Bible

« Previous Entries

A chiasm in Proverbs 12:16-23 - 30 January 2012

v16 The vexation of a fool ['ewil] is known at once, but the prudent ['arum] ignores [koseh] an insult.

v17 Whoever speaks the truth ['emunah] gives honest evidence, but a false [shekar] witness utters deceit.

v22 Lying [shekar] lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully ['emunah] are his delight.

v23 A prudent ['arum] man conceals [koseh] knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly ['ewil].

The word order of ‘arum and koseh is reversed in the Hebrew text of v. 16, so that the chiasm looks like this:

fool ['ewil]

ignores [koseh]

prudent ['arum]

truth ['emunah]

false [shekar]

Lying [shekar]

faithfully ['emunah]

prudent ['arum]

conceals [koseh]

folly ['ewil]

With thanks to Bruce Waltke, Proverbs (NICOT), p. 533.

Biblical lies - 20 January 2012

Here’s a surprising cluster of texts, in which the Bible either implicitly or explictly commends lying or deception. Taken from (and very helpfully explained by) John Frame in his Doctrine of the Christian Life, pp. 834-840.

Exodus 1:15-21 The Israelite midwives lied to Pharaoh

Joshua 2; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25 Rahab hid the spies and lied to the Jericho troops

Judges 4:18 Jael deceived Sisera

1 Samuel 16:1-5 Samuel deceived Saul about the purpose of his mission

1 Samuel 19:12-17 Michal deceived and lied to Saul’s messengers, saying that David was ill

1 Samuel 20:6 David tells Jonathan to lie to Saul

1 Samuel 21:13 David deceived Achich King of Gath into believing he is mad

1 Samuel 27:10 David lied to Achish about his raids

2 Samuel 5:22-25 David and his troops deceived the Philistines in battle

2 Samuel 14:34 David urged Hushai the Archite to deceive Absalom

2 Samuel 17:19-20 A woman deceived and lied to Absalom’s men

1 Kings 22:19-23 God sent a lying spirit to Ahab

2 Kings 6:14-20 Elijah misled the Syrian troops

Jeremiah 38:24-28 Jeremiah lied to the officials

Luke 24:28 Jesus misled his disciples by acting as if he was going farther

2 Thessalonians 2:11 God sends a powerful delusion so that his enemies will believe a lie

Wives saving their husbands - 2 January 2012

Anthony C. Thiselton (building on, and at times quoting, Murphy-O’Connor) speaks a good deal of sense about 1 Corinthians 7:14, which reads, “the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.” Here’s part of what he says (1 Corinthians; NIGTC; p. 530):

“What determines that a husband or wife who is not a believer is made holy is ‘the willingness of the unbeliever to continue the relationship’ which ‘has had a decisive influence on his or her behaviour.’” In such a case, “The lifestyle of the Christian partner cannot but affect the ethos and to some extent the values and lifestyle of the home, whether this be the husband or the wife. The spouse’s example, witness, prayer, and living out the world make the spouse (and the children) in this sense holy.”

Thiselton thereby gives the appropriate weight to the potentially compelling witness of a Christian spouse, without making nonsense of the need for the unbelieving spouse to come to personal faith in Jesus (cf. v. 16).

More could be said, I think, on the subject of the children mentioned later in v. 14. But insofar as it goes, this much is helpful.

Renouncing self-gratification - 2 January 2012

Some thoughts found in, and prompted by, Charles Cranfield, Romans (pp. 730-733) on Romans 15:1-4.

“We who are strong have an obligation to bear with [bastazein] the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbour for his good, to build him up. 3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.’ 4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”

“It is unlikely that bastazein means ‘endure’ here.” Presumably is doesn’t mean “bear with” either. For “Paul is requiring from the strong something much more positive than that they should tolerate the weaknesses of the weak,” which by itself might “involve putting a certain pressure upon the weak” or even harbouring “an attitude of superiority and condescension” toward them.
Rather, bastazein means “carry,” as it does in the vast majority of other NT occurrences. This certainly fits the present context. For (and here Cranfield is superb) “What is required is that the strong should actually help the weak by taking something of the weight of the burden which they have to carry off their shoulders on to their own.” The strong are “to help to carry the infirmities, disabilities, embarrassments and encumbrances of their brothers who are having to live without that inner freedom which they themselves enjoy. Their response to this obligation will be a test of the reality of their faith.”
“This helping to carry the burden of the infirmities which weigh the weak down will involve not pleasing oneself.”
On the phrase “for his good, to build him up” [eis to agathos pros oikodomen], Cranfield writes, “The neighbour is very likely to be ready to be pleased by flattery and by the condonement of his wrong-doing,” which will hardly tend to his good. Instead, therefore, “the pleasing of the neighbour which is here commanded … has regard to his true good, to his salvation … which is directed owards his edification … no mere man-pleasing but [with] regard to God.”
“Paul appeals to the example of Christ” in the phrase “for Christ did not please himself” – a statement which “sums up with eloquent reticence both the character of the incarnation and the meaning of Christ’s earthly life.”
A surprise in v. 3 – Paul appeals not to the life of Christ but to the OT, quoting from Ps 69:9, where the righteous sufferer (Christ, in Rom 15) addresses God, declaring that men’s hostility towards their Maker has now been directed at their Saviour. Christ suffered this intense hostility from men voluntarily; how much more should we be ready to undergo willingly the comparatively trivial trial of “renouncing our self-gratification” in such matters as food, drink and special days “for the sake of our brothers for whom He suffered so much.”

Ripping apart the old covenant - 22 December 2011

Doug Jones on Luke 5:33-39: “These claims about new wine are some of the strongest words Jesus speaks on the relationships between old and new covenants. It is not a picture of sweet blending, but ripping and bursting.”

Uncertainty is worst of all - 22 December 2011

It’s not obvious in Luke 5:27-32 whether or not the Pharisees are present at Levi’s feast. They perhaps seem like outsiders in v. 30, but then they’re close enough to comment, and to question the disciples in v. 33.

This uncertainty could easily have been resolve had Luke wished. I suggest therefore that the ambiguity is deliberate. It serves to underscore the precariousness of the Pharisees’ alienation from Jesus by compounding their predicament with uncertainty. And if there’s one thing worse than alienation in a relationship, it’s alienation compounded with uncertainty.

A chiasm in Luke 5:28-32 - 12 December 2011

27 And after these things he went out, and he saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting in the tax booth. And he said to him, “Follow me.”

28 And leaving everything and rising, he followed him.

29 And Levi made a great banquet for him in his house, and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and others who were with them, sitting at the table.

30 And the Pharisees and their Scribes grumbled to his disciples, saying, “Why with tax collectors and sinners does he eat and drink?”

31 And answering Jesus said to them, “The healthy have no need for a doctor, but the sick.

32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Crushing heads - 12 December 2011

Anyone interested in understanding more about the development of themes within the biblical narrative (and that should certainly include those students who are coming to the end of the first year of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course) should take a look at this essay by James Hamilton, entitled “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15.”

Anyone who’s read much by James B. Jordan will be unlikely to find much new here. But Hamilton does the painstaking (and very helpful) work of crossing i’s and dotting t’s that Jordan deliberately leaves out in his outstanding book Through New Eyes. The two approaches therefore compliment each other very well.

Agree with each other - 6 December 2011

Here are some notes from on the dispute between Euodia and Syntyche in Philippians 4:2-3. The quotations are from Peter T. O’Brien’s commentary on Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), once memorably described by D. A. Carson as “certainly the best commentary on the Greek text of Philippians.”

Here’s a reminder of the text itself:

“I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” (Philippians 4:2-3)

And here are some thoughts from Peter O’Brien’s commentary:

1. What does Paul want, and how badly does he want it?

“In a direct personal appeal for unity Paul names the two women and begs them to reach a common mind … The apostle’s urging another of his coworkers to Help Euodia and Syntyche come to a common mind shows the necessity and urgency of the exhortation” (O’Brien, pp. 477-8).

2. How does Paul approach the disagreement?

“Paul refuses to take sides but makes the same appeal to both” (O’Brien, pp. 477-478).

3. Why is it so important that the dispute should be resolved?

“Their discord, whatever its precise nature, was a threat to the unity of the church as a whole. Otherwise it is difficult to explain why their names were mentioned in a letter to be read publicly in church” (O’Brien, p. 478).

4. What kind of resolution is Paul looking for?

“The expression to auto phroneiv, which means literally ‘to think the same thing’, is an appeal to Euodia and Syntyche to be at one in their mental attitude and so in the basic aim, direction, and orientation or their behaviour. Undoubtedly this would involve their having right attitudes towards each other and thus an ability to work together in harmony” (O’Brien, p. 478).

5. What do we know about the two women?

“They had contended at Paul’s side in the cause of the gospel … [and] their names … find a place in God’s record, the roll of the heavenly commonwealth … Euodia and Syntyche participated in Paul’s own struggle for the advance of the gospel … All their names are written in the book of life … including Euodia and Syntyche … This figurative language is employed several times in the book of Revelation to describe believers … who have been predestined from the foundation of the world … and who will enter the presence of God after the last assize” (O’Brien, pp. 479, 481-483).

6. Why does Paul ask his “true companion” to help them?

“It may be difficult for Euodia and Syntyche to come to a common mind on their own, so Paul requests his trusted colleague to help them. … He was probably some prominent and influential member of the congregation, perhaps a person of tact as well as influence” (O’Brien, pp. 480-481).

Only after death - 5 December 2011

Peter Leithart on the differences between the two potential tribal origins of Israel’s King – Benjamin and Judah:

“Benjamin is identified as a future king in Genesis 35 without any preparation or training, while Judah was proclaimed the royal tribe only after he had offered himself as a substitute for Benjamin (Gen. 44:18-34). Similarly, Saul [the Benjaminite] became king without ever accepting the cross, while David, the king from Judah, rose to the throne only after a death and resurrection.” (Leithart, A Son to Me, p. 72)

Unclean! Unclean! - 1 December 2011

Gordon Wenham on leprosy and its OT significance:

“The diseased person had to live alone outside the camp. A solitary existence was viewed as a calamity in itself … Biblical man knew he was meant to live in society, to be a member of God’s people. Living outside the camp would, therefore, have occasioned great distress … it was the place farthest removed from God, the place to which the sinner and the impure were banished … the place where wrongdoers were executed … To live outside the camp was to be cut off from the blessings of the covenant. It was little wonder that when a man was diagnosed as unclean he had to go into mourning. He experienced a living death … As Adam and Eve experienced a living death when they were expelled from Eden, so every man who was diagnosed suffered a similar fate.” (G. J. Wenham, Leviticus, pp. 200-201)

Not a God far away - 29 November 2011

Arthur Just gives a spin to Luke 5:12-16 that warrants further consideration:

“By performing this healing, Jesus shows that the OT code of holiness points to him. His life and death fulfill it and abrogate it. But that abrogation is not complete until his sacrificial death. Until then, there is still a need for Israel to conform to the purity laws of the OT, which require the newly cleansed leper to show himself to the priest and make an offering” (Arthur Just, Luke, pp. 214-215).

This contrasts with other readings of Luke 5, in which Jesus’ healing of the leper is seen precisely as a manifestation of the sacrificial quality of his ministry, on the premise that for the cleansing of a leper in the OT a sacrifice was required. However, Just’s reading fits better, I think, because according to Lev 13-14 the sacrifice was required after the healing, not as a means to it, and furthermore Jesus tells the man to “make an offering” (v. 14) in the temple.

The emphasis, then, perhaps does not fall on the sacrificial quality of Jesus ministry, but rather somewhere else. One possibility is that healing itself (and thus restoration to a condition of cleanness) was one thing that the OT law couldn’t do. A leper just needed to hang around and wait for the disease to go away. If it did, all well and good – the priest could then certify him as clean, offer the appropriate sacrifices, and so on. But if the disease remained, that was just too bad. The man would have been condemned to a life of exclusion and ostracism by the incurable character of his condition. This incurability is the thing that Jesus overturns. Healing and cleanness flows out from him, as a sign of the holiness within him and the greater glory of the New Covenant, by which God does not remain at a distance but comes close to us in Christ.

Contagious holiness - 29 November 2011

Some thoughts found in, and stimulated by, Douglas Jones’s unpublished commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Lk 5:12-16):

“Christ’s kingdom is all about life overcoming death. Christ has come to overthrow and exorcise all sorts of death … Christ’s holiness has come to restore dying bodies” (p. 83).
“These purity laws all seem to connect and make sense as symbolic expressions of that central distinction between life and death” (p. 85). OK, possibly. Probably, even. But there’s probably more to say too. Wholeness and one-ness as opposed to divided-ness and mixed-ness, for example. And observing created distinctions. Though there’s no need for either-or here.
“Jesus shows up in Galilee reversing all [these manifestations of death found under the Old Covenant]. He’s not afraid of death. He rules death. Death is afraid of him … Death flees from this new Adam. He is holiness incarnate, and he removes the curse of death. He brings the life of God, and death can’t bear it. He is the High Priest purifying the people of God. His holiness is contagious. It overcomes death” (pp. 85-86)

Someone’s coming… - 25 November 2011

This coming Sunday marks the beginning of Advent. As one way of marking this season, we’ll be taking a break from our Old Testament readings in the book of Isaiah, and instead reading four other passages that specifically look forward from the perspective of the Old Testament to the coming of Christ. Here’s what they say, followed by a couple of sentences of introduction to each one:

Jeremiah 23:1–6

“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. 2 Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD. 3 Then I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. 4 I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, declares the LORD.

5 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’”

Here Jeremiah condemns those who ruled Israel in his day – the “shepherds” (v. 2) of Israel – who cared nothing for the people of God, but were concerned only for themselves. The LORD promises to punish them “for their evil deeds” (v. 2), and to provide a shepherd “who will care for them” (v. 4). This promise is fulfilled with the coming of “a righteous Branch” who will “reign as king and deal wisely” (v. 5), in whom the LORD himself will be present, for his name will be, “the LORD is our righteousness” (v. 6).

Micah 5:1-5a

1 Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek. 2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. 3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel. 4 And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. 5 And he shall be their peace.

Like Jeremiah, Micah also looks forward to One will ” be ruler in Israel” (v. 2). This great King shall come from a surprising place: “Bethlehem Ephrathah” (v. 2), an insignificant little town which would nonetheless be the birthplace of Israel’s Messiah, the one who will bring “peace” (v. 5).

Zephaniah 3:14-20

14 Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem! 15 The LORD has taken away the judgments against you; he has cleared away your enemies. The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst; you shall never again fear evil. 16 On that day it shall be said to Jerusalem: “Fear not, O Zion; let not your hands grow weak. 17 The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing. 18 I will gather those of you who mourn for the festival, so that you will no longer suffer reproach. 19 Behold, at that time I will deal with all your oppressors. And I will save the lame and gather the outcast, and I will change their shame into praise and renown in all the earth. 20 At that time I will bring you in, at the time when I gather you together; for I will make you renowned and praised among all the peoples of the earth, when I restore your fortunes before your eyes,” says the LORD.

Zephaniah looks forward with great joy to the coming of the King: “Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem!” (v. 14). The LORD is coming in the person of Christ as “a mighty one who will save” (v. 17), who will gather the mourners, the lame, and the outcast (vv. 18-19), and will punish those who oppress the weak (v. 19). When the promised King comes, all the world will see how he has restored his people (v. 20).

Haggai 2:1-9

1 In the seventh month, on the twenty-first day of the month, the word of the LORD came by the hand of Haggai the prophet, 2 “Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to all the remnant of the people, and say, 3 ‘Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? How do you see it now? Is it not as nothing in your eyes? 4 Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, declares the LORD. Be strong, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of the land, declares the LORD. Work, for I am with you, declares the LORD of hosts, 5 according to the covenant that I made with you when you came out of Egypt. My Spirit remains in your midst. Fear not. 6 For thus says the LORD of hosts: Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land. 7 And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory, says the LORD of hosts. 8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the LORD of hosts. 9 The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the LORD of hosts.’”

Haggai prophesied during the construction of the Temple after Israel’s return from exile – a task that was delayed because the people of God allowed themselves to become pre-occupied with their own houses rather than the house of God. Even when the Temple was finally constructed, it wasn’t very impressive – it was “as nothing in [the] eyes” of those “who saw … its former glory” (v. 3). Yet “in a little while” (v. 6), the LORD promises to “shake the heavens and the earth” and fill his house with greater glory than the earth has ever seen. And then, when the glory of the LORD has been seen in the Son, the world will know “peace” (v. 9).

Insistently demanding - 25 November 2011

The verb epikeimai (to press hard, to be urgent, to insist upon) appears only twice in Luke’s Gospel.

First, in 5:1, “the crowd was pressing in on Jesus to hear the word of God.”

Second, in 23:23, the crowd “insistently demanded that he be crucified.”

Thus with this one word Luke tells the story of the fickleness of humanity.

Don’t end your story end in Luke 23:23.

Philippians 4:10-19 - 25 November 2011

Is there a panel structure in Philippians 4:10-19?

10 I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.

11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.

13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.

17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit. 18 I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.

19 And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

Give me Jesus, not mammon - 22 November 2011

Some thoughts provoked by, or found in, Douglas Jones’s commentary on Luke’s Gospel (Luke 5:1-11).

“The passage is about overwhelming wealth … too many fish [for the nets to contain] … [Thus] the text provides us with something of an unspoken economic test for the fishermen. Satan has just tested Jesus with the temptation of instant and immense wealth – all the kingdoms of the world, food, and safety. But Jesus resisted instant wealth, Then Jesus actually creates instant wealth in front of these very poor fishermen … This poses a subtle dilemma the fishermen have to respond to.” The astonishing thing, then, is that they “leave everything” (v.11) and follow him.
Douglas Jones thinks that the sin lying behind Peter’s confession “I am a sinful man” (v. 8) was his (previous, and now abandoned) thirst for mammon, manifested in his endless pursuit of wealth – “we toiled all night” (v. 5). Possible, I guess, but I’m not convinced. Toiling all night isn’t a problem, especially if you’ve caught nothing.

When could Jesus come back? - 22 November 2011

There is all the difference in the world between the following two statements:

Jesus could come back at any time.
Thought Jesus could not come at any time, nonetheless when he does come his coming will be unexpected.

Unfortunately, these statements are often conflated in people’s minds, resulting in considerable confusion. Note, however, that the Bible’s imagery of a thief in the night, and Jesus’ warnings to be ready, and so on, do not necessarily imply (1). They only require (2).

HT: MF.

What magnificent buildings - 21 November 2011

A long time ago I made some notes on R. T. France’s NIGTC commentary on Mark 13. I was reminded about them by a conversation with a couple of friends today, and on the off chance that anyone can understand my idiosyncratic brand of shorthand, here they are:

494-6; v1-2

The end of the temple announced

disciple’s enthusiasm, cf. J: ‘T=doomed!’

v1 significant: ‘As Jesus was leaving the Temple’! Cf. Ezekiel, glory of God leaving!

emphatic ou me + 2x aorist subjunctive

497-505

Ctxt in Mk: climax of growing hostility to J (cf. 495)

Importance of OT refs, missed by many modern ppl

Not ‘apocalyptic’

NTW (not RTF): all of Mk 13 wrt AD 70

SoM coming from God to receive authority

‘change of gov’t’

v30 comprehensible!

RTF: v32f – parousia

change of subject: ‘that day’ (singular, cf. prev plural)

uncertain time ref (cf prev certainty)

cf. Mt, parousia explicit

Traditional view: all about parousia. Reasons:

v24-27, cosmic imagery

‘SoM’ / ‘coming with clouds’ = coming to earth, not heaven.

But in 14:26, ppl increasingly accept Dan / heavenly vindication idea. Why not in Mk 13 too?!

505-8; v3-4

Subject = destruction of temple (v3 tauta; sitting opp temple)

v4: 2 parts of question about same subject (unlike Mt 24:3)

thus disciples concerned over (a) time of destruction; and (b) what sign will allow us to prepare for it

Ans (i): v14, 26, 27, esp 30: ‘this generation’

Ans (ii): hint in v28-9: fig tree, buds

v3: mt of olives: messianic connections (11:1)? Ex 11:23, God abandoning the temple

v4. synteilesthai (to be completed) ds not imply parousia reference, contra Mt. Rather, tauta x2 => same referent

in Mt, the vb appears in a specific (eschat.) phrase, unlike here

508-13; v5-8

Josephus: many false semeia in AD30-70

resulting confrontations = foretaste of AD 70 confrontation with Rome

also wars and natural disasters

telos here ds not imply parousia, but completion

è focus here: disciples mst not be misled by these signs

v6: ‘I Am’ (ego eimi) wrt Messiah, not YHWH (Cf. Mt, ‘messiah’)

many historical examples

Qu: Does throeomai // 2 Th 2:2 hint at parousia reference? (511)

v8: gar, implies further amplification Re: wars etc.

‘birth-pains’ in NT period was a general ref to suffering, not technical term wrt coming of messiah

513-9; v9-13

Interim period: time of proclamation, not passivity

blepete – begins imperatival focus of section. Exhortation.

series of slightly distinct exhortations

v9: direct object of blepete (eautous) personalises and focuses warning

poss progress from Jewish thru Roman persecution?

proclamation concerning Jesus both the cause and the consequence (‘witness to them’) of the opposition

v10: preaching to gentiles b4 temple destroyed

v11: recalls v9 trial scene.

519-30; v14-23

‘When you see’ – introduces more direct answer to question of v4.

‘abomination of desolation’ – reintroduces temple via ctxt of Dan

v17-20 <=> situation leading up to AD 70

Specific historical referent of these events?

(1) profanation of temple; (2) clearly discernible as sign; (3) shortly before Roman seige

v14-16: general 3^rd-person refs: therefore warnings directed toward all Judeans, not jst disciples. (cf. also 17-20)

è potential confusion and debate, but not over main flow of discourse

v14: ‘abomination of desolation’ – Dan.

masc. ptcp => ‘(male) god Zeus?

Once in place, ppl mst leave immediately!

Precise identification of AoD uncertain.

v15-19: wrt horrific war in Judea.

v20: siege of Jer lasted only 5 mths

v21-22: period of war and siege offers more opp’s for false messiahs

historical examples

v23: emphatic hymeis => ‘be warned’!

530-40; v24-31

Key verses for RTF’s distinctive view

So far, a full answer to v4 question has not been given

Outline:

v5-8: false ‘signs’

v9-13: digression: difficulties for disciples during intervening period

v14-22: specific sign: AoD, requiring specific response.

v24: contrastive alla highlights new focus of answer, beyond prev. ‘affliction’

24b-27: heavy dependence on OT prophets

24b-25: cosmic language => climactic changes to existing world order

v26-27: SoM comes: arrival of new world order; SoM sends out angels to gather in elect from all nations.

v28-31: answer to second half of v4 question: signs of approaching fulfilment

v28: fig tree parable – ‘be ready!’

v30: Actual time of events: within ‘this generation’

v32f: peri de – another subject

Key to RTF’s view: understand imagery in light of OT prophecy, not later Xn ‘coming of SoM’ = parousia ideas

v24-5: alla not imply change of subject, just contrast in scale of events

‘in those days’ => explicitly the same era of time as prev events: AD 70

cosmic language // in OT prophets: political changes within world history, wrt divine judgment

Shock: applied here to Jerusalem + temple!

v26: With v27, portrays +ve side of new world – the new thing that will come (cf. -ve in v24-25)

Echo Dan 7:13-14: ‘coming of SoM’ to be enthroned before God. A new king!

SoM = Jesus; in dan, SoM represents ‘saints of most high’; thus J receiving power on behalf of his ppl

How is SoM ‘seen’? What ‘evidence’? Ctxt suggests either 1. destruction of temple; or 2. gathering of ppl of God

-ve and +ve sides of same coin: powerful growth of church / SoM now the supreme authority

v27: sovereignty of SoM shown in gathering the elect

‘angels’? either (a) = ‘messengers’, => Xn missionaries, or (b) angels involved somehow in gathering the elect

v28-29: Back to v4 qu: fig tree illn that abomination of desolation / events of v14-22 are sign SoM’s coming

‘Fig tree’ – common nr Jerusalem, also symbol of Temple’s failure in Mk11

‘it’ (v29) = destruction of temple; ‘these things’ mst be before AD70 to serve as signs of its nearness

v30: ‘this generation’ = only a problem for ppl who get text wrong!

temporal sense required by construction of sentence and by v4 question (‘when?’).

alternative readings of ‘this generation’ don’t work

(a) ‘this gen’ = Jew (Jerome). actually argues in favour of RTF!

(b) ‘this gen’ = ‘that gen’, ie those alive at time of v29, understood as future age

Wrong: (i) interpretation of v29 argues against it;

(ii) even if RTF wrong on v29, this interpretation would require ‘that gen’, not ‘this gen’!

(b’) ‘this gen’ = human race in general. It never means this; it would be a misleading way to say it!

But ‘these things’ refers to v4 qu, hence destruction of temple. This view requires entirely bad interpretation.

v31: Emphasises truth of J’s pronouncement

541-6; v32-7

Peri de => change of subject. ‘That day’ (singular), contrast ‘those days’ (pl) up to v31

Contra NTW, who argues for same subject

Meaning of ‘that day or hour’:

v33-37 themes are parousia-related.

// themes in Mt, where parousia mentioned

But why change the subject here?

theological connection between judgment on Jer and on world (cf. Mt)

Blepete (v33, cf 5, 9,23) – look for true Christ (cf. prev false christs)

v32: Contrast: time of parousia unknown to J; destruction of Temple entirely predictable

v33: Blepete – summons to vigilance, unlike prev ‘cooling of expectation’ (5, 23) and call to prepare for suffering (9)

v37: Broadens perspective to ‘everyone’ – all must ‘watch!’

Further evidence the parousia is in view – relevant beyond immediate hearers

Isn’t life obvious? - 21 November 2011

If you’re hungry, then eat. If you’re thirsty, then drink.

“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

“Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.’” (John 6:35)