain distinct in the dream. It is much more likely that "kings" refers to the division of kings 64 as verse 43 implies and as are represented by the feet and toes. On this contextual basis it appears that the kingdom of

198


God is estabHshed at a time after the iron-and-day phase had begun, which had not yet taken place when Christ carne. Furthermore support is found in the fact that each empire or kingdom succeeded the previous one. Accordingly the everlasting kingdom is expected to succeed the earthly kingdoms of the iron-and-day phase and is not said to come in the iron phase of Rome. 2. Destruction of World Kingdoms. The stone breaks all world kingdoms into pieces: "AH together were broken in pieces, and beca me like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found." Daniel 2:35, R.S.V. The idea of total destruction by the stone is again emphasized in verses 44 and 45 where the stone "shall break in pieces aH these kingdoms and bring them to an end.... It broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the day, the sil ver, and the gold." R.S.V. If the "stone" were to represent the establishment of Christianity at the time of Christ, were the world kingdoms literally destroyed at that time? Certainly noto Therefore interpreters who favor this view are forced to suggest that "rhe striking of the feet is symbolical"65 but not real. Consistency would require that the establishment of the kingdom of God at that time was likewise symbolical and not real. The rise of the Christian church was, however, a reality. In short, the picture of the destruction of the world kingdoms by the everlasting kingdom requires that the "end" (verse 44) of the former will be brought about at the end time. Then a new age with the everlasting kingdom emerges supernaturally. 3. Divine Origino The third key element in determining when the prophecy of the stone, or kingdom of God, is fulfilled relates to its origino The text affirms that it "was cut by no human hand" (Daniel 2:34, R.S.V.) or "was cut from a mountain by no human hand" (verse 45, R.S.V.). The expression "human hand" appears to refer to human agency oc activity. The everlasting kingdom, however, has an origin by other than human hands. Ir is of divine origino The church was established by Christ through human

Understanding Books

199

instruments that were charged to evangeIize the world. In the establishment of the kingdom of God at the end time no such human instrumentality is involved. The kingdom of God is established in a cataclysmic way without human hand. 4. Eternal Duration. This kingdom of God "shaU never be destroyed, nor shaU ¡ts sovereignty be left to another people." Daniel 2¡44, R.S.V. In other words, "it shall stand forever," Verse 44c. The everlasting duration of this kingdom stands in sharp contrast to the human world kingdoms, "Whereas the world-kingdoms had been taken over by successive conquerors, none will take this kingdom by storm,"66 This emphasis couId possibly be seen as being fulfilled with the establishment of the early church, but it is more clearly and unambiguousIy tme of the kingdom of God of the future. Cf. Matthew 26:29. 5. Universal Extent. The everlasting kingdom "became a great mountain and filled the whole earth." Daniel 2:35, R.S.V. The idea of the filling of the "whole earth" can hardly be said to have taken place at the time of the establishment of Christianity. The universality of the eternal kingdom eorresponds to the collapse of the whole statue at one time which symbolizes the annihilation of all the pagan kingdoms of the world as a prerequisite for the establishment of the kingdom of God on the "whole earth." The annihilation of all "these kingdoms" (Daniel 2:44) of the world makes room for the universal filling of the whole earth with the kingdom of God. Again there is no hint that the kingdom of God will exist contemporaneously with all "ihese kingdoms." To the contrary, it puts a eatadysmic end to the world-kingdoms. Several principIes of prophetic interpretation emerge as regards the identification of a fulfillment: (a) The context is a sound and indispensable guide. (b) The literal fulfillment is basie unless there is inspired evidenee that it is nonliteral. (e) Every identifying mark must be met for a fulfillment to be genuine and valido It wiH not do to find certain aspects to be fulfilled and orher identifiers remain

200

Undlmtanding the Living Word of God

unfulfilled. This means that if there is more than one fulfillment, each fulfillment must meet every point or it cannot be considered to be a valid and genuine fulfillment. In the case of Daniel 9:24-27 , for example, each eIement of the vision must be present in the proposed fulfillment if the alleged fulfillment is to have bíblica} validity. Some expositors have suggested that Daniel 9:24-27 is fulfilled in Antiochus IV Epiphanes as a type of the greater fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Aside from many points of detail and identity that enter this question, we need only to refer to one of the obvious problems of this view. lf Antiochus Epiphanes, who died in 164 B.C., is set forth as a fulfillment, the beginning of the 490 years can never be found. Those who come up with the suggestion that the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25) begins in 594 B.C.,67 also have to admit that such reckoning adds up to only 430 and not 490 years. 68 Even if the earliest date ever suggested would be taken as 605 B.C.,69 the "whole period would srill be only 441 years." 70 Thus how can Antiochus Epiphanes ever qualify as a fulfillment, when he never fits (aside from other aspects) the chronological aspect of the prophecy of the 490 years? If he is to fulfill Daniel 9:24-27, then one must charge the author of Daniel 9:24-27 with a "chronological miscalculation" 71 or "error"72 or one is forced to make the claim that "the angel Gabriel does not show himself well acquainted with chronology. "73 Supporters of the Antiochus Epiphanes interpretation prefer to say that the author or the angel is mistaken, rather than they. On the contrary, the literal, historical interpretation of this key prophecy in Daniel fits perfectly from 457 B.C. to A.D. 34 with the Messiah Jesus Christ fulfilling the events of the last part in a most remarkable way.74 No other fulfillment fíts all the data of the prophecy. The point here is again the same. Each specification of the prediction must meet in the fulfillment if the identification of the fulfillment of a prophecy is to be valido Conditionality of Prophecy. In biblical revelatíon the

Understanding Books

201

fulfiUment of prophecies is made conringent or dependent upon rhe fulfiUmenr by men and women oi certain conditions which are also stipulated by God. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and roday and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8, R.S. V.) when ir comes to His purpose to save. Sut neithec Christ nor God is changeless when it comes to the divine reaction to human responses of repentance. The reality of di vine change ís explicidy documented in Exodus 9: 15 and 2 Kings 20:1-5 as weJI as in the case of the dty of Nineveh. 75 All prophecies which are inherendy dependent on human agencies or related ro man's moral behavioc porentiaUy contain the eIement of conditionality. The principIe of conditionality 18 dearly ser forth in Jeremiah 18:7-10: "If al: 3ny time I declare concerning a nation oc a kingdofil, that 1 wiU pluck up and break down and destroy ir, and if that natÍon, concerning which 1 have spoken, turns from its evíl, 1 wi1l repent [relent, N.J.V.] of the evíl that I intended ro do to it. And íf at any time 1declare concerning a narion or a kingdom thar 1will build and plant it, and if it does evíl in my 51ght, nor listening ro my voice, then I will repent oE the good which 1 had in tended ro do ro it. H R.S. V. The concept of conditionaI prophecy is iUustrated in Jeremiah 26:12, 13; 38:17, 18; and 42:10-17. Paul emphasized this concept: "Consider therefore the kindness and stemness of God: sternness to those who feU, but kindness to you, provided thar you continue in his kindness. Otherwise~ you also wiU be cut off." Romans 11:22, N.I.V. Thus ir must "be remembered thar the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional. »'16 Tbe condi~ tionality ol God's promises and threatenings tefers to human response and participation ín these promises. In respect to God's gradous plan of salvanon toward the children of men as a whoJe, God works out the predetermined plan which will eventually succeed, for God is ultimately in control. The whole New Tesrament tea ches that Chrísr is coming again, despite the fact that His coming is

202


deIayed. The certainty of God establishing His eternaI kingdom is aIso taught in the book of Daniel. In this conneetíon let us investigare the promise or pre~ diction that Abraham would receive the Land of Canaan. The pivotal statement coneerning the possession of the land comes in Genesis 12:1-3. The word to Abraham was, "Go from your eountry and your kindred and your father's house to the land that 1 will show you." Verse 1, R.S.V. Abraham left Ur in unquestioned obedienee (Genesis 11:31) and subsequently Haran (Genesis 12:4, 5) "to go to the land of Canaan" (verse 5). Once he had arrived in the land of Canaan, the Lord appeared to Abraham at Sehechem and promised, "To your descendants 1 will give this land." Verse 7. The di vine promise that the "seed" of Abraham, i.e., his "descendants," will receive the land promised to them in one of the key themes of the BibIe. 71 After the peaceful separatíon between Lot and Abraham the Lord toId Abraham, "LiEt up your eyes, ..• Eor all the land which you see I will give to you and to your descendants for ever." Genesis 13:14, 15, R.S.V. In His subsequent covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15:7-21) the Lord obligated Himself by divine oath to give "you this land as your own" (verse 7, T.E.V.). 78 The covenant prom¡se, "To your descendants 1 will give this land," is reaffirmed in verse 18 79 and repeatedly secured by God's oath. Genesis 24:7; 50:24; Exodus 33:1; Numbers 10:29; 11:12; Deuteronomy 1:8; 11:21; 31:23. In the second stage of the covenant with Abraham the Lord emphasized, "1 will give to you, and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, aH the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and 1 will be their God." Genesis 17: 8. The promise of the Iand is repeated to Abraham's son Isaac (Genesis 26:3), who passed it on to his son Jacob (Genesís 28:4). Subsequendy Jacob himself heard God say, "The land which 1 gave to Abraham and Isaac 1 will give to you, and 1 will give the land to your descendants

Understanding Books

203

after you" (Genesis 35: 12) "for an everIasting possession" (Genesis 48:4). The book of Genesis closes with Joseph's deathbed words that epitomized the hope based on the Lord God's repeated promise, which had the guarantee of being an everlasting covenant (Genesis 15; 17) and nothing less than God's own oath (Genesis 15:7): "1 am about to die; but God will visit you, and bríng you up out of this land to the land which he swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." Genesis 50:24. 80 Here the covenant promise of the land is welded once again into God's special plan for Israel, a plan that was to be fulfilled in the future. Possession of the land was promised to the patriarchs, the forefathers of Israel. For a time "they themselves were already living in the land, to be sure, hut were not yet in possession of it, Le., the promise was not yet fulfilled."81 The pro mise was to move on to fulfillment. Divine merey is manifested in the revelatíon to Abraham about the time when the promise would be fulfiHed regarding the possessíon of the Pro mi sed Land. One of the pivotal sayings of the Old Testament discloses to the father ofthe Israelites that God's patience toward the inhabitants of the Promised Land is extended because "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. H Genesis 15:16, R.S.V. Furthermore, Ahraham's descendants will be oppressed and serve as slaves for "four hundred years." Genesis 15: 13. (No conflict exists between the figure of "four hundred years" and "the fourth generation" [verse 16] hecause the term for "generation" [dar1 can mean duration, time span, lifetime 82 of which a hundred years is a conservative equivalent in the patriarchal context.) This passing of time in the fulfillment of the promise was pan of the plan of the God who directs a1l history toward His appointed goal. The time of fulfillment of the promise began during the days of Moses and Joshua. The hook of Exodus recounts the preparatíon of Moses as deliverer of Israel, the deliverance, the covenant on Mount Sinai, the wilderness wanderings, the instructions for the tabernacle, the apostasy

204

Understand;ng the Living Word of God

and the renewal of the covenant. Moses' farewell speeches are recorded in the book ofDeuteronomy. The great leader reminded the people of Israel of the divine command, "Behold, 1 have set the land before you; go in and take possession of the land." Deuteronomy 1:8, R.S.V. Moses then recounted how they had taken possession of the Transjordanian territory of the Amorite kings ofHeshbon and Bashan. Deuteronomy 2:26 to 3:11; d. Numbers 21 :21-35. Before his death Moses installed Joshua as his successor. Deuteronomy 34:9. Moses had been forbidden to lead the people ofIsrael into the land beyond theJordan. Numbers 20: 12. The death of Moses signaled the conquest of the Promised Land. J oshua 1: 1-9. The miraculous crossing of the Jordan was the visible token of God's constant presence and His purpose in giving them the Promísed Land. Joshua 3:1-17. By the time Joshua's death approached (Joshua 23:1,14), the Lord had given to Israel "all the land which he swore to give to their fathers; and having taken possession of it, they setded there. . . . Not one of the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; aH came to pass" (Joshua 21:43-45, R.S.V.; d. 23:14). Although a "remnant of these nations" (Joshua 23:12) were still among them, they were so powerless that they proved no threat to Israel so long as the Israelites adhered faithfulIy to their God (Joshua 23:11-13). Notwithstanding that sections of the country remained in the hands of pagan nations (Joshua 13:1-6), the promise had been fulfilled, for God had not promised the immedíate destruction of the Canaanites but their gradual extermination (Exodus 23:29,30; Deuteronomy 7:22; d. Judges 2: 1,2; 3:1,2; 1 Kings 17:17,18). The Almighty acted in a way consistent with His own nature and started to fulfill His promise. Has the promise of the land to the Israelites found its complete fulfillment? An answer can only be found if the territorial extení of the Promiseed Land can be determined

Understanding Books

205

with so me degree of certainty. The land promised to the patriarchs and their descendants is commonly identified as "the land ofCanaan" (d. Genesis 12:5; 17:8; Exodus 6:4; Leviticus 25:38; Deuteronomy 32:49)83 which seems to refer generally to Syria-Palestine,84 the country west of the Jordan, but it may also refer to Bashan to the east. 85 The familiar idiom "from Dan to Beer-sheba" Qudges 20:1; 1 Samuel3 :20) is a general description of a later time used of the extent of the land from north to south. Genesis 15: 18-21 contains the first of the most extensive descriptions of the Promised Land. It is to extend "from the river ofEgypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and theJebusites." R.S.V. The southern border of the Promised Land is "the river of Egypt." "Normal1y, this phrase designates the Nile."86 The northeastern border is "the river Euphrates." Thus the Promised Land is to encompass the territory from the Euphrates in the northeast, "the entrance of Hamath" (Numbers 34:8; d. Ezekiel 47:15; 18:1) in the north (which is still not elearly identified), the Great Sea (the Mediterranean) in the west (N umbers 34: 6; J oshua 15: 12; d. EzekieI48:28), the River of Egypt (Genesis 15:18), or the Brook of Egypt (Numbers 34:5; Joshua 15:4, 47), respectively, in the south, and the wilderness (Exodus 23:31; Deuteronomy 11:24; Joshua 1:4) in the east. 87 On the basis of these descriptions the Promised Land seems to inelude the territory of both Transjordan and Cisjordan from the Nile to the Euphrates. Exodus 23 :31; Deuteronomy 1:6-8; Joshua 1:2-4. We can now return to the central question concerning the complete fulfillment of the pro mise of the land. During the times ofJoshua and the judges no complete fulfillment is witnessed. The Israelites were at the height of their expansion in the time of David. His realm extended from Labo-hamath and the Lebanese border in the north (2 Samue18:1-18; 10:1-19; etc.) to the Brook of Egypt in

206


the south, from the desert in the east (1 Chronicles 19:119) to the Mediterranean in the west. About Solomon it is said that he "ruled over aH the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of EgyptU (1 Kings 4:21), i.e., the Brook of Egypt (1 Kings 8:65). This is as close a fulfillment as the Old Testament knows. However, the victories of David did not exactly make these conquered lands his or Solomon's owo. Although the defeated nations were reduced to tribute-paying vassals (1 Kings 4:21) or made into a forced levy of slaves (1 Kings 9:21; 2 Chronicles 8:7, 8), nothing is known about Israel ever establishing complete control of the territory clear south to the Nile or that Israel incorporated the cities of Tyre and Sidon, which were allocated to Asher (Joshua 19:28,29; Judges 1:31). Evidendy, then, the land promised to the patriarchs never became a reality. Why nor? The discrepancy between the pro mise and its complete fulfillment does not He in any inability or desire on God's part but in Israel's lack of obedience. "The complete fulfillment of the pro mise was inseparably connected with the fidelity of Israel to the Lord."ss Israel, from the start, lived in a varying state of disobedience. "They have done what is evil in my sight... , since the day their fathers came out of Egypt." 2 Kings 21:15, R.S.V. Cf. Deuteronomy 1:26. The unfaithfulness of Israel caused the pro mise of God to slip from their hands. God did not fail; His people failed. They failed to provide the conditions on the basis of which they could experience the fullness of the divine promise. A common misconception considers the covenant promise of the land made to Abraham as unilatera189 and unconditional. 90 It is correct that the first stage of covenant making (Genesis 15:7-18) did not spell out how Abraham is to behave, but the second stage (Genesis 17:1-27) clearly stated that Abraham and his descendants are to "keep" the covenant (verses 9,10) and that there are obligations that one can be "broken" (verse 14). Abra-

Understanding Books

207

ham's obedience in not withholding his son kept the promise functioning. Genesis 22:16-18. Because Abraham "obeyed my voice and kept my charge, rny commandments, rny statutes, and my laws" (Genesis 26:5, R.S.V.), the Lord will fulfill His oath and give to Abraham's descendants "aH these lands" (verse 3). Although Abraham did not receive the promise of the land because of his obedience,91 his obedience did keep the pro mise active. Without loyalty to God, the promise of the land cannot be fulfilled. The promise of the land is conditional. The condition of the fulfillment of the inheritance of the Promised Land is obedience to the Lord. Those who despise the Lord shall not see the Promised Land (Numbers 14:23); those who refuse to follow the Lord wholly share the same fate (Numbers 32:11, 12; Deuteronomy 1:35, 36). If they should rebel, the Israelites would forfeit the blessings and experience the curses of the Lord. Deuteronomy 11 :26-31. They would even be dispossessed of the Promised Land. Deuteronomy 28:63-68; d. 31 :20-22. 92 The covenant between God and people is conditional. Leviticus 26: 1-46. The conditional aspects of God's covenant 93 and His promises are emphasized through a sharp contrast between the "if" of obedience (verse 3) and the "ifs" or "if nots" of disobedience (verses 14,15,18,21,23,27). "And if in spite of this you will not hearken to me, but walk contrary to me, ... I will devasta te the land.... And 1 will scatter you among the nations." Leviticus 26:27-33, R.S.V. Cf. Deuteronomy 27:9, 10; Joshua 23:15,16; Judges 2:1-5. Seven centuries later, 722 B.C., Israel's God permitted a final fulfillment of these threatened punishments to the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 17:7-18), and a century and a haH thereafter Judah was plucked up from the Promised Land and scattered in the Neo-Babylonian Empire (verse 19f.). The exile of ancient Israel did not mean the end of God's plan for His people. God held out hope of restoration and a return to their land. Isaiah predicted that "the Lord will

208


extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant which is left of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Ethiopia, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea.... He will ... gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth:' Isaiah 11:11, 12, R.S.V. Note that this promise only foresees the recovety of a remnant from Israel 94 ín contrast to the recovery at the first time of all Israel from Egyptian slavery.95 The expression "second time" does not refer to a future gathering or to the present return of Jews to the state of Israel because the countries and places enumerated are a11 territories where the ancient Israelites were taken in the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. The phrase "four corners of the earth" means the four directions of the compass which corresponds to the territories enumerated in verse 11. Thus the gathering of the second time is the one that took place in Persian times after the Babylonian captívity. This prophecy96 has met its fulfillment in the return of the exiles as recorded in the book of Ezra. The prophet J eremiah also had a distinct message, echoing Isaiah's prophecy regarding the divine restoratíon of His people. He proclaimed, "They shall dwell in their own land." Jeremiah 23:8. The Lord Himself stated, "1 will restore theír fortunes." Jeremiah 32:44, R.S.V. This refers back to the promise made to the patriarchs: "1 willlet you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers for ever." Jeremiah 7:7, R.S.V. These promises of return and restoratíon are based upon the covenant relationship: "1 will be your God, and you shall be my people" Jeremiah 7:23, R.S.V. Cf. chapters 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31 :33. These promises must be seen against their background of failure already oudined in detail by Isaiah (Isaiah 40:2; 42:24; 50:1; 54:7, 8), who also emphasized the reestablishment of a genuine covenant relationship with God (Isaiah 55:3-5; 54:9, 10; 42:6; 49:8). The constant interrelationship between restoration in the physical sense and restoration of the inner life of the people is a1so

Understand;ng Books

209

emphasized by Jeremiah. Without the inner restoration based on the new covenant "within them" (Jeremiah 31:33, R.S.V.) and written on their hearts (Jeremiah 31 :31-34), there can be no genuine restoration in the physical sense. The new covenant will make a new people. This review of Israelite history indicates that for the Exodus generatíon and their descendants the condition for receiving and possessing the Promised Land was their fulfillment of the covenant obligations. Their failure to be obedient to God's expressed will-to live up to the conditions of the covenant-prevented Israel from experiencing the complete fulfillment of God's promise of the land; ultimately, because of their disobedience, they lost the Pro mi sed Land that they had occupied. The restoration of the Promised Land, as promised by Isaiah and other prophets, was again conditional. The new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34) has also conditions: The law must be written on the heart. Verse 33. Repentance is the condition for receiving and remaining in possession of the Promised Land. Jeremiah 25:5; d. 24:8-10; 35:15; Deuteronomy 1:8. "Amend your ways and your doings, and 1willletyou dwell in this place." Jeremiah 7:3, R.S.V.; d. 18:11; 22:3-5. The manifold promises of restoration in Jeremiah 97 and other Old Testament prophets are aU conditioned by the "ifs" of obedience (Jeremiah 17:24, 25; 18:8; d. Zechariah 6:15) and the"ifnots" ofdisobedience (Jeremiah 17:27; 18:10; 22:5). The biblical teaching regarding God's plan for Israel's reception of the Promised Land and its restoration is consistent. Israel's title to the Promised Land was contingent upon that nation's fidelity to its covenant God. A wholehearted turning of Israel to God and its eontinued response of obedient service to divine faithfulness and abundant merey fulfills the conditions for receiving the Promised Land. The Promised Land is God's gift, but it cannot be received without also receivingthe divine Giver. Since no nation in the Middle East today fulfills the conditions required for the reception of the Pro mi sed

210


Land, one can hardly condude that any of the Old Testament promises of restoration are physcially fulfilled or are in the process of fulfillment in our time. Yet God's plan is not frustrated. The New Testament reveals how God will work out His purposes on the basis of the new covenant with the new Israel of God. Romans 2 :28f.; 4: 13-25; 9-11; Galatian 5; 6; Colossians 2: 11. Jews and Gentiles make up the new Israel of God. They will receive the heavenIy Jerusalem (Revelatíon 21:2) and inherit the heavenly Canaan. The traditionallimitations of territory and ethnic homogeneity are overcome in the New Testament and cast into a universal fulfillment 98 of grand proportions, a total redemption in a new heaven and a new earth. Ephesians 1: 10; 1 Thessalonians 4: 17; 2 Peter 3: 13. The Deeper Meaning. The deeper meaning of Scripture may be intended, implied, or implicit in the words of inspired writers, at times intended by God unbeknown to the inspired writer. When we speak of the deeper meaning of Scripture, we do not mean something alien or extraneous to the literal sense. The deeper sense of Scripture grows out of the literal meaning. The possibility of a deeper meaning of Scripture is based upon the nature of biblical revelatíon and inspiration. Since the Bible has God as its Author, though written by inspired human instruments, the divine Author foresaw the near and remote future in a way that no human writer could. God was aware of the future and its needs as He inspired the writers even though each writer may not have understood the implications of everything he wrote. The idea of the deeper meaning is based upon the understanding that, in the bíblical word of [he past, God speaks to the present and intends the reader of Scripture to find therein a depth of meaning that goes beyond the local and límíted circumstances of the time when it was written. The fact that the Bible is a book for a11 times and for aH men, a safe chart to heaven, a deeper meaning of Scripture ís to be acknowledged. The deeper meaning of Scripture, ¡ntended by God and to a larger or smaller degree known or not

UndeTstanding Books

211

known by the human writer, is recognized when the words of the Bible are studied in the light of further inspired revelation. However, ir has to be emphatically maintained that the deeper meaning of Scrípture, as perceived in the inspired texts, is a meaning resident in the biblical texts themselves; the deeper meaning set forth by a later inspired writer is not an alien or strange reinterpretation of the original inspired wrirer. Attempts to discover the deeper meaning of Scripture are andent. The biblical writers themselves recognized that a deeper meaning was contained in the words of those who wrote under inspiratíon before them. Speaking of the deeper meaning of Messianic predictions Peter wrote, "As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preach the gospel ro you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven,-things into which angels longed to look." 1 Peter 1:10-12, N.A.S.B. "The prophets to whom these great scenes were revealed longed to understand their full import."99 Even Christ Himself engaged in showing the deeper meaning and full import of Scripture when He talked to the disciples of Emmaus as is recorded by Luke: "He said to them, 'O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in aH that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?' And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all Scriptures." Luke 24:25-27, N.A.S.B. The inspired writers, i.e., the prophets, "did not fully comprehend the import of the revelations committed to them/'lOO They put down into the language of men the divine thoughts communicated to them. At times, however, they had only a

212

Understanding tbe Living Word af Gad

vague awareness of the deeper meaning and fulIer import of those thoughts by which God chose to communicate to future generations. Thus they knew, by divine revelatíon, that they were serving through theír writings not just their own time but men of a1l times. Sound principIes of interpretation lead to an understanding oE both what the human writer meant and what God intended to communicate through the words of the human writer. There must be then a way of determining the deeper meaning of Scripture in terms of what God wished to communicate. Since it is God who reveals His thoughts and who inspires men to comrnit these truths in the Written Word, God can disclose through further revelation what He intended to cornmunicate in earHer passages of the BibIe. Thus the unique way of deterrnining the deeper sense comes later through further divine revelation by inspired individuals. When we speak of further revelation, the main instance of such revelation would be contained in a later inspired passage in the Bible itself. For example, the New Testament may reveal a deeper meaning of Old Testament texts. Since there was a constant unfolding of God's revelation within the period of the Old Testament, later passages oE the Old Testament itself may reveal a deeper meaning and fuller import of an earlier passage of the Old Testament. In speaking about further revelation we should not assume that the Holy Spirit ceased to cornmunicate light to individual minds apart from the revelations embodied in the canon of Scripture. The Old and New Testaments know oE prophets, named and unnamed, who received revelations in order to give counsel and instruction, warning, and encouragement but whose words were not recorded and embodied in the canon of Scripture. In like manner, after the end of the biblical era, when the bíblical canon was closed, the Holy Spirit did not cease to enlighten the understanding and open the mind of sincere seekers of truth to the deep things of God's Inspired Word. When Jesus gave the promise of the Cornforter, He said,

Understanding Books

213

"When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; ... He will disc10se to you what is to come." John 16:13, N.A.S.B. The Holy Spirit will fulfill this pro mise and thus work until the end of time. Paul prayed for the believers at Ephesus "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelatíon in the knowledge of Him. 1pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so thatyou may know what is the hope ofHis calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints." Ephesians 1 :17, 18, N.A.S.B. Paul here expressed his belief that God continues to give guidance to the community of believers in the understanding of divine revelatíon. God provides this personal guidance when the Holy Spirit illuminates the believer's mind. The person illuminated by the Holy Spirit is always bound to written revelation and where applicable to later revelation that disc10ses the deeper meaning of an earlier passage as contained in either the Old or New Testaments. However the person who is illuminated by the Holy Spirit is not endowed with a gift of inspiratíon. But the person inspired by the Holy Spirit, who possesses the gift of the "spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19: 10), may uncover deeper meanings of biblical revelation. In short, asure guide to a deeper meaning of a text is an inspired writer who shows that the words of the Bible in a given passage have a deeper meaning. This criterion is a safeguard against the subjectivity of the individual student of God's Word. Two basic considerations must be added. The fírst consideration accepts the fact that the deeper meaning is already inherent and contained in the words of the inspired human agent; the deeper meaning must be, in one way or another, homogeneous with the literal sense. The second basic consideration recognizes that the deeper meaning and fulIer import of a bíblical text may be perceived only in the light of further revelation through inspired persons. The insistence on inspired persons is

214


crucial because it prevents the mystical and symbolic exegesis into which the church fathers of the medieval period had fallen; it is crucial also for the very reason that God who gave the initial revelation through inspiration again employs inspiration in order to bring out the full meaning and import of the original Inspired Word. We shall now study several examples of certain texts that have deeper and fuller meaning than the original writers may have known. These examples are not exhaustive hut representa ti ve. 1. Typology and the Deeper Meaning. Typology must not be confused with allegory. Allegory is imaginative; it does not reflect the historical sense of the text but treats it with unbridled freedom. Typology, on the contrary, is based on historical connections and is bound to the historical sense of Scripture. The object of typologieal interpretatíon can only be historical facts, su eh as persons, actions, events, and institutions; words and descriptions are involved only to the extent that they de al with historical faets. Thus, by definition, typology is a deeper meaning in Scripture which comes to expression in sueh things as persons, actions, events, institutions, and places of Scripture that foreshadow, according to the intention of the divine Author, things of the future. The deeper meaning manifested in typology can be most properly discemed through further inspired revelation. In the Old Testament one finds a form of typology which involves a relationship between beginning and end. Isaiah spoke of the eschatological retum to paradise. Isaiah 11:6-8; 65:17-25. Hosea looked back to the congregation of Israel in the wildemess and showed it to be the type of restored Israel. Hosea 2:14-16. In the New Testament, Stephen pointed to Moses as the andent type of jesus, the "Redeemer." Acts 7:20-40. In 1 Corinthians 10: 1-13 the apostle Paul developed the typology built upon the Exodus; the entire Exodus experience is a type. 1 Corinthians 10:11. This verse is important

Understanding Books

215

for the existence of typology in Scripture. Paul dedared that God, the Master of hístory and the One who ínspired the biblical writers, has willed that the history of the Old T estament should serve for the instruction, admonition, and profit of spiritual Israel-the new people of God who would live in the last days preceding the glorious coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. The believer should read in the Scriptures, even the Old Testament history, God's message addressed to him. Paul pointed to the deeper meaning behind the OId Testament history. The paschallamb is a type of Christ. John 19:36. The bronze serpent raised on the pole in the wilderness is a type of the crucified Christ. John 3: 14. The Exodus is a type of baptismo 1 Corinthians 10:2. Jonah's stay in the belly of the físh is a type of Jesus' stay in the grave. Matthew 12:40. Adam was a type of Christ. Romans 5: 14. Other examples of this kind couId be multiplied. An illuminating example of typology is found in Matthew 2:15 where Jesus is declared a fulfillment of the prophetic saying of Hosea 11: 1. The passage in Hosea refers to the Exodus and IsraeL The inspired quotation of this passage from the book of Hosea indicates that its deeper meaning is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Ir means that Jesus is the antitype of the New Israel. Just as andent Israel pIaced itself in the hands of God, so the Messiah Jesus placed Himself under all the words of God, and they are also fulfilled in His earthly, visible ministry. Thus, in the typologieal sense, the words of Hosea 11: 1 refer to Jesus: Israel was God's son and Jesus Christ is God's Son. The correlation of type to antitype is of scriptural origin; both are used within the OId Testament as well as between Testaments. The safest guide for recognizing typology is to rely upon the thíngs that are identified as types by inspired persons. Without such a guíde the tendency of human ingenuity can hardly be eontrolled. For ¡nstanee, the fathers of the church who went beyond the identity of Melchizedek as a type of Christ (as identified cleady in Hebrews 7:3) also identified Melchizedek's

216

Understanding the Livíng Word of God

presentation of bread and wine in Genesis 14: 18 as a type of the Christian eucharistic sacrifice. The relationship between type and antitype Hes on two different levels of perception. Only when the antitype appears do es the typical sense beco me clearIy apparent. This means that the type is always opaque. The antitype, on the other hand, brings out the full import of what is contained in the type; tbe deeper meaning expressed in typology is found on the basis of tbe larger context of inspired writers. It is a mistake to assume that the typological connection is a later one. God as the Author of Scrípture established the typological connection from the very outset so that the texts containing the type may be treated as an intimation and a prior divine prefigurative depiction of that which is later dearIy identified as the antitype. Typology is amanifestation of the principIe that so me texts have a truly deeper meaning. It is a hermeneutical category which has its basis in the Bible itself. 2. Prophetic Fulfillment and the Deeper Meaning. In Matthew the first of the quotations of fulfillment is chapter 1:23. Here the writer states that Mary's virginal conception of Jesus took place in order to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Behold, a young woman shall concei ve and bear a son, and shall can his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14, R.S.V. A careful examinatíon of Isaiah 7: 14 indicates that the original reference con cerned the birth of a child of royal lineage, a child who would be a "sign" of the continuance of the Davidic line and thus of God's continued presence with His people. There is no explicit indication that Isaiah was thinking of Jesus' conception. Isaiah may have had a conception in the distant {uture in mind. He may also have expected a fulfillment in the nearer future, or he may have expected borh. The Hebrew word under discussion in chapter 7: 14 is
V"derstanding Books

217

and made clear that the mother was unmarried and a woman of good and not of i1l repute. Various recent translations read "young woman" (R.S. V., N.E.B,)~ which does not deny virginity, while other translations continue with the traditional translation of "virgin" (N.A.B., N.A.S.B., N.LV.). The Septuagint translated the Hebrew word fal_ mah with the Greek word parthenos, meaning "virgin." It is now evident the Septuagint did not mistranslate the Hebrew word of Isaiah 7: 14 but chose one of the semantic meanings contained in the Hebrew word. Matthew, then, seemed to quote from the Septuagint. In inspiring the words of Isaiah 7: 14 and in guiding the prophet in the expression of the divine thought as revealed to him, God has induded in this Old Testament prophecy che possiblity oi a virgin birth, even though the prophet himself may not have understooa all of it. Isaiah's words contained a deeper meaning. When Jesus was born of a virgin in the city of David, He was a "sign" of the continuance of the Davidic tine and represented God's presence with His peop]e as was expressed by the name Immanuel, meaning "God With Us," There is a basic homogeneity between the prediction oí Isaiah 7:14 and the future virgin birth oi Jesus-both events are part of the divine plan of salvation. In other words, Matthew did not read a new meaning into the OId Tescament prophecy; he did not reinterpret the Isaianic prophecy; he did not misapply the text he quoted-he brought out a deeper meaning already present in the text itself. This observation is crucial because it is an essential element of the perspective of salvation history. The deeper meaning contained in the Scriptural passage manifests always this criterion of homogeneity, Hebrews 1:5 quotes from Psalm 2:7 the phrase "Thou art my Son, today 1 have begotten thee." R.S.V, AJthough che original reference in Psalm 2 may have been used in the celebration of the enthronement of a king of Judah in the Davidic tine (cE. 2 Samuel 7:14), once che monarchy ceased to exist after the Exile, the words of this psalm dearly revealed

218


their deeper meaning in referring to the ideal king in the Davidic line who was to come. The full Messianic ¡mport of this passage was clearly recognized through further inspired revelation. The psalmisfs words had a much deeper meaning and fuller import than the psalmist may have been aware of. Again there is a basic homogeneity between the psalmist's words and their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. There came a day in time, namely, the "today" oi Psalm 2:7, when, by the resurrection in glorified humanity,]esus Christ was begotten to a new status which He did not have before. (In Acts 13:33 this quotation from PsaIm 2 is explicitly applied ro Christ's resurrection.) Jesus Christ is now exalted to be a Son, namely, "the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29), by virtue oE His human¡ty. When Hebrews 1:5 and Acts 13 :33 apply Psalm 2: 7 to ]esus, there is a homogeneity between the deeper meaning and the sense oE the original OId Testament passage. While there are many cIear predictions in the Old Testament which have been fulfilled in New Testament times and are referred to in New Testament quotations and citations, a good number oi New Testament citations of the OId Testament reflect the deeper meaning of Scripture which come to fun view through inspired revelation. We have only lightly touched the message of Jesus in the New T estament text, but now we will focus on the literary basis for our Lord's messages.

Books and the Message of Jeslls The New Testament does nor provide us with a single document from the hand of Jesus. Providence has chosen rhat the message of Jesus should come to mankind in a different manner. The message of Jesus is preserved primarily in the four Gospels with but a few isolated sayings oE Jesus referred ro e1sewhere in the New Testamento The first three Gospels have a more or less common perspective and general plan. For this reason they have been called the Synoptic Gospels, or simply the Synoptics.

Understanding Books

219

The Authenticity of Jesus' Words Christians have for many centuries recognized that there are remarkable agreements and disagreements between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The issue of this relationship between the three Synoptics has been at the heart of the modern discussion relating to the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus. The historicity of the Gospels and what they contain has been at the foreground of much scholarly debate since World War 1. The questions are whether, or to what degree, the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of ]ohn contain genuíne and authentic sayings of Jesus. Did ]esus utter the words attributed to Him, or were these words put in His mouth for various reasons? Beyond this the issue is, Oid the outline of the life of Jesus as provided in the Gospels actually take place, or is it a partial or total invention by the Gospel writers? The Synoptic Gospels. These matters have a significant bearing on the confidence a person may have in the Gospel records and thus in the foundatíon of the Christian faith. Many Christians are unaware of the attitude modern historical-critical research has taken on these mattees. Modern study of the life of ]esus is obsessed with the attempt to determine by means of probability arguments "a critically assured minimum"lOl of words and events about which scholars will agree. This procedure uses a number of criteria on the basis of which the portrait of Jesus and His words can be reconstructed. 102 The technical designatíon for this is the "quest" or "new quest" for the historical Jesus. A basic presupposition of much of the modern approach to these issues must be clearly stated and understood by all Bible students. The assumption of leading modern (Bultmannian and post-Bultmannian) scholarship at this time is that the Gospel records are unreliable and nonauthentic and that the burden of proof for the reliability of the words of Jesus and the picture of Jesus in the

220

Understanding tbe Lilling Ward al God

Gospels rests upon those who accept their reliability. Professor E. Kasemann of Germany asserts rhar the task is "to investigate and make credible not the possibly unauthentidty oE the individual unit of material but, on the contrary, its genuineness/'103 Professor N. Perrin oE the Uníversity of Chicago argues that "the burden oE prooE must lay [sic] on the daim to authenticity, and the difficulties of establishing that daim become very great-very geeat indeed, but not impossible."104 Perrin's view is that "the nature oE the synoptic tradition is such that the burden of proof will be upon the daim to authenticity."105 In other words, many modero scholars contend that the narratives and sayings of Jesus owe their origin to the needs of the early church. not to the actuallife and teachings oE Jesus, unless their authenticity can be demonstrated by certain criteria that scholars have suggested. The thinking person will reflect seriously and critically upon (1) the attempts to arrive at "a crítically assured minimum" of authentic Gospel materials and (2) the validity oE the assumption of inauthenticity. The fact is that "a criticalIy asssured minimum" is but a modero form of reductionism (reduce all materials to barest mínimum of acceptability). Such a minimum is "historicalIy unbalanced and theologically distorted as to be disastrously misleading. "106 To reduce the porttait of Jesus in the Gospels and His words in such a manner is unwarranted. Professor J. Schneider objected, "Since the Gospels deal with the revelation of God in history, they are historical records of unique significance. They rest upon the testimony oE the disciples, who heard Jesus' words and saw His mighty deeds."107 The disciples were earwitnesses and eyewitnesses, and this is oE great importance. The opponents oE Jesus and His Eollowers were also eyewitnesses and earwitnesses and would have been the fírst to charge dishonesty, distortion, and the like iE the portrait of Jesus and His message would not have been genuine and authenticalIy transmitted in the Gospels.

Understanding Books

221

The assumption of inauthenticity (instead of authenticity) is linked with the idea that the early church created these materials for its own needs. Such a presupposition reflects a modern skepticism unparalleled in historical researeh. Many generations of seholars, past and present, have followed the sound procedure of legal practíce that a person is ¡nnoeent until proven guilty. Current liberal Gospel researeh has turned this around to the assumption that the tradition must be reekoned guilty until proven innoeent. This assumption is not applied to other pieees of aneíent líterature nor should it be applied to the Gospels. We must interpret the Gospels as they stand, namely, as credible reports of Jesus and His preaching. J. Jeremias) at the forefront of linguístic and stylistic evidenee in the Synoptíes, declared, "In the Synoptic tradition it is the inauthenticity, and not the authentieity, of the sayings of Jesus that must be demonstrated."10S Other scholars also follow a positive approach to the Gospels.10 9 Modern methodologieal skepticism is fraught with speculative phiIosophical premises that are alien to Seripture. Scholars following the assumption of inauthenticity have brought together a number of eriteria on the basis of which they feel able to decide whether a saying is authentie and goes baek to Jesus. The following eriteria have been suggested: (1) the criterion of dissimilarity; (2) the criterion of multiple attestation; (3) the criterion of coherence; (4) the criterio n of unintentionality; and (5) the criterion of traditional continuíty.110 The "criterion of dissimilarity"l11 holds that if a Jew or contemporary of Jesus couId have said such a saying it cannot be assigned to J esus or contrariwise the saying must be so striking or embarrassing that no follower of Jesus could have dared to invent it. This criterion of exclusion and validatíon can at best establish an irreducible minimum of authentic sayings. In reaetíon it has been noted that "Jesus could have agreed with the post-Easter church. . . . Jesus might also have quoted or used with

222


approval Rabbinic teaching."112 Because we do not know what contemporaries oE Jesus said or did not say, this criterion makes knowing what is authentic in the sayings of Jesus virtuaUy impossible.t 13 Some have argued that this criterion really begs the question of the real character of Jesus' message because it throws out whatever is not unique. 114 Thus it produces "phoney results"115 or "at best a half-truth. If this halftruth is taken to be the whol~ truth about ]esus, ... there is Httle hope of coming anywhere near to the historical Jesus."1l6 These, among other considerations, reveal that this major criteríon does not lead to the truth. The "criterion of multiple attestatíon" builds upon the suggestion that when a saying of Jesus is attested more than once ín the Gospels or in the tradition behind it, then it may be considered genuine. 117 Reactions are again direct and to the point. Why should a saying of Jesus that is employed only once be less authentic than one that is attested more than once? "A saying attested only in one source may be just as authentic as one attested in several." 118 This criterion also "does not assure thatthe tradition itself stems directly or even ultimately fromJesus."119 This falls short of its ¡ntended demonstration. The problem ís with its underlying methodological skepticism. The "criterion of coherence" builds upon a basic irreducible and authentic mínimum that has been established. Other material may be added if it fits the minimum. Then it may be judged authentic. 120 The strength of this criterion stands or falls with the criterio n of dissimilarity. In other words, the problems and errors oE the criterion of dissimilarity are magnified in the application of this criterion. u1 Coherence means nothing but the coherence to the irreducible minimum. Again the end result is reductionist, truncated, and one-sided. The "criterion of unintentionality" and the "criterion of traditional continuity" are employed in order to enlarge the irreducible minimum. But this enlargement ineludes only those parts of the traditíon which are contrary to the

Understanding Books

223

intention of the tradition or in essential continuity with the message of Jesus and the proclamatíon of the early church. Both of these criteria presuppose agaín the skeptical stance toward the Gospel materials. Why should that which is unintentional be more authentic than what was said intentionally? Why should traditional continuity be present only in the case of the irreducible mínimum and the unintentional sayings? The alternative to these attempts born out of methodological skepticism with ¡ts assumption of inauthenticity is to do what Christians have always done and what conservative and evangelical scholars regularly do. One is to begin with the position that the Gospel message ís reliable and preserves what Jesus actuaUy said and díd. The Gospels are authentic reports of Jesus and His preachíng. We must not judge these Gospel reports on the basis of the historical-critical method with it presupposition that "only those events can be described as
224


parallels with the Synoptics, and John knows some circumstances reported in the Synoptics. In view of this the question about the reliability of John's portrait of Jesus and his record of the sayings or narratives ofJesus has been raised. Some scholars of the Gospel of John have argued that its author had no knowledge of the Synoptics,124 or knowledge only of Mark and Luke,12S or knowledge only of Mark,126 or only of Luke. 121 Other scholars affirm that John knew all three Synoptics. 128 Regarding the matter of relationship and historical trustworthiness Harold E. Fagal concluded a recent study on this issue as follows: "There is no evidence that requires us to conclude that John set out to correct Mark, nor did he reproduce in his own way Marcan substance and language even to the point of misunderstanding it. The Gospel of John was written by one whose purpose was to present a work based on faith in order to produce faith in his readers, but his theologicaI motif did not in any way affeet the trustworthiness of that which he wrote.•.. There is a theological motive behind this portrayal [of Jesus], but the author is not any less historical because of it."129 In a similar vein a well-known New T estament scholar noted the following: "The account inJohn's Gospel differs in many respeets from that in the Synoptic Gospels. But this do es not entitle us to question the historical value of the Johannine record. No doubt Jesus' ministry was more extensive than what is related by the Synoptic writers, whose presentation foHows a specific pattero. John couId not have made up the events that he alone of the gospel writers shares with his readers; they are part of the tradition that he is repeating."130 There should be no doubt about the fact that the apostolie proclamation of the Gospels and the words attributed to Jesus go baek to Jesus himself. Jesus seems to have toId the same story or parable to different audienees and at different times and plaees. One Gospel writer may have cited the incidence in one such setting and another in another setting. The slight differenees can thus be much

Understanding Books

225

better explained than by the assumption that the words oi jesus, the circumstances, or both were invented by the early church, the respective Gospel writers, or altered to fit a particular need and serve a given purpose of the early church. The Nature of the Gospels. Another methodology arising directly out of form criticism with its doubtful criteria (which we have just described) and based on it is redaction criticism-another part of the historical-critical method. Redaction critics are not interested in proving the authentidty of the sayings of jesus. They conceive the evangelists as writers or full-fledged theological authors in their own right. So redaction criticism focuses on the Gospel writers as theologians who had linle or no interest in history as such. Thus the Gospel writers allegedly put their own theological stamp upon the materials iormed in the oral periodo Four scholars (post-Bultmannians) laid the foundations of the method in the post-World War 11 period, dealing respectively with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the book of ActS. 131 Accordingly the Gospel writers are believed to emphasize their own theological interests. They are thought to do so by direct modification or changes in the traditional material, by rearranging, recombining, and adapting them to their needs. 132 Professor R. T. Fortna described the assumption behind New Testament redaction criticism: "Redaction is the conscious reworking of older materials in such a way as to meet new needs. It is editing that does not simpIy compile or retouch but creatively transforms."133 This means that each Gospel writer transformed the material that carne to him. In that sense redaction criticism emphasizes the difierences between the Gospel writers who are creative theologians with no real interest in history. It would go far beyond our purpose to describe the various and conflicting results oi redaction criticism. 134 Among the problems oi redaction criticism is the subjective procedure it manifests. The first two decades of such

226

Understand¡ng the Living Word of God

study on Luke-Acts, for instanee, has indicated that redaction-critical studies have been "like shifting sands"13S with no general agreement among seholars on even the most basic issues of Lukan research. 136 Since redaction criticism "presupposes and continues the procedures of the earlier discipline [i.e., form criticism],"137 it is faced with the same internal weaknesses that were noted in our discussion on the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus. An additional problem of redaction criticism is that it is bound to the two- (or four-) source theory of the Synoptic Gospels. In view of the recent assaults on this theory and the fact that "enough difficulties with Markan priority have emerged to render its position as an 'assured result' of criticism suspect,"138 the theory of Markan priority is "a questionable control on redaction-critical work."139 In plain language this means that if the theory that Mark is the earliest Gospel has to be abandoned-and many prominent scholars argue in this fashion-then a foundation pillar of redaction criticism is removed with devastating results for its practitioners. Finally redaction criticism's denial that the geographical and biographical information serves only a theological interest without foundation in history is itself iH-founded. The issue is not whether the respective New Testament writers are but theologians. Surely they are theologians in their own right, but they are historians as well. 140 They are also inspired writers. Just as the words of Jesus do not come from a nebulous past but show continuity with the One who spoke them, so there is a manifest continuity in such details as geographical, biographical, and related information. Jesus taught selectivity by making His message relevant to His various audiences at various occasions to which the Gospel writers refer. In adapting His message to the various audiences and occasions and in aiming it at future generations, Jesus' message through inspired writers takes different forms, arrangements, modifications, and emphases but always manifests basic continuity with the Jesus who walked the highways and byways of Pales-

UndeTstanding Books

227

tine. Accordingly the same saying, parabIe, sermon, etc., may be different, depending on the situation and aims of the occasions when Jesus spoke. This principIe of selectivity and adaptation means much for understanding the Gospels. At times there are two stories or circumstances that are much alike but are yet different. For exampIe, in Luke 15:3-7, we have the parable of uThe Lost Sheep" in the context of Jesus' justifying His receiving sinners against the charges of the Pharisees and scribes. Verse 2. In Matthew 18:12-14 the same parable is toId to Jesus' disciples. Verse 1. The parable is employed by Jesus at two different occasions, with different audiences and different purposes. This change in emphasis is not part of the modification of Luke or Matthew but comes to them out of the setting in Jesus' life and work. The theological interests of Matthew and Luke respectively may be reflected in their selection under the guidance of the HoIy Spirit of a related parable from different circumstances in the life of Jesus. Each Gospel writer incorporated the parable he selected into his Gospel. Neither GospeI writer can be said to have manipulated or transformed the material. This kind of situation can be demonstrated time and again. One condusion that form crities reached was that "the Gospe1s are not biographies of Jesus written for historical purposes by the original disciples of Jesus."141 What is usually meant by the assertion that they are not biographies is that they have no interest in history and that they are creations of the communities who had a need for them. 142 Now the fact is that biography as a genre of literature "has only emerged in the last three centuries"143 in three different forms. The form in which the biographer arranges traditional documentary and other material to produce an integrated work is certainly a type of biography to which the Gospels can be broadly eompared. They also follow a broad chronological sequence. 144

228

Understanding the Living Word of Gad

The Gospels are not biographies in the sense of being free creations of the biographer's own words or in the sense of what Jesus looked like and how His interior and exterior life developed. Neverthe1ess they are biographies in the sense that they follow a broad chronological sequenee with reliable geographical and historical data that is aeeurate wherever it can be ehecked. Readers in modern times take them normally as biographical just as readers in New Testament times would have taken them "as biographical; and, in spite of the kerygmatic element, they were probably so intended."14s The Gospels are biographical. They provide the chief outlines of the origin, life, ministry of preaching and healing, and the passion, death, and resurreetion of Jesus. But they are more than a biography beca use they aim to bring about faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, whose voice today as then awaits response and obedience and a preparatíon for His glorious returo. Maranatha! "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!" Revelation 22:20, R.S.V.

Notes and References 1. See W. G. Kümmel, The New Testamenl: The Hislory of the Investigation of íes Problems (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1970), pp. 127·143. 2. G. F. Hasel, New Testament Theology: Basí, Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eetdmans, 1978), p. 31. 3. R. C. Briggs, Interpreting Ihe New Testament Today (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1973), pp. 145-148. 4. See H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of Hi, Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 18-22. S. Kümmel, The New Testament, pp. 245-280. 6. See T. J. Meek, Hebrew Origins, 3d ed. (New York: Harper Be Row Publishers, 1960), pp. 155f. 7. A. J. Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper Be Row Publishers, 1962), 2:234. 8. Meek, Hebrew Origins, p. 181. 9. Heschel, Prophees. 2:245. 10. See H. B. Huffmon, "Prophecy in the Ancient Near East," IDB Sup 697-700. 11. Heschel, Prophets. 2:252, 253. 12. W. Dymess, "The Age of Aquarius," in Dreams. Visions and Oracles. eds. C. E. Amerding and W. W. Gasque (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 15.

Understanding Books

229

13. G. E. Wright, The Old Testament Against lts Enllironment (Reprint, London: SCM Press, 1966), pp. 78-93. 14. Useful studies on this indude G. A. Wilbern, The Fortune SelleTs (Glendale, Calíf.: Regal Books, 1972); W. J. Petersen, ed., Astrology and the Bible (Wheaton, 111.: SP Publications, 1972). 15. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1970. 16. See, for example, G. C. Miladin, Is This Really the End? (Cherry HiI!, N. J.: Mack Publishing Co., 1972). 17. G. W. Grogan, "Dispensationalism," in New International Dictíonary of the Christian Church, ed. J. O. Oouglas (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1974), p. 303. 18. For the various types of premillennialism, see lan S. Rennie, "Nineteenth-Century Roots," in Dreams, Visions and OTae/es, pp. 41-59. 19. Ibid., p. 51. 20. Ibid., pp. 58, 59. 21. G. E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Adllent and the Rapture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1973), pp. 35-60; O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed PubIishing Co., 1977). Both are strong and incisive opponents to dispensationalism. 22. Two rypical recent examples of dispensationalist premillennial interrelation of prophec;y are J. D. Pentec;ost, Things To Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1969); P. L. Tan, The lnterpretation of Prophecy (Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1974). 80th contajn rich bibliographies of other dispensationalist writets. 23. Pentecost, Things To Come, p.206. 24. Ibid., pp. 229-258. 25. See the critiques by Allis, Prophecy and the Church, pp. 111-123; E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapíds, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1949), pp. 213-221; G. F. Hasel, "The Sevenry Weeks ofOaniel9:24-27," Ministry (May 1976):1O-24D. 26. Pentec;ost, Thíngs To Come, p. 274. 27. See note 21. 28. See note 25. 29. See particularly Ladd, The Blessed Hope, pp. 61-88; Allis, Propbecy and tbe Church, pp. 16-54. 30. Supporters are G. Murray, Millennial Studies (Grand Rapids, Mkh.: Baket, 1948); F. E. Hamilton, Tbe Basis of Millennial Faith (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1952); G. C. Betkouwer, The Return of Christ (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1952); and others. 31. R. C. Clouse, "Joachim of Fiore," in New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p.536. 32. R. C. Clouse, "Oaniel Whitby," in New International Dictionary of tbe Christian Church, p. 1042. 33. J. H. Snowden, The Coming of the Lord: Will lt Be Premillennial? (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1919); J. M. Kik, The Eschato/ogy ofVictory (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1971). 34. F. D. Nichol, ed., "History of the Interpretatíon of Daniel," 4BC 42. 35. Ibid., pp. 55, 56. 36. Hase!, "The Seventy Weeks ofDaniel9:24-27," pp. 140-170. 37. ¡bid., p. 170. 38. Forexample, E. W. Hengstenberg,J. N. Andrews, E. B. Pusey,J. Raiika,

230


J. Hontheim, C. Boutflower, O. Gerhardt, G. M. Price,J. B. Payne, G. L. Archer, Je., B. H. Hall; Hasel, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27," p. 20D, note 132. 39. The reader is referred to the highly informative studies by K. A. Strand,

Perspectives ín the Book of Revelation: Essays on Apocalyptic Interpretation (Wonhington, Ohio: Ann Arbor Publishers, 1975); and ídem, Interpreting the Book of Revelatíon: Hermeneutícal Guidelines, With Brief Introduction to Literary Analysís (Worthington, Ohio: Ann Arbor Publishers, 1976) for a recent Sevenrh-day Adventist approach to the book of Revelation. 40. PK 547. 41. Ed 175ff. 42. See the new discoveries of ancient texts and eheir discussion in G. F. Hasel, uThe Four World Empires of Daniel 2 Against Its Near Eastern Environment," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (1979):17-30. 43. See AA 585; Ge 356. 44. 50 Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebrew Grammar, 2d ed. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1910), p. 400. 45. Dan. 2:28; 4:5; 7:1. 46. Dan. 8:1,2,13,15,17,26,27; 9:21; 10:14; 11:14. 47. PK 500. 48. A Menens, Das Buch Daniel in Lichte deT Texte vom Toten Meer (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 1971), p. 116 (italics his). 49. G. F. Hasel, "The Fiest and Thírd Years ofBe!shazzar (Dan 7:1; 8:1)," Andrews University Seminary Studies 15 (1977):153-168. 50. J. Bright, "Jeremiah," Anchor Bible (Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday & Company, Ine., 1965), p. 160. 51. Hase!, "The First and Third Years of Belshazzar," pp. 166, 167. 52. O. Ploger, Das Buch Daniel (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohr, 1965), p. 134. 53. 5. R. Driver, Daniel (London: The University Press, 1900), p. 133. 54. A. Bentzen, Daniel (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1952), p. 66. 55. Ploger, Daniel, p. 139. 56. GC 425. 57. ¡bid., p. 488. 58. For example, R. Bultmann, "Prophecy and Fulfillment," in Essays on old Testament Hermeneutics, ed. C. Westermann (Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1963), pp. 55, 56, with reference to the scheme of J. C. K. Hofmann. 59. Modern forms oE disbelief are similar. Examples abound and are surveyed by J. B. Payne, En,yelopedia of Bibli,aJ Prophecy (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1973), pp. 57-61. 60. See 2 Sam. 7:13=1 Kíngs 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29ff.=1 Kings 12:15; . 1 Kings 13=2 Kings23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6ff.=1 Kings 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4= . 1 Kings 16:12;]oshua 6:26=1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17=1 Kings 22:35, 36; , 1 Kings 21:21, 22=1 Kings 21:27-29; 2 Kings 1:6=2 Kings 1:17; 2 Kings 21: 10-15=2 Kings 24:2; 23:26; 2 Kings 22:15-20=2 Kings 23:30. 61. Luke 4:21; Matt. 11:10; Mark 9:12,13; Luke 18:31-33; 21:22; Man. 26:24; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:37; Man. 26:31, 53-56; Luke 24:25-27, 44-47; John 5:39-47; 13:18; 15:25; 17:12. 62. We may refer here, for ínstance, to the "fulfillment" quotations in Mate. 1:23; 2:5, 6,15,17, 18,23; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:14, 15,35; 21:4, 5; 27:9,10. These "fulfillment" quotations emphasize the fulfillment oE (1) Messianic prophecíes, (2) the rejection of literal Israel, and (3) the mission to the

Understanding Baaks

231

Gentiles. 63. E. J. Yaung, The Prophecy af Daniel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1949), p. 78; D. Ford, Daniel (Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Publishing Associa· tion, 1978), pp. 99·100. 64. J. A. Montgomery, Daniel (Edinburgh, 1927), p. 177; U. Smith, Daniel and Revelation (Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Publishing Assocíation, 1944), p. 57; G. M. Price, The Greatest af the Praphets (Mauntain View, CaJif.: Pacific Press, 1955), p. 81; O. Ploger, Daniel, p. 53. 65. Young, Daniel, p. 78; and others. 66. J. G. Baldwin, Daniel (Downers Grove, 111.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978), p.93. 67. L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Leila, The Boak of Daniel (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1978), p. 250. 68. Ibid. 69. E. Konig, Die Messianischen Weissagungen des Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Che. Belser U. G., Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1925), p. 311; M. Thilo, Die Chronologie des Daniel-Buches (Bonn: A. Schmidt, 1926), p. 14. 70. Hartmann and Di Leila, Daniel, p. 250. 71. Montgomery, Daniel, p. 393. 72. K. Marti, Daniel (Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901), p. 73. 73. B. Duhm, lsraels Propheten, 2d ed. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1922), p. 416. 74. G. F. Hasel, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24·27," Ministry (May 1976), pp. lD·24D. 75. See G. F. Hasel, Jonah: Messenger of the EJeventh HouT (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1976), pp. 63-67. 76. ISM 67. 77. D. R. Hillers, Covenant: The Hístory of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1969), pp. 102f.; N. Lohfink, Die Landverheissung als Eid. Eine Studje zu Gn 15 (Stuttgart: Verlag Karholisches Bibelwerk, 1967); L. A. Snijders, "Genesis 15: The Covenant With Abraham," OTS 12 (1958):261279. 78. God's oath is in keep;ng wirh the suzerainty (superior-inferior) treaty; d. D. J. Wiseman, Journal af Cuneiform Studies 12 (1958):124-129; M. G. Kline, The Seructure of BibUcal Authority (Grand Rapids, Mi,h.: Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 124·126. 79. The late dating of Gen. 15:7-18 by L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie 1m ALten Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), pp_ 85ff., and E. Kutsch. Verheissung und Gesetz (Berlín: Walter de Gruyter, 1972), p. 67, is not convincing. See Lohfink, Landverheissung, pp. 79, 80. 80. See Gen. 24:7; Ex. 33:1; Num. 10:29; 11:12; 14:23; Deut. 1:8; 10:11; 11:21; 31:23; 34:4; Joshua 1:6; 21:43; Judges 2:1. 81. G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), p. 245. 82. W. Baumgartner, Hebriiisebes und Aramii/sehes Lexikon zum Alten Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1967), p. 209; d. W. F. Albright, "Prom the Patriarchs to Moses," Biblical Archaeolagist 36 (1973), 15f. 83. Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historieal Geagraphy (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967), pp. 61·70. 84. K. A. Kitchen, "Canaan, Canaanites," in The New BibJe Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1967), p. 183; S. H.

232


Horn, ed., "Canaan," S.D.A. Bible D;ctionary (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1960), p. 169. 85. A. R. Millard, "The Canaanites," in Peoples alOld Testament Times, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), p. 33. 86. E. A. Speiser, Genesis (Garden Qty, N. Y.: Doubleday & Company,lnc., 1964), p. 114; cE. Lohfink, Landverheissung, p. 76. Other passages refer ro "the Brook afEgypt" (Num. 34:5; Joshua 15:4,47; 1 Kings 8:65; Isa. 27:12), which is normally identified with the great Wadi el-cArish that empties into the Mediterrannean about 30 miles south of Raphia. 87. P. Diebold,lsraels Laltd (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer GmbH, 1972), p. 151. 88. C. F. Keil, "Judges," Cammentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1949), p. 216. 89. HiIlers, Covenant, p. 103, states thatthe covenant with Abraham "binds only God." 90. E. H. Maly, "Genesis," in The lerame Bibücal Commentary (Englewood ClifEs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), p. 20: "The covenant is unilateral, unconditioned on Abram's part." 91. M. Weinfeld, "bcrith," Theolagical Dictianary al the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), 2:270, 271. 92. Kline, The Structure af Bibücal Autharity, p. 126. 93. lbid., p. 146. The author poinrs out that human respansibility is the basic presupposinon of the covenant sripulations. D. J. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant: A Survey al Current Opinions (Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1972), p. 3, emphasizes that "all covenants, or contracts, have their conditions." 94. G. F. Hasel, The Remnant, 2d ed. (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1974), pp. 339-348. Cf. S. Erlandsson, "Jesaja 11, 10-16 och des historiska bakgrund," Svensk Exegetisk Ars bak 36 (1971):24·44. 95. E. J. Young, The Baok af lsaiah (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965), 1:394. 96. See also Isa. 43:5, 6; 45:13; 49:9-13, 22-26. 97. Jer. 23:1-8; 24:4-7; 30:8, 9, 18-21; 31:27,28; 32:6-44. 98. H. K. La Rondelle, "Interpretanon of Prophetic and Apocalyptic EschatoJogy," in A Sympos;um on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. G. M. Hyde (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1974), pp. 225-249. 99. PK 73I. 100. GC344. 101. N. A. Dahl, "The Problem of the Historical Jesus," in Kerygma and History, eds. C. E. Braaten and R. A. Harrisville (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), p. 156. 102. J. M. Rabinson, A New Quest orthe Historical lesus (London: SCM Press, 1959); N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching afJesus, 2d ed.; (New York: Harper Be Row Publishers, 1976). 103. E. Kasemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM Press. 1964), p. 34. 104. N. Perrin, What is Redaction Criticismf (Phíladelphia: Forrress Press, 1969), p. 70. 105. ¡bid., p. 39. 106. R. N. Longeneckcr, "Literary Criteria in Life of Jesus Research: An Evaluatíon and Proposal," in Current luues in Biblical and Patristic Interpreta-

Understanding Books

233

tion, ed. G. F. Hawrhorne (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 225. 107. J. Schneider, "Jesus Chríst: His Life and Ministry," in Fundamentals of the Faith, ed. C. F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Z~mdervan, 1969), p. 95. 108. J. Jeremias, New Testament Theo/ogy 1: Tbe Proc/amation óf Jesus (Landon: SCM Press, 1971), p. 37. Cf. N.J. McEleney, "Aurhenticating Criteria and Mark 7:1-23," CBQ 34 {1972}:431-460. 109. See notes 11-13 and D. Guthrie, jesus tbe Messiab (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1972); R. T. France, The Man They CTuClfied-A Pertraitof jesu$ (Landon: InterNarsity Press, 1975); F. F. Bruce, "Jesus Christ," in The New Internat/onal Dictionary ofthe Christian Church, ed. j. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1975), pp. 531-534. 110. I. H. Marshall, 1 Believe in the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 200-211. 111. R. Bultmann, History af the Synoptíc Trad/tían (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1963), p. 205; Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of jesus, p. 39. 112. R. H. Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962), p.33. 113. Marshall, 1 Believe, p. 201. 114. M. D. Hooker, "On Usingthe WrongTool," Theology 75 (1972):570581. 115. Marshall, 1 Believe, p. 202. 116. R. T. France, "The Authemicity of the Sayings of Jesus," in History, Criticism and Faith, ed. C. Brown (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1976), p. 111. 117. See F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and lts Transmission, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1911), pp. 147-183; C. H. Dodd, Histary and the Gospel (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1938), pp. 91-103. 118. Marshall, 1 Believe, p. 203. 119. Longenecker, "Literary Critería," pp. 222-223. 120. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching ef jesus, pp. 43-45. 121. Marshall, 1 Believe, p. 205; France, "Authenticity," pp. 110·112. 122. D. E. Nineham et al., Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament (London: S. P. C. K. 1965), p. 4. 123. See chapter 1. 124. W. Michaelis, C. H. Dodd, T. W. Manson, J. A. T. Robinson, etc. 125. A. F. D. Sparks, W. F. Howard, C. K. Barrett, H. M. Teeple, etc. 126. M. Meinertz, R. M. Grant, E. K. Lee, etc. 127. K. Weíss, W. G. Kümmel, J. A. Bailey. 128. P. Gardner-Smith, J. Lightfoot, C. Goodwín, etc. 129. H. E. Fagal, "John and the Synoptic Tradition," in Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretatían, eds. W. W. Gasque and W. S. LaSar (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 142, 143. 130. Schneider, "Jesus Christ: His Life and His Ministry," p. 95. 131. G. Bomkamm in Tradition and Interpretation in Mattbew, eds. G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held (London: SCM Press, 1963). He firstwrote his essay in 1948. W. Marxsen, Mark the Ellangelist (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1969); H. Conzelmann, The Theology uf Sto Luke (London: Faber and Faber, 1960); E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965). 132. N. Perrín, What Is Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969).

234


133. R. T. Fonna, "Redaction Criticism, NT," IOB Sup, p. 733. 134. See R. H. Stein, "What Is Redactionsgeschichte," ]BL 88 (1969):45-56; idem, "The Proper Methodology for Ascertaining a Markan Redaction," Novum Testamentum 13 (1971):181-198;]. Rohde, Rediscovering the Teachings of tbe Evangelists (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), describes the method oE redaction criticism (pp. 1-46) and summarizes many examples up to 1966. 135. C. H. Talbert, "Shifting Sands: The Recent Study oE the Gospel oE Luke," Interpretation 30 (1976):395. 136. W. Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts o{ the Apostles (Tübingen: j. C. B. Mohr, 1965). 137. Dan O. Via, Foreword to What Js Redaction Criticismf by Perrin, p. viii. 138. Talbert, "Shifting Sands," p. 393.

139. Ibid. 140. I. H. Marshall, Luke, Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1971); D. Guthrie, "The Historial and Literary Criticism oE the New Testament," in Biblical Criticism: Historical, Uterary and Textual, eds. R. K. Harrison et al. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1978), pp. 107, 108. 141. E. V. McKnight, What Is Form Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), p. 2; d. M. Dibclius, Gospel Crit;c;sm and Christology (London: I. Nicholson & Watson, Limited, 1935), p. 30; R. Bultmann and K. Kundsin, Form Criticism (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1962), p. 45. 142. Dibelius and Bultmann, note 141. 143. W. D. Davies, "Questto be Resumed in NT Studies," Union Seminary Quarterly 15 (1960):94. 144. F. V. Filson, Origins ofthe Gospels (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1938), p. 103. 145. j. M. Suggs, "Gospels, Genre," IOB Sup (1976), p.371.

INDEX OF BmLICAL REFERENCES GENESIS 1 36,48, 125, 148 1:1 103,120 1:1~2:4a 120, 124, 148 1:2 120, 122~124, 141 1:6-10 124 1:8 36 1:9,10 125 1:10 36 1:14-18 126,127 1:15-18 126 1 :26~28 33, 112 2:1-3 158 2:4b~25 48, 148, 159 2:7 113 2:9 36 2:16,17 34 2:19 48 2:23 159 2:25 148 3 159 3:4,5 35 3:7 35 3:14~16 159,178 3:17-19 159 3:18 168 4:1~12 36 4:23,24 159 4:25 112 4:26 170 5 11, 159 5:1 112 6:14 151, 152 6:5 148

6:19 150 6:19, 20 49, 150 7:2 49,150 7:7~13 49, 50, 151 8:6-14 150, 151, 152 9:1-17 152 9:25-27 159,178 10:18 145 10:21 133 11:14 133 11:31 135,202 12:1~5 202,205 12:3 31, 178 12:6 145 12:7 145 13:7 145 13:14, 15 202 14 136~138 14:2 135 14:18 216 15:7-21 202,203,206, 231 15:18 202,203,205 15:18-21 205 17:1-27 206 17:3 202 17:8 205 18:21 171 22:16~18 207 23:1~16 133 24:7 136, 202 24:27 231 26:3 202 26:5 207 28:4 202 31:32 49

236

31:34 45 31:47 62 31:48-54 45 32:15 202 40:8 81 40:16 81 41:12 81 43:33 46 49 159 50:24 20Z, 203

EXODUS 3:7 171 3:9 171 3:14 170 4:10-16 177 4:19 62 4:22,23 152 6:4 205 6:6 170 7:1 81 9:15 201 9:16 31 19:2 62 20:1-17 178 21 :12-17 178 22:22 171 22:23 171 23:16 161 23:29,30 204 23:31 205 25:21-29 178 33:1 202,231 34:6,7 172 34:22 161 LEVmcUS 11:6 60 19:3-12 178 23:5 167 23:39-43 161 24:6 172 25:38 205 26:1-46 207 24:14 207

Untkrstanding the Living Word of God

24:15 207 24:18 207 26:27-33 207

NUMBERS 1 178 10:29 202,231 11:12 202,231 11:23 196 14:18 172 14:23 207,231 14:35 196 21:17,18 178 21:21-35 204 22-24 178 22:24 167 26 178 31:32-46 178 32:11, 12 207 33 178 34:6 205 34:8 205 34:12 205

DEUTERONOMY 1:6-8 205 1:8 202,204,209,231 1:26 206 1:35,36 207 2:26-31 204 7:22 204 8:10 49 10:11 231 11:11 231 11:14 172 11:21 202,231 11:24 205 11 :26-31 207 14:1 152 14:7 60 16: 13-15 161 18:22 196 25:4 33 27:9,10 207

237

27:15-26 178 28:12 172 28:24 172 28:63-68 207 31:9 84 31 :20-22 207 31:23 202,231 32:5 152 32:6 152 32:18,19 152 32:49 205 34:4 231 34:9 204 JOSHUA

1:6 231 1:1-9 204 1:2-4 205 1:4 205 2:22 62 3:1-17 204 6:26 178, 230 13:1-6 204 15:4 205 15:12 205 15:47 205 19:28 206 21:43-45 204,231 23:1 204 23:11-13 204 23:12 204 23:14 205 23:15, 16 207 24:25 84 24:26 84 JUDGES

1:21 206 2:1,2 204,231 2:1-5 207 3:1.2 204 7:15 81 14:12-18 178 16:28 177

20:1

205

1 SAMUEL

3:20 205 10:25 84 2SAMUEL

7:13 230 7:14 217 8:1-18

20S

10:1·19 205 12 178 20:14·22 177 23:2 67 1 KINGS

2:1-9 177 3:6-9 177 4:21

20S

8:20 230 8:23-53 177 9:21 206 10:1-3 177 10:22-24 178 11:29,30 230 12:15 230 13 230 13:12 62 14:6-8 230 15:29 230 16:1-4 230 16:12 230 16:34 230 17:17,18 204 19:21 206 21:21,22 230 21:27-29 230 22:17 230 22:17-23 178 22:35,36 230 2 KINGS

1:6 230 1:17 58,230

238

3:1 58 8:25 58 9:23-27 58 9:29 58 10:1-3 177 13:1 57 15:27 58 17:7-18 207 17:19,20 207 20:1-5 201 21:10-15 230 21:15 206 22:15-20 230 23:16-28 230 23:26 230 23:30 230 24:2 230

1 CHRONICLES 1:1 112 19:1-19 206 28:2-10 177 2 CHRONICLES

8:7,8 206

EZRA 1:2-4 177 2:68,69 178 4-6 177 4:4-6:18 62 4:17-22 177 7:7,8 60 7:12-26 62,177 7:25 60 7:26 59 9:6-15 177 JOB 1:6 152 2:1 152 28:14 141 38:16 141


PSALMS 2:1 31 2:7 217,218 9:12 171 11:4 43 16:10 31 36:6 141 42 179 44-49 179 50 179 73:15 152 82:6,7 152 88 179 89 179 90 178 95:7 31 103:8 172 106:9 141 107:23 141 127 179 135:6 141 143:6 49 PROVERBS 26:15 46 28:5 37 ISAIAH 1:2 152, 172 1:4 152,172 1:4-9 114 1:9 139 1:10 172 1:15 172 1:16,17 171,173 1:29-31 160 2:5 173 3:8 173 3:14 171,173 3:16 160 4:2,3 114 5:1 161 5:1,2 161,165

239

5:1·7 161,175, 178 5:3,4 161, 165, 166 5:5,6 161, 167, 168 5:7 161,168-171,171 5:8-23 161 5:11, 12 160 5:22 160 6:13 114 7:14 216,217 7:23-25 168 10:22, 23 139 11:6-8 214 11:11,12 208 14:2 170 26:20 174 27:3 174 28:18 167 30:1 152 37:5 62 40:2 208 42:6 208 42:24 208 43:5,6 232 43:6,7 152 45:11 152 45:13 232 46:3 190 49:8 208 49:9-13 232 49:22-26 232 50:1 208 51:10 141 53:10 31 53:11 194 54:7,8 208 54:9, 10 208 55:3 31 55:3-5 208 55:8,9 139 57:5 160 57:16 174 62:2-5 160 63:7 170 63:13 141, 152 65:17-25 214

JEREMIAH 1 178 2:20 163 3:14 152 3:19 152 7:1-8:3 177 7:3 209 7:7 208 7:23 208 8:3 49 10:11 62 11:4 208 17:24,25 209 17:27 209 18:7-10 201 18:8 209 18:10 209 18:11 208 18:23 174 22:3-5 205, 208 23:1-8 232 23:8 208 24:4-7 232 24:8-10 209 24:17 208 25:1 50,51,63 25:5 209 25:9 50,51,63 25:11, 12 192 26:12, 13 201 29 177 29:10 192 30:8,9 232 30:18-21 232 30:22 208 31:9 152 31:31-34 209 31 :33 208, 209 32:6·44 232 32:18 172 33:44 208 35:15 209 38:17, 18 201 44:7,8 173 46:2 51,63


240

LAMENTATIONS 3:33

173

EZEKIEL 18:1 205 20 177 47:15 205 48:28 205

DANIEL 1:1 50,51,58,63 1:10-17 86,89 2 59, 178, 197 2:2-6 86, 89, 188 2:4b 86,90 2:4b-7:28 62,87 2:6-8 188 2:13 59 2:15 59 2:19-35 87 2:21 186 2:22 189 2:28 187, 189 2:34 197 2:35 187,198,199 2:44,45 186, 187, 189, 197, 198 2:47 189 3:22-30 86, 89 4 53-55, 189, 190, 191 4:5 188 4:7-9 188 4:9 188 4:17 190 4:18, 19 188 4:27 52 4:30 52 4:33 55 5 190, 192 5:1 55 5:5-28 189 5:7 81

5:8 189 5:11 56,189 5:12 189 5:18 56 5:22,23 190 7 59, 184, 191 7:1 58,59,65,178,188 7:2 188 7:7 188 7:9,10 187 7:9-14 195 7:13 188 7:13,14 187 7:14 187 7:15, 16 81 7:18 194 7:21 187 7:22 187 7:28 90 8 193 8:1 55,58,59,65,90, 188, 191, 192 8:1-14 178 8:13 167 8:13, 14 191, 192, 195 8:14 187 8:16,17 87,89,193 8:17 187,188,193 8:19 187 8:20, 21 87, 89 8:26 192, 193 8:26,27 193 9 191,193 9:1 58, 59 192 9:2 191 9:4-19 177 9:21 193 9:21-23 192 9:23 193 9:24-27 59,60,183,185,191, 192, 194, 195, 200 9:25 59, 60, 200 10-12 178 10:8-16 87, 89 11:27 187

241

11:32 87 11:33-36 87,89 11:35 187 11:38 81,89 11:40 187 12:1 188,194 12:1-4 188 12:2 179 12:3 194 12:4 187 12:9 187, 188 12:10 87, 188

ZECHARIAH 1:6 196 6:15 209

MATIHEW

JONAH 4:2 172

1:23 47,230 1:41 47 2:5 230 2:6 230 2:15 215,230 2:17 230 2:18 230 2:23 230 3:1-12 152 4:14-16 230 5-7 177 5:17-19 31 5:20 171 8:17 230 11:10 230 12:17-21 230 12:40 215 13:14-16 230 13:35 230 15:6 41 18:1 227 18:12-14 227 21:4,5 230 21:33-44 174 21:43 174 24:15 87,90,188 26:24 230 26:29 199 26:31 230 26:53-56 230 27:9,10 230 28:18-20 194

MlCAH

MARK

HOSEA 1:4 170 1:6 170 1:7 170 1:10 152 2:14 168 2:14-16 214 4:12-17 168 11:1 152,215 11:12 170

AMOS 2:6 5:1 5:3 5:4 5:25 6:1 6:14 7:10 9:9

1:5 3:1 3:9 7:10 7:22

45 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170

170 170 170 167 196

lB-lIlW

1:1-8 152 1:9-11 153 1:12, 13 153 1:14-3:6 153 3:7-6:13 153

242

6:14-8:26 153 8:27-10:52 153 9:12,13 230 10:35-45 46 11:1-13:37 153 12:1·11 174 13:14 188 14:1-15:47 153 14:20 46 14:21 230 15:22 47 16:1-20 153 16:9-20 98, 99

LUKE 1:76 81 3:1-8 152 4:21 230 5:1 41 10:7 33 10:25-28 31 15:2 227 15:3·7 227 16:19·31 31 18:31·33 230 20:9-18 174 21:22 230 22:37 230 24:5 32 24:25-27 211,230 24:27 46,74 24:44-47 230

JOHN 1:1 41 1:1-3 22,36 1:4 32 1:14 22,41,47, 70 1:16, 17 32 1:34 97,98 1:35-43 110 3:14 215 3:23 111 5:24 32 5:39-47 230


6:51 7:18 10:10 10:24 10:35 11:25 13:18 13:26 14:6 14:19 15:2 15:25 16:13 17:12 17:17 19:36

32 32 32 32 41 32 230 46 32 32 167 230 213 230 32 215

ACTS 1:1-3 33 1:9-11 194 1:16 31 4:12 32 4:25,26 31 4:34 41 7:20-40 214 7:38 32 13:26 32 13:33 218 13:34 31 14:13 32 15:32 81 20:24 32 20:32 32 22:7 33

ROMANS 1:5 32 1:15,16 32 2:28,29 210 3:2 31 4:9-11 210 4:13-25 210 5:14 215 8:29 218 9-11 115

243

9:6 41 9:8 115 9:17 31 9:27-29 139 11:5 115 11:7 115 11:13-24 115 11:22 201 12:1 171 12:5 139 12:6 71 16:1 139 16:5 139 16:16 139 1 CORINTHIANS 2:13 74 4:17 139 5:4 32 10:1-13 214 10:2 215 10:11 214,215 10:20 215 11:16 139 12:4-6 71 12:12-27 139 14:3 81 14:24 81 14:25 81 16:19 139 2 CORINTHIANS 2:17 46 5:10 171 5:18,19 32 6:7 32 10:11 32 GALATlANS 1:2 139 1:22 139 3:8 31 5-6 210 5:13, 14 171

EPHESIANS 1:10 210 1:13 32 1:17, 18 213 1:23 139 1:23-2:10 139 3:5 37 4:21 32 PHILIPPIANS 2:16 32 4:8,9 171 COLOSSIANS 1:5 32 1:18 139 1:21-27 139 1:24 139 1:28 139 2:11 210 2:19 139 4:15 139 4:16 139 1 THESSALONIANS 2:13 2:14 4:17 5:24

32,33,41 139 210 32

2 THESSALONIANS 3:3

32

1 TIMOTHY 1:15 3:1 4:9 5:18

32 32 32 33

2 TIMOTHY 2:12 32 2:15 46,47 3:16 22,68,69

244

TlTUS 1:9 32 3:8 32

HEBREWS 1:1,2 29,32,70,128 1:1-3 22,36 1:5 217 2:10 32 3:2 32 4:12 32 5:9 32 5:12 31 7:1,2 47 7:3 215 9:14-13:25 95 13:8 201

JAMES 1:8 32 1 PETER

1:10-12 72, 211 1:20 74 1:21 32 2:21 74 4:11 31


2 PETER 1:19-21 67 3:13 210 3:15,16 46 3:16 33,46

1 JOHN 4:8 111 REVELATION 2-3 184 2:24 115 3:2 115 3:7 32 3:14 32 6:10 32 11:13 115 12:17 115 13:11-18 115 14:12 174 19:9 32 19:10 213 19:11 32 19:13 41 19:21 115 20 183 21:2 210 21:5 32 22:6 32 22:20 228

INDEX OF AUTHORS Aalders, G. C. 175 Aalen, S. 142 Abbott, W. M. 37 Achtemeier, E. 140 Aharoni, Y. 231 Aland, K:108, 109 Albertson, J. 143 Albertz, R. 177 Albright, W. F. 62, 84, 106, 142,231 Allegro, J. M. 106 AIIis, O. T. 229 Altizer, T. 38 Amerding, C. E. 228 Anderson, A. A. 106 Anderson, B. W. 140 Andrews, J. N. 229 Anthes, R. 142 Ap-Thomas, D. R. 106 Archer, Jr., G. L. 175,230 Arndt, W. F. 62, 79 Astruc, J. 148 Aulen, G. 19 Bailey, J. A. 233 Baillet, M. 106 Baillie, J. 39 Bainton, R. H. 40 Baldwin, J. G. 231 Barelay, W. 112, 139 Barr,j. 37,38, 39, 62, 107, 109, 139 Barrett, C. K. 233 Barth, Karl 19,20, 21, 28, 30, 39,41,82 Barthélemy, D. 106, 107

Baumgartner, W. 41, 231 Baur, F. C. 180 Bentzen, A. 193, 230 Berkouwer, G. C. 39, 229 Betti, E. 82 Birdsall, J. N. 107 Black, M. H. 108,175 Bloesch, D. G. 37 Boman, Th. 62, 177 Bornkamm, G. 233 Boutflower, C. 230 Bowman, R. C. 109 Braaten, C. E. 39 Brand, L. R. 65 Brandon, F. G. 141 Bratcher, R. G. 108, 109 Briggs, R. C. 228 Bright, J. 230 Brown, C. 79, 177 Brown, R. E. 108 Brownlee, W. H. 63, 64 Bruce, F. F. 106, 107 Brunner, E. 19,28,29,30,41 Brunner, H. 142 Buber, M. 29,41 Bultmann, R. 19,21,24,38,39, 40,82,157,177,230, 233,234 Burkitt, F. C. 233 Buder, B. C. 176 Caries, J. 65 Carlston, C. E. 176 Caquot, A. 143 Carmignac, J. 63

246

Understanding ehe Living Word of God

Cassuto, U. 175, 176 Childs, B. S. 140, 176, 177 Closen, G. E. 176 Clouse, R. C. 229 Coenen, L. 13 9 Coleman, R. J. 38, 39 Collingwood, R. G. 40 Colwell, E. C. 62, 107 Conzelmann, H. 233 Copemicus, N. 23 Cranfield, C. E. B. 109 Crimm, K. 109 Cross,]r., F. M. 64,85,88,106, 107 Cullmann, O. 62

Farrer, A. 39, 176 Fee, G. D. 108 Filson, F. V. 234 Fiore,]. 184 Fitzmyer, J. A. 106 Fohrer, G. 175, 177 Ford, D. 231 Forrna, R. T. 225,234 France, R. T. 233 Frankfort, H. 142, 143 Freedman, D. N. 64, 136, 144, 145 Froom, L. E. 80 Fuller, R. H. 233 Funk, R. W. 40

DahI, N. A. 232 Dahood,M. 130,141,145 Danker, F. W. 38 Darby, J. N. 182 Davies, W. D. 234 Delitzsch, F. 117, 140, 176 de Moor, J. C. 145 de Vaux, R. 62, 106 Dexinger, F. 64, 176 Dhorme, E. 143 Dibelius, M. 157,177,234 Diebold, P. 232 Di LeIla, A. A. 231 Dodd, C. H. 233 Dollar, G. W. 37 Dommershausen, W. 63, 64 Dougherty, R. P. 64 Driver, G. R. 88, 106 Driver, S. R. 193,230 Duhm, B. 231 Dyrness, W. 228

Gadd, J. C. 65 Galilei, G. 23 Galling, K. 140, 143 Gardner-Smirh, P. 233 Gasque, W. W. 228,234 Gaster, T. H. 120, 141, 142, 143,144 Gelb, l. J. 130, 134, 144 Gerhardsson, B. 176 Gerhardt, O. 230 Gerleman, G. 41 Gerstenberger, E. 177 Gesenius, W. 230 Gilkey, L. 18,37,38,39,40, 41,140 Gingrich, F. W. 62, 79 Goetze, A. 143 Goodwin, C. 233 Gordon, C. 135, 145 Gordon, C. H. 62, 64 Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. 107 Graf, K. H. 149 Grant, R. M. 79,233 Grayson, A. K. 54, 64 Green, W. H. 62 Greenlee, J. H. 107, 108 Greenslade, S. L. 79 Gribomont, J. 107 Grogan, G. W. 229

Ebeling, F. 39, 79 Elliott, J. K. 108 Epp, E.]. 107, 108 Erlandsson. S. 232 Estienne, R. 147 Fagal, H. E. 224, 233 Farmer, W. F. 99, 109, 176

247 Gunkel, H. 120, 140, 141, 155, 156,175, 176, 177 Gurney, O. R. 143 Güterbock, H. G. 143 Guthrie, D. 176, 233, 234 Güttgemanns, E. 177 Habel, N. 175 Hadden, J. K. 38 Haenchen, E. 233 Halevy, J. 140 Hall, B. H. 230 Hamer, J. 39 Hamílton, F. E. 229 Hamilton, W. 38 Hardman, K. J. 41 Harrelson, W. 142 Harrison, R. K. 64, 175 Hartman, L. F. 63,231 Harvey, Van A. 40 Hasel, G. F. 40, 65, 139, 140, 144,228,229,230,231, 232 Hausmann, W. J. 38 Haussig, H. W. 143 Hayes, J. H. 176 Heídel,A.120, 141,143,149,176 Hengstenberg, E. W. 229 Henry, C. H. F. 39 Herbert, A. S. 62 Heschel, A. J. 228 Hill, D. 38 Hillers, D. R. 231, 232 Hodgson, L. 16 Hofmann, J. C. K. 230 Hontheim, J. 230 Hooke, S. H. 140 Hooker, M. D. 233 Hooykaas, R. 39 Horn, S. H. 63, 65, 178, 232 Hornung, E. 142 Hort, F. J. A. 95, 108, 109 Howard, W. F. 233 Hübner, J. 39 Huffmon, H. B. 228

Hyde, G. M. 79 Jacobsen, Th. 142 James, E. D. 142 Jameson, H. G. 176 Jeremías, A. 117, 140 Jeremías, J. 2.21, 233 ]eweu, P. K. 39,41 ]ohnston, R. M. 178 Jongeling, B. 143 Junker, H. 143 Kaiser, O. 141 Kant, l. 27,41 Kapelrud, A. S. 143 Karpp, H. 39 Kasemann, E. 220, 232 Kaufmann, Y. 175 Keíl, C. F. 63, 232 Kelly, J. N. D. 79 Kelsey, D. H. 17,38 Kepler, J. 23 Kidner, D. 141 Kierkegaard, S. 16, 29 Kik, J. M. 229 Kilian, R. 140 Kilpatrick, G. D. 108 King, L. W. 140 Kirst, S. 143 Kitchen, K. A. 62, 106, 140, 141,175,176,231 Kittel, R. 93, 107 Klapperr, B. 39 Kline, M. G. 176, 231, 232 Knox, J. 70, 80 Koch, K. 177 Koehler, L. 41 Konig, E. 231 Kramer, S. N. 120, 141, 143, 144 Kraus, H. J. 177 Krentz, E. 40, 140 Kubo, S. 62, 109 Kuenen, A. 149

248 Külling, S. R. 175 Kümmel, W. G. 79, 140, 228 233 ' Kundsin, K. 234 Kutsch, E. 231 Lahat, R. 141 Labuschagne, C. J. 63 Lachmann, K. 176 Ladd, G. E. 229 LaFay, H. 144 Lagrange, M. J. 140 Lambert, W. G. 144 Landers, A. 16 Landsberger, B. 143 Langford, J. J. 39 La Rondelle, H. K. 232 Lee, E. K. 233 Leimann, S. Z. 106 Leupold, H. C. 63 Lewy, J. 141, 143 Lightfoot, J. 233 Lindsey, H. 182 Lohfink, N. 231 Longenecker, R. N. 232, 233 Lord, A. B. 177 Loretz, O. 144, 176 Maass, F. 139 Maier, G. 140 Maloney, P. C. 144, 145 Maly, E. H. 232 Mandelkern, S. 41 Manson, T. W. 233 Mansoor, M. 106 Marlé, R. 39, 82 Marquart, K. E. 38 Marshall, I. H. 233,234 Marti, K. 231 Martín, W. J. 62, 176 Martíni, C. 108 Marxsen, W. 233 Matthiae,P. 129, 130, 131, 133 144, 145 ' McCarthy, D. F. 141 McCulIough, W. S. 65


McDonald, H. D. 39 McDonald, 0.41 McEleney, N. J. 233 Mclntire, C. T. 41 McKnight, E. V. 176, 234 McNamara, M. 107 Meek, T. J. 106, 118, 140 228 ' Meinertz, M. 233 Meissner, B. 143 Mertens, A. 63, 230 Metzger, B. M, 107, 108, 109 Meyer, R. 63, 64 Míchaelis, W. 233 Miladin, G. C. 229 Milik, J. T. 63, 106 Millard, A. R. 64 144 232 Miller, W. 75 ' , Moller, H. 176 Moltmann, J. 39 Montanus, A. 147 Montgomery, J. A. 52, 63, 231 Moran, W. L. 144 Morenz, S. 142, 143 Neíll, S. 177 Nestle, E. 108 Neuffer, J. 65 Nichol, F. D. 229 Nída, E. A. 109 Niebuhr, H. R. 19 Nineham, D. E. 16,38,79 177 233 ' , Nygren, A. 19 O'Connell, K. G. 107 Ogden, S. M. 39 Oppenheím, A. L. 64, 140 Orchard, B. 176 Orlinsky, H. M. 119 Orr, J. 39 Packer, J. I. 37 Pannenberg, W. 26, 39, 40 Patte, D. 79 Pauck, W. 20, 38 Payne, D. F. 140, 142

249 Payne, J. B. 230 Pentecost, J. D. 229 Perlítt, L. 231 Perrín, N. 220, 232,233 Peters, T. 40 Petersen, W. J. 229 Pettinata, G. 129, 130, 134,138, 140, 144, 145 Pfeiffer, C. F. 63 Pfeiffer, R. H. 52, 63 Pinches, T. G. 64 Pink, A. W. 139 Pinnock, C. H. 79, 80 Ploger, O. 193, 230, 231 Preus, J. S. 79 Price, G. M. 230, 231 Price, I. M. 175 Procksch, O. 41 Purvis, J. D. 107 Pusey, E. B. 229 Quebedeaux, R. 38 Raíney, A. F. 145 Ramm, B. 39 Raska, ].229 Rawlinsan, G. 64 Rendtorff, R. 175 Rennie, I. S. 229 Reymond, P. 141 Ribera, F. t 84 Richards, W. L. 108 Ridderbos, H. 228 Ridderbos, N. H. 142 Riesenfeld, H. 176, 177 Ringgren, H. 143 Robinson, J. A. T. 233 Robinson, J. M. 232 Rohde, ].234 Rowley, H. H. 62, 64 Rudolph, W. 149 Saggs, H. W. F. 52, 63 Sanders, J. A. 106 Sarna, N. H. 107,140,143, 144 Schleiermacher, F. D. E. 19

Schmid, H. H. 175 Schmidt, K. L. 139, 177 Schmidt, W. H. 141, 142, 143 Schmitt, A. 107 Schmokel, H. 143 Schneíder, J. 220, 233 Schrenk, G. 79 Schrotenboer, P. G. 41 Schweitzer, A. 180 Segal, M. H. 175 Selwyn, E. G. 79 Semler, J. S. 139 Shanks, H. 140, 144, 145 Shelley, B. L. 37 Simon, R. 148 Skinner, J. 142, 176 Smart, J. D. 15, 38, 82 Snijders, L. A. 231 Snowden, J. H. 229 Southern, H. N. 65 Sparks, A. F. D. 233 Specht, W. 62, 109 Speiser, E. A. 176, 232 Spinoza, B. 148 Stadelmann, L. L J. 141, 143 Stein, R. H. 234 Stephanus, R. 147 Stoldt, H. H. 176 Strand, K. A. 230 Stre.eter, B. H. 108, 176 Suggs, I. M. 234 Taber, C. R. 109 Talbert, C. H. 234 Talmon, S. 107 Tan, P. L. 229 Taylar, K. N. 101 Taylar, V. 107, 109 Teeple, H. M. 233 Thiele, E. R. SO, 58, 63, 64, 65 Thilo, M. 231 Thompson, J. A. 107 Thompson, T. L. 145 Tinder, D. 37 Traey, D. 38, 39

250

Understandíng the Living Word of God

Trench, R. C. 139 Trever, J. C. 106 Troeltsch, E. 24, 26, 40 Tucker, G. M. 176

Wheaton, D. H. 79 Whitby, D. 184 White, E. G. 37, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81, 82, 164,

van Buren, P. 38 van der Woude, A. S. 63, 64 van Seters, J. 145 Vermes, G. 63, 64, 106 Vetter, D. 41 Vía, Jr., D. O. 176, 234 Virolleaud, Ch. 143 Volz, P. 149 von Rad, G. 143,231 Voobus, A. 107

Whitehorn, K. 16 Whíteley, D. E. H. 139 Wikgren, A. 108 Wilbern, G. A. 229 Williams, C. S. C. 108 WiIliams, R. J. 63 Wílson, J. D. 177 Wilson, J. V. K. 143 Winckler, H. 117 Windisch, H. 62 Wiseman, D. J. 51,54,56,

186,230

Wagner, S. 41 Wakeman, M. K. 141 Waltke, B. K. 86, 106, 107 Wardle, W. W. W. 140 Warfield, B. B. 79, 108 Weber, H. E. 27, 40 Weigle, L. A. 109 Weinfeld, M. 232 Weísberg, D. 64 Weiser, A. 177 Weiss, K. 233 Wellhausen, J. 149 Wells, D. F. 38 Wenham, G. J. 107 Westcott, B. F. 108, 109, 176 Westerman, C. 140, 141, 142, 143,175, 176, 177

62, 63, 64, 119, 140, 145,231 Witter, H. B. 148 Wood, L. H. 65 Woodbridge, J. D. 38 Wrede, W. 177 Wright, G. E. 229 Würthweín, E. 62, 142, 143, 175 Young, E. J. 56, 64, 229, 231, 232 Young, G. D. 141 Zimmerli, W. 140 Zwingli, U. 75

INDEX OF SUBjECTS ANO PERSONS Abraham 133-138, 202-204 Adam 33-35 adaptation 227 Admah 136 amillennialísm 183, 184 Amorites 203, 205 analogy 25, 26 analogy of faith 71, 72 Ancient of Days 187, 195 angel(s) 151 anthropocentricity 19, 26, 27 anthropology 28, 155, 158 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 200, 201 antitype 215 apocalyptic 185-195 Apsu 121 Aramaic 43, 88-90 Artaxerxes I 60 assonance 162 assumption 219-222 Assur 131 Assyrian Captivity 208 astrologer 127, 182 awnement 15 Atrahasis Epic 127, 128 Augustine 154 authenticity 219-221 authority 25-27, 30-37,60, 61,78 Baa1168 Babel-Bible controversy 117 Babylon 51-53, 190 Babylonian Captivity 208

Babylonian Chronicle 51 background bíblical 160 extrabiblical 116-13 8 Belshazzar SS, 59, 189, 191 Bhagavad-Gita 13 Bíble and science 23, 24 as literature 14, 28 as Word of God 22 authority 13-16,23, 24 infallible 37 nature of 13 pulpit, in 16, 17 purpose 13 silence of 13-23 theology, in 17 unerring standard 37 biography 227,228 borrowing 188, 119, 124 Brook of Egypt 205

bruta (acta 36 Buddhísm 14 calendar 150 Canaan 131, 202-210 Canaanite(s) 132 canon 67, 73, 85, 90, 156, 179 cause(s) 20, 223 chapters, 146, 147 chiasm 169 Christ-event 28, 29 chronology 50, 57-60, 227 church 112, 113 Cisjordon lOS

252

coherence principie 221-223 commandment(s) 32 conditionality 195-197,200210 conditioning 72 content 161 context 76, 113, 155, 199 grammatical 111 hisrorical 117-120 Iiterary 150, 151 continuity 226-228 contradiction 49,58-60, 76, 149 conversion 174 corcelatíon 25 cosmogeny 122-127 cosmology 127, 142 covenant 44, 152, 202-204, 206-209 covenant renewal festival 156 creation 26, 48, 123, 127 crearion account 48, 112, 120129, 132, 148 Creator 20, 35, 36 creature 35 criticism 25 culture 44 Greek 44 Hebrew 44 custom(s) 44-46 Daniel 52-57, 185-195 book of 86-90, 185-195 Darius the Mede 59, 191 Darwinianism 20 date 160 David 31 day 150 Dead Sea Scrolls 85-90 Decalogue 156 dialogue 29 discrepancy(ies) 47, 61, 150 dispensationalism 182, 183 dissimilarity 27, 221, 222 diversity 70, 71, 181 divination 134, 135, 182


documentary hypothesis 148-152 doublets 149 dream 188, 189 dualism 20 ear witnesses 157,220 earth 124 Eber 133, 136, 138 Ebla 129-138 Eblaite 130 Ebrum 133, 136, 138 eclipse 13 ecstatic 181, 182 effect 223 encounter 29 end-time 186-195 Enlightenment 14, 19 enthronement 217 enthronement festival 156 Enuma elish 124 error(s) 56, 61, 85 scribal89 Esagil55 eschatology 185-195 evangelicalism 15 Eve 33-35 Evil-Merodach 55 evolution 20 exile 217 existence 34 exodus 26 expanse 124, 125 experience 29 eyewitness(es) 21, 157, 220 faith 29 fall 26, 34-36 firmament 36, 124, 125 flood narrative 49, 149-152 form-fixed 79, 154, 158, 161 form criticism 28,155-160,225227 four-source hyporhesis 154

253

fulfillment 60, 189-193, 195199,201-210,216,217 fundamentalism 14, 15

horoscope 182 household gods 44 humility 45

Gabriel 192-194 Gattung(en) 155 genre 155 geocentricity 48 geography 61 God 27,201 and history 21, 26, 201-210 disdosure of 21,22,26 existence of 27 knowledge of 27 nature of 111,171,172 reality of 18, 21, 26 gold 131 Golgotha 46 Gomorrah 135 gospel215-225 grammar 49,84 grape(s) 165

image of God 33, 34 imaginatíon 157 inauthenticity 219, 220 infinite 34 inspiration 22, 23, 31, 67-75, 155,214 interpretation 35, 45-47, 66, 67, 189-191 intuition 33 Isaac 44 Israel 169-171, 215

hare 60, 61 Harran stelae 53 heaven 43, 124,210 Hebrew(s) 133, 137 Hebrew language 42, 43, 130 Hegelianism 180 hermeneutical cirde 113 hermeneutics 17 Heshbon 204 Hinduism 14 historical-critical method 24-26, 39 (n35), 144,219, 223, 225 historical-criticism 21 historicism 183, 184, 185 historicist school 184 history 19,20,24-26,36,37, 155, 158, 223-225 history-of-religions method 117-119, 180, 181 Holy Spirit 30, 46, 67, 227 homogeneity 217

jacob 202 jehoiakim 50 jerusalem 21 Jesus, historical 219-221 Jesus Christ 19,28,30-32,70, 78, 174, 188,201,215, 228 john, Gospel of 219, 223-225 joshua 203 judas 31 judgment 20, 173, 187 pre-advent 187, 188 justificatíon 180 Kingdom of God 186-188, 197199 kingdoms, of world 198-200 knowledge 33-36 Koran 13 L source 154 Lachmann hypothesis 153 Land of Canaan 202-210 language 69 language(s), bíblical 42, 43 legend 28, 155 liberalism 15,20, 21,24, 28, 149, 180, 181 life setting 155

254

light 126 linguistics 155 literary criticism 154 liule horn 187, 188 Lot 202 love 173, 174 Luke 33 luminaries 124, 126 M source 154 madness 189 man 33-35, 112, 113 autonomus 20 manuscripts 85-89, 94 Mari 131 Mark, Cospel of 152-154, 156, 226 marriage 152 Mary 216 Masorete(s) 92 Masoretic text 92, 93 meaning, deeper 210-218 Medo-Persia 191 Mekhizedek 215, 216 Messiah 60, 200, 217 Messianic prophecy 58-60, 217 method anthropocentric 26 canonical 181 hisrorical-critical 24-26 theological-hísrorical 181 millennium 183, 184 mirades 21, 26 moon 124-126, 132 moon-god 125 morals 19 Moses 31, 203 motif(s) 171-175 mystery 189, 194 myrh 21,28, 122, 124, 125, 128 myrhology 124, 125 nabi' 135 Nabonidus 53


name(s) 46, 47 divine 149 Nammu 121 nature 20, 37 Nebuchadnezzar 50-56, 190 neoorthodoxy 15-24 "new content" 129 "new quest" 219 Nile 205, 206 Noah 49 Nuzi 43, 44 oath 207 objectívity 76, 77 oral tradition 156, 157 pan-Babylonian 5chool117, 118 papyrus 83 parable(s) 159, 160, 224, 227 parallelism 43 parallelomania 117 paraphrase 101 patriarchs 133-138 Pau131,33 personalism 28-30 Peter 30,33 philosophy 27, 28, 180 poetry 43 polemic, antimythical 125, 127, 128 postmillennialism 183, 184, 185 Prayer of Nabonidus 53, 54 preaching 18 prediction 191, 192 premillennialism 183 presupposition 27, 77, 219, 221 pre-understanding 77 primeval history 158, 159 pcobability 25, 219 pcomise 202-210 prophecy 32, 60, 66, 67, 74, 181-185, 188-195,215219 pcophet(s) 29, 134, 135, 181 Psalms 179, 180

255

Q source 154 Qumran 86-90 quotarions 223 rabbit 60, 61 reality 21, 139 reason 27, 28 receptor language 101, 102, 103, 104 reckoning accession-year 50 nonaccessíon-year 50,51 Red Sea 21 redaction criticism 28, 225-227 redemption 20 reductionism 43 remnant 113-116,194,204,208 repetitions 149 Rephaim 205 restoraríon 207 resurrection 15, 19,21, 26 revelaríon 18,28,30,34,37,78, 138, 139, 188, 189,203, 211,212 general and special 22 personal 28, 29 propositional 28, 69 Revelatíon, book of 185 rhyme 43 righteousness 194 Roman-Carholicism 14 Romanticism 19 Rome 197, 198 roor meaning(s} 111-113 sacrífice 216 saga 28, 155, 156 saints 187 salvatíon 42 salvarion history 217 Samaritan Pentateuch 91 sanctification 180, 195 sanctuary 187 sandal(s} 44 Saran 35, 183, 184, 194

saying source 153, 154 sayings 157 science 23-27 scribe(s} 91 Scripmre 30-35, 65-69 selectivity 227 self-interpretatíon 71, 72, 74 self-revelation 33, 61, 62 self-understanding 78 sense, deeper 212 Septuagint 42, 43, 88, 91 Servant 194 setting 160, 161 Sidon 206 sign 217 Sinai 203 Sitz im Leben 155 slave(s) 44, 208 sodology 155 Sodom 135-137 sola Scriptura 72-76 Solomon 206 Son of God 97, 217 Son of Man 70, 194 sons of God 151, 152 source criticism 28, 148-154, 155 soun:e language 101, 103 space 36 stanza(s) 161-163 stars 126 srone 197-200 seyIe 48, 69, 149 subjecrivity 213 Sumerian 130 sun 125, 132 sun-god 125 symbol(s) 168, 184, 185, 186, 198 Synoptic problem 152-154, 224 Synoptics 218-222, 224 tabernacle 203 120-124 Tema 53, 54

t 'hOm

256

teraphim 44 rext types 91, 95, 96 textual criticism 83, 91-93, 94-99 Theodotion 89 rheology anthropocentric 19,28 contemporary 17, 18 encounter 29-31 "from below" 26 liberal 18, 19 natural 29 neoorthodox 17, 18, 19 radical 18 revealed 19 Thou 29, 30 throne 43 Tiamat 120, 121, 125 Tiberias 92 time 36 tradition criticism 28 rranscendence 26 Transjordan 205 rranslaríon(s) 83-92, 100-105 dynamíc 101-103 formal 103-105 paraphrase 101 rreaty 131 tree of life 36 tribulation 183 truth 7, 19, 30, 45, 46, 69, 70, 155,222 two-source hypothesis 153, 154 rype(s) 75,214-216 typology 214-216 Tyre 206 understanding 33-36,61,212214 unintentionality principie 221 unirs 146-152 c1assi fication 154-158 interpretaríon 160 unity 70, 71, 179, 180 universe 20

Understanding the Living Ward af Cad

Ur 135 urbanizaríon 130, 131 Urfa 135-136 verses 147, 148 versions, ancient OT92 NT94 versions, modern ARV 100 JB 104 KJV 100 Living Bible 15, 101 NAB 104 NASB 104, 105 NEB 102 NIV 15, 104, 105 RSV 15, 104 TEV 102, 103, 105 vine 163 vineyard 164 virgin 46, 216, 217 Virgin birch 15, 216 virginity 216, 217 vision 188, 189 vocalization 92 Vulgate 146 water(s) 120-124 Wholly Other 20 winepress 164 word(s) 110-115, 161-170 Word ofGod as Bible 28 as Jesus Christ 28,29 world 128 world process 19 world view 19-21, 155 worship 16, 126 Yahweh 134, 190-192 Zeboiim 136 Zion festival 156 Zoar 136

Gerhard F. Hasel - Understanding the Living Word of God (1980).pdf

Recommend Documents