| Old Testament Passages |
| Old Testament Passages |
I don't intend to provide formal commentary here ... there's many excellent choices available, depending on your point of view. Here I want to discuss specific passages relative to the analytical consistency and dating patterns (described elsewhere on this site). Mainly their significance. Obviously, like anyone else, I am only surmising. But it is ... something to think about. OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES Gen 1:1 - 2:3 This is the creation-by-day chapter. The JEPD folks put it in with the priest sections, though it uses the elohim god-name. From a vocabulary-syntax analysis, it's a mixed bag with little consistency. From what I can see: (1) The current seventh day (Gen 2:2) was likely added later in Ezra's time. Two reasons: if you look at the rationale for the sabbath, the Exo 20:11 version quotes the creation days. The Deu 5:15 version mentions Egypt as the reason. Dating-wise, the Exodus version dates around the post-exile time range, Deutoronomy earlier around Hezekiah's time. Additionally if you look at the daily pattern, you'll notice day six (Gen 1:24-31) actually has two day's worth of each daily component. Map it out yourself. (2) The JEPD theory postulates two versions of the creation. I'm not sure how valid that is. From what I can see, the daily version (chapter 1) appears to have 'grown' over time, with 'days' to connect the sections. Chap 1 and chap 2 are from differing times; neither are consistent with their sister chapters. My guess: both grew together over time, with potentially separate authors. (3) If you read Gen 1:2-13, you'll notice you actually have a pretty good 'creation story' for farmers (sun, waters, agriculture). The whole thing is there. Then, it 'starts over' again, with creating lights again, but a much broader view. The obviousness of the duplication is never really explained in the commentaries. The syntax-dating on the first part (v2-13) is around Sam/Kings time period, while the second matches ISA and later Song of Songs poetry, but the pattern is weak. Absent the JEPD argument, I'd of thought chap 1 had the two stories! Gen 2-3 This is the theoretical second creation story. Most of the hebrew is similar to the time of Deuteronomy and Isaiah ... Hezekiah's time, with much 'anchoring' of creation around physical places (the daily-version is location independent). However the sin/serpent story is much earlier (Samuel/Kings), returning to Isaiah's time for the punishment explanation (crawling, birthing, farming, etc). Gen 4:1-16 This is the story of Cain vs Abel. It's an odd story. The farmer kills the shepherd. If you live in the American west, you'd know neither one should survive ... cattlemen rule! But the story here is missing some logic, and thus its oddness. Why was Cain not pleasing? Pastors weave in blood sacrifices as the desirability to God, but then there's those pesky 'first-fruits' offerings (oil, wine and wheat), that you find throughout the Torah (of course they didn't have that 'sweet-smell'; Lev 2:12). I thought maybe the hebrew 'dating' might help. Nope. The whole story is quite early with 'YHWH' (southern kingdom?) matching well on syntax, and 'Elohim' (northern kingdom?) matching well on vocabulary. Definitely no late editing. It is a YHWH segment, if you subscribe to the JEPD theory. Elohim picks up in the following segment (Gen 4:25). I creatively imagine the Judean 'YHWH' herders, versus the northern fat-cat 'elohim' farmers (see Amos). This is 'true' surmising! Who knows? Gen 12:1-3 Gen 15:1-21 Gen 18:17-19 Gen 22:16-18 These four are all promises to Abraham. Gen 12 occurs when God directs Abram out of Heran (or Ur, depending). Gen 15 is the shield vision and his descendents. Gen 18 is after the three angels visit Abraham. Gen 22 is after he almost kills Isaac. Soooo ... why four similar covenants? The JEPD folks assign the first three to YHWH, and the last to the redactor plus ELOHIM. Hebrew-syntax-wise, Gen 12:1-3 is quite early, similar to Judges, Ruth and 1 Kings. Most likely it's from Samuel? The fourth one (Gen 22:16-18) is probably even earlier, since it matches both the YHWH and ELOHIM sections, with some later 'Genesis' editing. Chances are, it was the original version. The Gen 15:1-21 version is somewhat later, matching Amos/Isaiah2 style, with verses 15-18 even later, matching Nehemiah's style. The Gen 18 version also is in a middle-hebrew syntax style (Zechariah's time), but essentially repeats the Gen 12:1-3 version, sort of as a quick re-play. It's Gen 15:18 [TEXT] that is so interesting. This is the one that says Abraham gets everything from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers. If you look at the other Euphrates verses (Gen 2:14, Deu 1:7, and Deu 11:24), you'll find a pattern of ALL having similar syntax-dating ... about the time of Hezekiah. Curious? For you hebrew-ists, if you're wondering, the naphel/hitpael of 'bless' doesn't match up well with the syntax-dating (Gen 22:2, Gen 18:18, Gen 22:18, Gen 26:4, Gen 28:14). Gen 15:12-16 (Jer 34:17-20) This connection is also interesting. Abraham wants a son, but God also promises him the land of canaan (see previous passages). The passage here very much looks like it's inserted, since the sun-going-down repeats itself in verse 17, picking up from verse 11. A very similar passage is in Jeremiah 34:17-20, coming out of a discussion of not freeing hebrew slaves (breaking a covenant). What is interesting is that the syntax of the 'inserted part' most closely matches 1st Chronicles syntax, a very late book. All the 'insertion' basically adds is the 400 years/4th generation egypt sequence. Why? To validate the second captivity in Babylonia? Regarding the '4th generation', it might be a continuation of the birds section in verse 11. Both have a 'turn-back' with 'Amorite' being the older name; see Gen 14:7 where you also have an Amorite and another 'turn-back'). Lots of Amorites and turn-backs! Gen 15:13 vs 15:16 I 're-researched' this, because I was matching up Matthew and Luke's geneologies. When I was looking at Luke's (which matches Matthew from Abraham to David), and matching it to Genesis 5 and 11, I noticed there's about 4 generations for an Egypt slave period! Wow. That matches Gen 15:16, doesn't it. I checked my commentaries (limited!) and didn't see any mention of this. I wonder why, since it's so obvious? But then I got to wondering ... 4 generations is about 80 years or so (Luke). 120 at most, if you use Matthew. Definitely not 400 years. To further complicate matters, Exodus 12:40 mentions 430 years. Interestingly this verse is also late dated (as well as the whole book of Exodus). The plot thickens! When you get to New Testament times, Acts 7:6 references 400 years and Galatians 3:17 mentions 430 years. Both sections (early Acts; Galatians) are likely written about 45-55ce, one by someone in Jerusalem and the other by Paul. The Paul one has abnormal authorship (meaning the vocabulary and syntax doesn't match the rest of Galatians). The Acts passage (of course!) has abnormal authorship patterns as well(!), dating to about 75ce or so. I can't believe this. I think the big mystery is 'why 400 or 430 years'? It's not reasonable. Have you thought of four men who didn't have sex for a 100 years? Abram has a son after 100 years but that was because of Sarah (of course). I get the feeling the 400 or so years is trying to match to some other account that we can't see. Even the Babylonian captivity is about four generations. Maybe that was the problem ... they didn't want an Egyptian captivity so short? Of course, there's also the JEPD theory with one possible version saying four generations (YHWH; southern; Abraham), and the other possible version saying 430 years or so (Elohim; northern; Ephraim generations)? By the way, the apostle-blessed Septuagent added some years (quite a bit of years) onto the early fathers' lives. Some think it was to match up against the (incorrect) Egyptian history at the time. That was before they corrected the Septuagent (back). Gen 18:1-18 . This is the story of the three men (plus or including YHWH and maybe Jesus), who visit Abraham and inform him (and laughing Sarah) of their new son. The initial criticality here was likely Sarah vs Hagar. The passage mixes the singular with the plural throughout the section, resulting in interpretative issues including various commentaries (including Oxford NRSV) concluding Jesus is there with two angels. I suppose Jesus is possible ... there's a similar motif at his resurrection and ascension. However, the hebrew syntax-dating provides an alternative view. The whole section mixes Ruth/Judges syntax with middle-hebrew syntax (time of Zechariah), with no clear sub-section for each. I've noted elsewhere on the site that there was likely a very early Judges-period hebrew-female story book, that was later integrated into the Torah. The stories of Hagar, Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Ruth, and an early version of Esther all have similar hebrew syntax and 'date' around the time of Judges (quite early). Here, you can easily see the female viewpoint, especially Sarah in verse 12. The presence of 'Zechariah' syntax patterns don't surprise me, since an Abraham-promise follows the Sarah story (see Abraham promises above). Overall, I'd guess the Sarah story was first integrated into the Genesis history. Later someone in Zechariah's time did some refinement, changing the emphasis to Abraham, along with a reminder to the reader in v17-19 (which appears sloppily inserted into the start of the Sodom/Gomorrah story). See also 1st Peter 3 for a discussion of the NT version. Gen 18:25 [TEXT]. This verse is from the philosophical discussion Abraham had with God on how many good people are needed, to prevent Godly destruction. Without even knowing hebrew, the average reader would question the passage, since (a) it reflects a later culture of measuring 'justice' (remember Aiken; just one bad person is all God needs to punish everyone!), and (2) Abraham arguing with God is a bit 'much', though Moses did also in Num (see below). And, so, when you check the hebrew syntactical patterns, at verse 23 you move from a Judges/Ruth pattern (maybe 1000bce?) to a Job/Eccl pattern (excilic period when Gen was likely 'packaged'). I was looking at the specific verse here, because in the NT, I couldn't pin down why at times Jesus said he didn't come into the world to 'judge', and other times he was given the task of judging by God. Huh? I'm not a hebrew/greek expert, and so I encourage you to take a look. But it appears to me, the problem with Jesus occurs when you move from the hebrew word combining ruling and judging to the greek word combining judging and convicting. In early middle-east cultures, 'men' combined ruling and judging. So when you see the hebrew 'judge', translators have to make a decision on whether it's closer to 'rule'. In this verse, YLT has 'doth the Judge of all the earth not do justice?'' Most translations use 'judge' (though NIV admits possibly 'ruler'), but 'justice' gets translated many ways (usually along the lines of 'righteousness'). When the greek came along (Septuagent), the latter word moved to the root 'krisis', which is clearly in a 'court' atmosphere (judge, convict, etc). If you move to Isaiah, you'll find a similar pattern, where a hebrew concept of justice/righteousness moves to a greek judge/convict. So, Matthew carries Isaiah's 'justice to the Gentiles' (Is 42:4) and assigns it to Jesus (Mat 12:18). Translators follow along with 'justice', even though the greek side is closer to Jesus judging the gentiles. On the surface, this all sounds academic. But I really suspect Jesus put forward an Isaiah-type concept of the gentiles being attracted to God's righteousness (as a ruler). You can confirm this in Acts 15:17, where James is rationalizing 'the gentiles' (as opposed to simply quoting Jesus). The opposite concept is illustrated in Daniel's 'Ancient of Days' (7:9-10), where the aramaic is literally a 'court' and judgment is to ensue (classic apocalysm). I plan to go back into the gospels, and see if Jesus' concepts got shifted into an end-time apocalyptic judgment that Jesus never claimed. Gen 34 / Jud ch19-21 This is the story of Dinah daughter of Jacob, and the men of Shechem. It sort of 'intrudes' on the uplifting accounts of Jacob, reminding the reader that humanity is 'still around'. I include it here, because it seems very similar to another account in Judges chaps 19-21. Both start with a bad situation (Gen=rape, Jud=killing). Both end with MAJOR kill-offs. Both involve Levi and Simeon, oddly enough. Both are in the same hill country north of later Jerusalem. Are they connected? This is very interesting. Gen 34 and Jud 20 match almost exactly hebrew-wise, both likely written very early, around the time of 2Sa, and both having a vocabulary style matching the histories (Kings/Chron). However, the set-up story in Jud 19 is likely quite late, probably when Genesis was being finalized (post-exile). On the other hand, Jud 21 is probably very early, being consistent with the early patriarchical accounts. My (literal) guess is that both accounts reflect a social (Godly?) acceptence for over-whelming destruction in the face of an agrievement, during the early days of Israel. The two accounts, though similar, don't appear to be the same. I'm especially fascinated with the Judges account, where God gives them detailed instructions on battling Benjamen, with them not only killing off almost all the men, but then going BACK for more, killing all the women, children AND cattle. Wow. Only afterwards, does it seem to occur to them, there might be a problem with a missing tribe of Israel! Of course, to solve the problem they then kill-off another city, except the virgins! If you read Jud 21, I'd assume scientifically, that today, there's only 11 tribes' worth of mitochondrial DNA. None left from Benjamen. If you're a Bible reader, I'd bet you never thought about early tribal breeding 'DNA repairs'! By the way, where did the first king of Israel come from? You got it ... Saul was a benjamenite from ... Gibeah (1 Sa 10:26). I guess he was benjamen-mitochondrial DNA free? And another Benjamenite named 'Saul'? Yep, 'Paul' and he too was benjamen-mitochondrial DNA free. This explains why some scholars think Paul wasn't actually jewish; the well-documented and inherited 'Saul-ian' mitochondrial-DNA pattern! Num 11:12 [TEXT] This is the only verse in the Bible with a 'nursing-father' (Isa 49:22 though is similar usage). Starting at Num 11:10, the account appears to be straight out of a comedy. First, YHWH gets angry at the whining Israelites. Then Moses chastises YHWH. What? Here's the quote ... "Jehovah, 'Why hast Thou done evil to Thy servant? and why have I not found grace in Thine eyes--to put the burden of all this people upon me? [12] I--have I conceived all this people? I--have I begotten it, that Thou sayest unto me, Carry it in thy bosom as the nursing father beareth the suckling, ..." (YLT). I'm surprised Moses even stayed alive! But, noooo. Moses then tells YHWH to just 'shoot him'(v15)! But I digress from the issue here. Actually, the nursing-father is tracable to old hebrew, with the 'nursing-father' actually 'support' of the suckling infant (the crowd of wailing Israelite whiners). The interesting part is what the translators do with it. KJV starts the ball rolling with a 'nursing-father'. YLT, DNT, and the ASV keep up the tradition. But by the time you get to the NIV and NRSV, it's a 'nurse'. And the NLTse, not to be out-done, moves on to 'mother'. Moses the nursing mother. Shore 'nuff. I'm still amazed Moses didn't bite-the-dust earlier than he did. Deu 18:14-22 This is what might be called 'the prophet section'. In earlier verses, the writer is mainly discussing miscellaneous legal issues and the levite class. Then the writer pops in with what to do about 'kings', plus their qualifications. In the section we're looking at, the writer next pops in with 'prophets', plus their qualifications. The primary issue is whether they're 'real'! Of course, the writer of Acts later on (Act 3:22, 7:37) uses it to say 'Jesus'!! From a syntax 'aging' point of view, Deuteronomy is interesting. First, unlike Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, the writing is internally consistent (not piecemeal). Even more interesting, Deuteronomy itself 'dates' just before the Hosea/Amos and Isaiah prophesy groups. This is 'about' when the northern-kingdom began to deteriorate. Maybe they were having trouble with un-real prophets! Per the 'ascribed' writer ... Moses? Move about 500 years later. Now, the passage (obviously) predicts 'the' prophet. Go through your New Testament, and search for 'a prophet' or 'the prophet'. Fascinating! I don't know how close the 'prophet' was to 'the messiah' (the essenes separated them). But obviously, when John and Jesus showed up, a prophet was certainly expected! Jos 10:12-13 [TEXT] I ran into these verses while reading some of Thomas Jefferson's letters. Jefferson was recommending that one should demand some form of 'evidence', when Bible writers claimed something not normal to 'nature'. As an example, he suggested in Joshua, imagining the earth literally stopping, and the resulting chaos to animals and plants ... and then a second chaos with the earth's re-start! What Thomas obviously didn't know was that at the time of Joshua, the sun went around the earth; not the reverse. Duh. But, the subject here is 'The Book of the Upright'. WHY would the writer feel it necessary to assure readers (or listeners) that such an event had INDEED happened?! Why would that reference be so important .... as if the readers of the time were just a little incredulous? Sort of like Thomas J? I feel like Thomas might have been more accepting, if he had had a copy of 'The Book of the Upright'. Ah, yes. By the Way: If you ever get time, compare the two versions of 'Jefferson's Bible'. The early one was during his presidency, the second about 15 years later. He clearly was deeply involved in the Bible. Judges 1:8,21 [TEXT] This is one of the 'classifier' passages in the Bible. You use it to see what kind of commentary you have! In v8, the men of JUDAH smite'd Jerusalem. With the sword. Not only that, but they burned it down. Done! Then in v21, same chapter, the Jebusites lived in Jerusalem and were NOT dispossessed by the men of BENJAMIN ... 'till this day' (whenever that was). Huh? To me, this verse combo gives you a lot of clues about how the OT was slowly written. Even when there were conflicts, the 'redactors' quite often gritted their collective teeth and kept the conflicting descriptions. When we use our Hebrew syntactical analysis, a possible answer emerges. First, Judges 1 is clearly NOT similar to the rest of Judges, and has a lot of 'IS1' patterns (Isaiah 1-39). The section containing Judah slaying Jerusalem is in the IS1 pattern of chapter 1; the Jebusite/Benjamin section is in the Judges pattern (along with most of Judges). The question then arises, which is earlier? Best I can figure, Judges and 1st Kings are a close match (with possibly 2 Samuel). My guess is that the underlying histories were assembled in the early years of the split-kingdom. IS1 is VERY similar to DEU, Hosea and Amos, appearing to be later when the northern kingdom was conquoured by Assyria. In theory, the differences in Judges 1 represent a shift from Benjamin 'ownership' of Jerusalem to Judah. Unfortunately, there's a third verse, Joshua 15:63. This one completely contradicts Judges 1:8, matching Judges 1:21 but Judah instead! So where does IT 'date'? Well, it matches the same period as IS1, similar to Judges 1:8! (the remainder of Joshua 15 being post-excilic). Gee, that really messes the picture up. What EXACTLY were the writers/redactors thinking?? You'd have to figure the 'Joshua team' (around the time of Nehemiah) wasn't talking to the 'Judges team'! Not at all. 2Sa 24:1 / 1Ch 21:1 [TEXT] Again, ever need to make sure 'your' commentary is the 'right' one? These two verses discuss the same event (an 'evil' census). The first attributes it to God, while the second, satan. Now, if your commentary dances around rationalizing 2Sa, then you have yourself a 'conservative' commentary. If instead, the commentary points out a change in theology, that would make it a 'liberal' commentary. See how that works? Actually ... in reviewing the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1Ch was often more accurate than the MT, relative to tracking 1Sa. And, if you analyze the hebrew syntactical patterns, 1Ch 1-12 has a VERY close match to Nehemiah (but not Ezra/aramaic). I would guess 'Nehemiah' pushed 1Ch backward in time. Starting with 1Ch 13 to the end, the hebrew more closely matches 2Sa, similar to 2Ch. Sooo ... chances are that the above 2Sa/1Ch difference pre-dates Nehemiah's likely expansion. 1 Kings 13:8 [TEXT] When you're in church on Sunday, this verse is a good one to remember. As background, Jereboam the evil king is down at BETHEL sacrificing to a god (not in righteous Jerusalem, and he's mainly 'perfuming'). A 'man of God' (sound familiar?) came and prophesied to him that the Bethel alter would be split in two, as a sign from God (along with predicting another king). Jereboam got really ticked off and tried to grab the man of God, but lost his hand (literally, along with the alter splitting in two). You'd think 'there's a clue!' Fast thinking, Jereboam asked the man of God to ask 'his' God to return his hand (which God did). The man of God then refused to eat with evil Jereboam (per God's instructions) and dutifully headed back to Jerusalem. Here, the story gets really good. ANOTHER prophet (from Bethel) heard about it, rode his donkey after the man of God, and caught up. He told the man of God that God speaks to him TOO. 'Let's eat together!' Uh ooooooh. The man of God believed him! (big mistake). And therein lies the lesson to be remembered each and every Sunday morning. There's two kinds of 'men of God'. Be VERY careful. EXTRA: So what happened next? Well, the donkey-prophet got a (real) message from God telling the man of God that he was indeed in big trouble; the man of God had ignored God (this gets complicated). Next, a lion killed the man of God (but didn't eat him). What happened to Jereboam? He kept 'perfuming' at Bethel (fixed the alter, but didn't seem to be too impressed with YHWH). What is the important take-away? On Sundays, check for any lions around your church (or odd perfume-y smells). Yep. Proverbs 30:7-9 [TEXT] Like many with Christian parents, mine had given me a special Bible. My Dad liked the ASV; my Mom liked the KJV, and so the gift was an ASV. Later when my Mom died, I was lucky to receive her Bible ... an NKJV. She never gave the KJV up ... and my Dad still has his ASV. I generally don't put notes in my Bibles, since I shift from version to version. But the one from my parents, I had highlighted this passage. Like most teens, I thought I could manage my future and this was the future I wished to have. Now, it's 40+ years later. After entering a seminary, I had walked away from the church. I didn't think they were honest with their belief (nor me with mine). And I pursued a career that promised neither riches nor poverty. Now, I'm retired and I have come to an accomodation with honesty and God. I guess it really can't be achieved. And in a way, I imagine Him chuckling, as if I too could be a god. But He did indeed give me what I asked for, 40 years ago. And so, I bumble along with Him, imagining Him saying 'Don't you EVER learn ANYTHING?!'. EXTRA CREDIT: Per many commentaries, Proverbs 30 et al. aren't from Solomon. These proverbs include aramaic words, which of course we know Solomon didn't know. I always wondered, though, how Solomon talked to his Egyptian wife. Hmmm. Syntactically, these proverbs have a closest match with the hebrew in Hosea. Well, anyway, the philosophy of Proverbs 30 almost seems like SedonaChristian.com in its tone, with the author admitting not being too wise. I especially like his warning ... 'Add not to His (God's) words, lest He reason with thee,and thou hast been found false.' (v6 YLT). I don't think most pastors are too concerned with this ancient caution. Definitely not Saul aka Paul. Isa 7:14, Isa 8:4, Mic 5:2 The first passage is the famous 'virgin' and Emmanuel passage. The second is a parallel, with the third, Micah, closely matching Isaiah. All involve Assyria's eminent attack within 1-2 years, with other 'kiss-up' prophets calling for 'peace'. See discussion on next page at Mat 1:23. Isa 40:3, Mal 3:1, Exo 23:20 Here, we have 'the way' connected to 'the wilderness'. The first two passages are later used by 'John the B' (actually by the gospel writers, but at least they're pretty consistent for once!): Mat 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4, John 1:23. And, if you look at the OT hebrew syntax patterns, all three OT references match the same period: early exilic. And when you add JohnB's usage, all three associated periods (enslaved Israelites in Egypt, enslaved Israelites in Babylon, and 'enslaved' tax-paying Israelites in Judeah/Galilee) have the same problem ... a savior is needed from YHWH. But, the issue here is 'the way'. Take a close look at the Exodus passage 'keep thee in the way'. The Isaiah passage alternates with a 'prepare ye the way', and Malachi follows Exodus with 'he hath prepared a way before me' (all quotes YLT). Now, 'the way' or 'the path' or 'the road' all seem common metaphors for behavior then, and even now. But in both the OT and NT (and the Dead Sea Scrolls as well), it appears to be more than that ... more a 'religion' or specific belief. This is clearly seen in Mat 21:32, where Jesus refers to JohnB coming 'in the Way of Righteousness' and the listeners not 'believing' him. Believing what? I'd assume a new 'Moses' (eg a messanger a la Exodus / Malachi, or prophet a la Deuteronomy). Where the main curiosity comes in, is in Acts. If you search, you'll find quite a number of odd references to 'the Way' as a name of a sect. And, it appears to be independant of the pharasees / saduccees: 'And I ('Paul' speaking) confess this to thee, that, according to the Way that they call a sect, so serve I the God of the fathers, believing all things that in the law and the prophets have been written' (Acts 24:14 YLT). The phrase first appears (textual dating-wise) in Acts, where Saul/Paul is headed up to Damascus to arrest members of 'the Way' (including women, think about that: Acts 9:2). Later in Asia, Paul has to move out of the synogogue due to jews disbelieving in 'the Way' (Acts 19:9,23). You can also find 'the Way of Truth' as well, leading to 'the truth' and Paul's 'the truth of the gospel'. John 14:6 even connects it all up quite nicely (turning Jesus into a metaphorical road). In general, 'the Way' concept shows up mainly in Acts (also Luke 20:21?), and seems almost an authentic 'Jamesian' concept of the early jewish believers. The 'source' I would think is Luke's source for the Pauline experience (whose description doesn't remotely match Paul's actual theology, or his historical memory in Gal 2, or even knowledge that he wrote). I am most impressed as 'Paul' claims a John-the-Baptist orientation in Acts 26. Later (in writing-dating), the gospel of John has an odd quote 'And whither I (Jesus speaking) go away ye (the apostles) have known, and the Way ye have known.' John then has Thomas ask 'Sir, we have not known whither thou goest away, and how are we able to know the Way?' (John 14:4-5 YLT). Now, I 'know' the apostles are routinely stupid, but they can't be 'that stupid'. I wonder if John is poking fun at the effectively dead palestinian apostle/James-led church? I really do wonder. Along with John not liking 'Thomas' and his separate gospel? Eze 9:4-6 [TEXT] These verses are kind of fun for two issues. Note the YLT's 'virgin' in v6, which is the same issue noted above in Isa 7:14. The hebrew is 'young woman' or maiden, but the LXX is parthenos or 'virgin'. Most of the translations in this verse go with 'maiden', skipping the 'virgin' issue! The second issue is the 'mark on the foreheads' (v4), which appears to be the basis for all the forehead and right-hand marks in Revelations. Here, YHWH is ordering the destruction of Jerusalem, starting in the temple (except for the 'markee's' of course). So, where did the mark on the 'right-hand' come from? Not sure. The NT-sometimes-used 'Psalms of Solomon' also has the forehead-mark, but NOT the right-hand mark. But, regardless, having a RFI-chip embedded on your hand WON'T WORK, since you'll need one for your forehead too. Just practical advice for your end-time prepping. Joel 2:28-32 [TEXT] I began looking at Joel in-depth when it became clear the NT's end-time was likely plural ... the multiplicity of concepts in the NT was trackable to differing prophesies in the OT. And so, you can deduce the theology of each NT group by looking at which OT prophesies they were likely tracking. The 'Joel-team' is looking for a restoration of Israel, with its enemies destroyed in the 'Valley of Jehoshophat' (Joel 3:1-2). The sign that the end was near is in Joel 2:28-29 ... just about everyone would be prophesying. Then you have some signs, plus a dark sun and a bloody moon before the 'Day of the Lord' (which will be just awful). Oh, but there's an 'escape' clause (v32) ... if you 'call on the name of the YHWH' you can be saved. Where do you have to be? That's easy: Jerusalem on 'Mount Zion'. So, who was on the 'Joel-team'? The earliest member in the NT has to be John-the-B. And at Jesus' baptism, the Spirit indeed annointed (poured out) onto Jesus. John-the-B and Jesus shared followers and so Peter and likely most of the disciples were team-members (they had (1) ran around the villages in Galilee as pairs, warning the villagers that the awful day was near, (2) argued about Israel-judging/table-seating, and (3) even asked the resurrected Jesus about how soon they'd be in-charge). So, at Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21), Peter says Joel was talking about 'the last days' (everybody was prophesying in tongues, right?). And the Joel-team knew YHWH-callers had to be jewish (at least at that point; compare Acts 2:39 to 10:45). How could the Joel-team escape the awful 'Day of the Lord'? Two steps were required: A-Repentance and B-Baptism in the name of Joshua the Messiah. And how would the Joel-team know they would be delivered from the awful day? YHWH would give them 'the gift' (being the Holy Spirit per the greek verb). How nifty! So ... who's NOT on the Joel-team? I'd bet Paul (and likely 'John' and any of the 'non-repenting' writers). Pentecost-Joel didn't impress Paul, but Jesus' resurrection-Daniel did. In Paul's letter of 1st Corinthians chaps 12/14, the nutty assembly members had taken Peter quite seriously and are just 'gifting' all over the place. Paul, who says that 'his' are commands of Jesus (wow; 1 Co 14:37), lays out the rules of the road: tongues are for unbelievers (who then helplessly bow down); prophesies are for believers. At our church, you can do 'tongues', but there has to be an independent interpreter (which, of course, there never is). I don't think we follow the 'tongues-for-the-non-believers-only' rule from Jesus. Now Paul does seem to recognize Joel had some value ... in Rom 10:13 he borrows the phrase 'call on the name of the Lord' and then applies it to 'everyone'. But here, he runs into a problem, since Joel has 'all flesh'. And so Paul has to help Joel out with 'believing' YHWH-callers only. Oddly enough, the NET translators struggled with the same issue, adding 'kinds of' to 'people' in Joel 2:28. The NET translators probably knew Joel (as do we all). Was Jesus on the Joel-team? I'd suspect 'Q' and Mark put him solidly on the team, sending the disciples out two-by-two (though Mark has Jesus keeping the 'signs' secret until just the right time). Luke and Matthew seem conflicted. But if you track Jesus' use of the OT, it seems to center on Isaiah, almost emphatically. A new kingdom ... a new BEHAVIOR as a metric of membership? He doesn't even ask for repentance, but does talk about John-the-B's demands. Gospel-writer-John, though, clearly kicked Jesus off the team. John knew a lot more than the other gospel writers (and likely wrote after the Joel-team was safely dead). OK, which team were John and Paul members of, then? Well, Paul was on the Daniel/Ezekiel-team (though the Acts-writer sneakily has Paul preaching Joel-team theology, similar to John-the-B). John, on the other hand, had his own team (the well-known 'Johnines'). Fast forward to today. Who are now the Joel-ites? Maybe the Pentecostals or Jehovah's Witnesses? What's so interesting is that all the other denominations 'decided' Joel's prophesy ENDED in the first century. Actually, the change seems to have come with the demise of Jerusalem. No more prophesying slaves, or yippy-yapping women. The 'gift' narrowed down to preaching (instead of prophesying), eternal life and maybe the Holy Spirit (as an example compare Rom 10:15 and Rom 12:6-7). EXTRA: Most of the commentaries I've seen put Joel after the jewish exile. But if you analyze the hebrew syntax patterns, the post-excilic patterns begin at Joel 2:28 (which is where the hebrew chapter breaks) through most of chapter 3. The earlier text (Joel 1-2:27) matches the Isaiah-1 and Hosea/Amos patterns. I'd assume that the late addition was to strongly encourage the jews to gather in Jerusalem (instead of remaining in Babylon, etc). And so, Peter at Pentecost much later. And today? Not likely ... too dangerous. Jonah This is a cute story, and one that almost sounds like your own pastor? Not ours, mind you. He's great. Although the story is fun to read, it's odd! The fish part is a little unusual. But, 'Ninevah' as the target city is truly odd. Of course, I had to 'check it out'. The 'liberal' commentaries assign Jonah to the post-exile period. As usual, they note the inconsistencies ... Jonah son of Amittai is mentioned in 2KI 14:25, when Ninevah was neither a royal residence nor a world power (time of Jereboam II). The hebrew 'syntax-dating', however, places Jonah similar to the time of the 'Judges' writing (very close match). Jonah's prayer (ch 2), however, is the 'time' of Zechariah (post-exilic sure enough), where Jonah explains his general stupidity. But overall, Jonah is likely fairly early. That includes the fish! So, chances are the story is real, but not likely 'Ninevah'. Wonder where? I don't know if you're a history-buff, but in the mid-1800s, conservative Tennesse preachers (early Church of Christ) were debating John D. Lee, an early Mormon missionary. They said the strange boat in the book of Mormon that carried the lost 10 tribes to America was laughable. John D defended it, pointing to the example of Jonah riding a whale! John D. later was executed at Mountain Meadows Utah. Something about a wagon train of lost souls. Zeph 1:12 [TEXT] This is such an interesting verse (indeed the whole first chapter). It 'dates' (hebrew syntax) to about the presumed time of Zepheniah (whew!). 'End-days' Christians like to use this chapter a lot (such great quotes!). My interest in this verse is the last phrase 'Who are saying in their heart: Jehovah doth no good, nor doth He evil.' Early 'Deists'? Sounds like scribal scoffers! I think there's an assumption that the majority of the jewish nation believed in YHWH's power in Old Testament times. I have always wondered how a nation, that strongly believed in YHWH, had so much trouble with all of YHWH's competitors gods? Think about today ... what if Israeli men were constantly marrying muslim women, visiting Medina, bowing to 'the Prophet', and bringing home little Mohammad statues? Never really thought about that, did you? Zech 1:15 [TEXT] This is from the first of Zechariah's eight visions, here a messenger/angel doing translating work. YHWH seems to be in a good mood (v13), with the messenger asking him when he is going to take pity on the cities in Judah. YHWH explains in v14 that he's really 'zealous with zeal' about those Judah cities, and wasn't really that mad at them. But the darn 'nations' went over-board ... with EVIL! Wasn't YHWH supposed to be all powerful? This is a 'Lord of Hosts' passage, by 'the way', if you're tracking a localized YHWH. | |||
| Copyright ©, 2010, dmbarnhart | |||
| NEXT PAGE: the NT GOSPELS >>> Prev Back Next |