Fragments of Truth (Re)Released!

Ultimately, the Christian faith stands or falls based upon the reliability of Bible. If the message of the Scripture is not true then we have no basis for Christianity. The truth claims of the faith are inseparably linked to the text of the Bible. This is why the enemy of men’s souls exerts so much energy attacking it. From the very beginning Satan has aimed to cast doubt on the Word of God thus cutting at the very root of faith. The very first words of the enemy that are recorded are “did God actually say...” (Genesis 3:1 ESV)

His tactics have not changed. The enemies of the Gospel do not always need to directly attack the message, sometimes they can be very effective simply by casting doubt upon whether we actually even possess the message. Nearly every believer has or will eventually run into several common attacks upon the reliability of the New Testament.

We hear nonsense about how we can’t trust what it says because translation is like some sort of giant game of “telephone”. People who know virtually nothing about Church history will confidently repeat the gross untruth that the Emperor Constantine chose books that only supported his view to be included in the Bible at the Council of Nicaea. We hear that the early Christians transformed the stories about Jesus the rabbi into stories about Jesus claiming to be God. Some will simply claim that the early copyists were uneducated and sloppy so our copies are unreliable.

Most of the popular distortions are so lazy and riddled with obvious mischaracterizations that they have little impact other than to reinforce the misconceptions of people who already agree with them. There are, however, more well thought out and sophisticated questions about the integrity of the biblical text. There are scholarly and better-argued positions from which these popular tropes devolve. So then, how strong are the skeptical arguments? Did God really say what our modern Bibles record?

For those who want to learn more about the texts from which our current Bibles are translated I highly recommend this faithlifeTV video. It was a single showing release several months ago and I missed it. I was happy to see that it was re-released this week. You can buy it to stream on FaithlifeTV or you can buy it as a DVD. If you are curious about what is behind the text of your Bible or want to know more about the manuscripts used in textual criticism and analysis you will find this worth the time. The video covers several aspects of important New Testament manuscripts including how they were produced, how they are dated, the extent to which they agree with one another, etc.

The video does a good job of showing the remarkable story of the transmission of God’s Word. As a Christian, it was a great reminder of how absolutely unique this Book is in every way. Not only its contents, but its history as well. No other ancient book can come close to the stability the New Testament text. God has spoken... and quite clearly.

Using Interlinear Bibles

Over the past 30 years the combination of the growth of the internet, cell phones, and the development of Christians as a distinct end market for publishers has led to an overwhelming flood of Bible study materials. Although general Bible knowledge is decreasing, those who are interested can now freely access materials that would have been available only to scholars and specialists (if at all) only a generation ago. One of the tools that have increased in popularity are interlinear Bibles. They can be a very useful tool when used properly, but can also create confusion when they are not.

Interlinear Bibles have the Greek and/or Hebrew text of the Bible with additional information appearing in between the lines of original language text (thus the name interlinear). The amount of additional information varies but there is a standard format that is typically used. Also, these tools are now increasingly used by people who do not have any training in Greek or Hebrew but knowing a few basic things about the translation process is needed to get the most out of the tool.

I have been asked a few times through the years if I could explain why a translation differs from what is in the interlinear. Recently, I was asked if I could help someone explain why English Bibles show John 1:1 as

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

While the interlinear says:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.”

Obviously, these two are vastly different in meaning and implication. So, what is going on in this verse?

The first thing we need to understand is that interlinear Bibles are not translations. Many include a translation but the “interlinear” data that causes confusion are usually not the translations. Let’s look at our example from the second half of John 1:1. It probably looks something like the following in your interlinear although it might be arranged in a slightly different order.

Line 1:     καὶ		θεὸς		ἦν		ὁ		λόγος
Line 2:      καί		θεός		εἰμί		ὁ		λόγος
Line 3:      CLN		NNSM		VIAI3S		DNSM		NNSM
Line 4:      kai Line 5:      and		theos God		eimi to be		ho the		logos word
Line 6:      and		God4		was3		the1		word2
Line 7:      89.92		12.1		58.67		92.24		33.100

Let’s walk through what we have here…

Line 1: This is the actual Greek text of John 1:1b

Line 2:  This is the “lemma” or dictionary form of the Greek words. Since Greek words change

depending upon how they are used, adding this lexical form allows the reader to quickly locate them in a Greek lexicon or other reference tools.

Line 3:  This line provides codes that explain the part of speech and grammatical

function of the word. The “CLN” under the first word (the Greek word for “and”) tells us that it is a Conjunction-Logical-coNnective. Interlinear’s that includes this kind of information will have a key that explains what the codes mean.

Line 4:  This line is a transliteration of the Lemma or dictionary form. This is simply changing the

 lexical/dictionary form of the word from the Greek alphabet to the English alphabet.

Line 5:  This line is the lexical value of the dictionary form found in line 2. It is not a

translation of the verse. It is just providing an English equivalent for the dictionary form of the word. Notice, for example, that the verb “to be” appears in the present tense whereas John used the past tense in the actual Greek text.

Line 6:  This is where the trouble usually starts. This line is often referred to as a “word for

word” translation so people assume that this is somehow more accurate than their English translation. This is really only a translation in that it gives an English rendering of each word in the Greek text but it is not a completed translation and is not more accurate than what you have in any good English Bible. Since Greek functions differently than English you cannot simply translate the words themselves. If you look closely, you will notice there are small numbers below several of the words in this line. Those numbers indicate the order the words need to be in for it to convey in English the same meaning that is in the Greek. If you are using the interlinear properly you will see that it is actually telling you the same thing as the English translation. There is no conflict whatsoever.

Line 7: This line includes cross references. In this case, it is to the Louw-Nida Greek-English

lexicon. You will often see Strong’s numbers or cross references to other well-known lexicons and translation tools.

Your interlinear may have more or less information but what we have looked at here is typical of what you are likely to see. An interlinear is a very helpful tool once you understand how they work. If not used properly, however, they can lead to confusion. In English we use word order to convey meaning. For example; we know that the sentence “Jack gave the teacher an apple” is not the same as “the teacher gave Jack an apple” even though the same words are used. In Greek, however, the word order does not determine who is doing what to whom. In Greek, you could say “an apple the teacher Jack gave”, “gave Jack an apple the teacher”, or any other variation. Rather than word order Greek uses changes to the form of the words themselves and the use of other indicators such as the article to show the reader their function in the sentence.

In our example from John 1:1b even though the word order in Greek is “and God was the Word”, that sentence does not communicate what we would mean by the same word order in English. When we look at the way John wrote this sentence we know for certain that a Greek speaker would understand the sentence to mean “and the Word was God”. In this case the words God (θεὸς) and word (λόγος) are both written in the form they would have if they were the subject (nominative case). You can also see this indicated in the interlinear by the “NN” indicating they are nouns in the nominative case. Even though this is the case, we know that God is not the subject because of the way John uses the Greek article (ὁ). The fact that the word for “God” does not have the article but the word for “Word” does tells us right away that the subject of the sentence is “Word” rather than “God”. To express this in English we have to change the order and put “Word” before the verb in the sentence.

Just like any other tool an interlinear can be very helpful if used properly. If you plan to use an interlinear in your studies be sure to read the introduction and “how to use” sections so you can get the most out of them. Growing in knowledge of the original languages can be very beneficial for picking up on emphasis and nuance in the text but the greatest Bible study tool for the vast majority of people is going to be a good translation of the Bible into whatever language they can read most fluently because there is no substitute for time in the Word.

Bodily Resurrection: Part 2a (New Testament)

As we saw in the previous article, the doctrine of the resurrection of believers is taught in the Old Testament. The Apostle Paul identified it as a promise upon which the hope of the Jews rested as they earnestly worshiped (Acts 26:6-8).[1] The precise nature of the resurrection, however, was not clear and is one of the things made known through the person and work of Christ (2 Tim. 1:10).

Whatever extent the teaching remained in shadows throughout the Old Testament, the doctrine of the resurrection is a clear and central theme in the New. In fact, the author to the Hebrews lists the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead as one of the elementary and foundational doctrines of Christ (Heb. 6:1-2). It is therefore something all Christians must understand and believe. In the next two posts I hope to show that this New Testament resurrection is undoubtedly a physical bodily resurrection.

Clear Statements Regarding Physical Resurrection:

The teachers who prompted this series of articles accept that resurrection is a central claim of the New Testament but they spiritualize it and deny its physical nature. The New Testament, however, repeatedly makes the explicit claim that the resurrection is physical and bodily in nature.

Paul speaks of the hope of salvation to include the redemption of our bodies in addition to the spiritual blessings we already have when he says, “And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved...” (Rom. 8:23-24)

Paul has already explained that the power of God displayed in the raising of Christ is the same power through which our bodies will be raised. “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.” (Romans 8:11)

In the longest and most important passage on resurrection Paul emphatically defends bodily resurrection, even addressing the question, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” (1 Cor. 15:35). The Corinthians, influenced by Greek philosophy, could not understand how material bodies could possibly inherit immortality. Paul explains that the resurrection is not merely a reanimation of corpses but that a change takes place that makes our bodies fit for glory. Although these new bodies are spiritual, they are still bodies. Paul says, “So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.” (1 Cor. 15:42). Notice, that which is raised is that which was perishable, namely our bodies.[2]

Paul also affirms the physical nature of our resurrected bodies elsewhere, explaining we will be like Christ. “… we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.” (Philippians 3:20-21). The Apostle John says the same thing more succinctly when he says “We know that when He appears we shall be like Him” (1 John 3:2).

As Murray Harris has said, “In distinctive New Testament usage, resurrection signifies not [only] the reanimation of corpses but the transformation of the whole person into the image of Christ by the power of the indwelling Spirit, in spite of the intervention of death.”^[3] Our lowly bodies will not be discarded but will instead be transformed to be like Christ’s.

Christ’s resurrection body was a physical body (Luke 24:39) and although it was changed, it was the same body He previously had as is demonstrated by the empty tomb as well as the wounds in His hands and side (John 20:27). He ate food, had conversations, and was even mistaken for other people.

Jesus also affirms the physical nature of the resurrection when He says, “Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28-29). The emptying of tombs requires the reanimation of the physical body and cannot be a spiritual resurrection.

Preterists often claim Paul’s condemnation of those who denied the resurrection does not apply to them because he wrote before what they think was the resurrection event in A.D. 70. What is clear, however, is that the emptying of the tombs of the righteous and wicked did not happen in A.D. 70. If this day is yet future, then not all prophesy has been fulfilled and preterism cannot be correct.[4]

Resurrection as a Defined Term:

As we have seen, there are several passages that clearly assert that our physical bodies will be redeemed in addition to the spiritual blessings we already possess as believers (Eph. 1:13-14; 2 Cor. 5:5).[5] Support for bodily resurrection, however, is founded on even more than the verses explicitly mentioning our bodies. In fact, all of the New Testament references to resurrection entail a physical bodily event. As good students we must take the time to see how the New Testament authors define the terms they use. When Paul, Jesus, John, etc. use a term like resurrection we must ask what exactly they meant.

There are no examples in the New Testament where resurrection language is used only of the spirit of a person. In fact, scholars who have studied the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period have concluded that 1^st Century Judaism did not have the concept of resurrection without a body.[6] Although Jewish views of the afterlife were diverse and complex, scholar N.T. Wright asserts “if a first-century Jew said that someone had been “raised from the dead,” the one thing they did not mean was that such a person had gone to a state of disembodied bliss…”[7]

The New Testament contains many references to resurrection including over 40 uses of the specific term ἀνάστασις. These references were all understood in their Jewish contexts to involve the raising of the body. When Jesus, Paul and others use the general term resurrection they mean a physical bodily resurrection. Indeed, it was confusion about this Jewish concept in the Greek Church at Corinth that prompted Paul’s extended explanation of the doctrines of resurrection and glorification in 1 Corinthians 15, which I plan to deal with in detail in the next article.

Immortality as a Defined Term:

Likewise, terms related to immortality in the Bible do not carry the Platonic ideas that so strongly influence our current cultural views. These days most people think of immortality as a characteristic of the soul or spirit that is eternal or continues after death. This, however, is not the New Testament view.

There are 3 words in the New Testament that are used to refer to immortality. These terms are never used of the soul or spirit of human beings. They are only applied to entire human beings in relation to the future state of believers. Only God Himself is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16). Human beings gain immortality when they become partakers of the divine nature though their union with Christ and are glorified through the power of God (Rom. 8:30, 38).

Biblical immortality is not the continuation of the spirit after death or into eternity. All human souls will persist after this life, some to glory and some to judgment. Human immortality in the biblical sense is deliverance from the suffering and decay of the flesh and the torment of the Second Death. This is accomplished in our final glorified state. There is never any mention in the Bible of an immortal or glorified human spirit. Biblically, human immortality is directly connected to the hope of the bodily resurrection.

We even see this in various subtle ways. For example, believers who have passed away are often said to be asleep (1 Cor. 15:51; Eph. 5:14). To sleep implies an awakening. The image seems clearly to indicate it is the body rather than the soul primarily in view (2 Cor. 5:1-9). Likewise, we are said to be clothed in our bodies and are longing not to be unclothed (no body) but that we would be further clothed (glorified body), “so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.” (2 Cor. 5:4)

Conclusion:

There is much more that could be said regarding the New Testament teaching on this issue but this article is already too long. I pray that it is at least clear that there are several New Testament verses that explicitly teach a physical bodily resurrection. Beyond that, the New Testament concept of resurrection itself entails a physical aspect. Finally, the Biblical concept of immortality is always developed in coordination with the glorification of the body. Having laid this foundation, I plan to focus on Paul’s extended teaching on resurrection in 1 Corinthians in the next article.

_________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Having been most clearly developed in the Prophets, the resurrection was denied by those, like the Sadducees, who did not accept the writings of the prophets as Scripture.

[2] I will deal extensively with Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15 in the next article.

^[3] Murray Harris, “Resurrection and Immortality: Eight Theses,” Themelios 1, no. 2 (1976): 51.

[4] Russell acknowledges that the reference in John must refer to a literal resurrection. Even in placing the events fully within a Palestinian context, however, he fails to make any adequate case to account for the scope of Christ’s words. Essentially, his position is that almost nothing is known about the events taking place for 60 to 80 years after the end of Acts and so a lot of stuff could have happened. The quotes he uses to support this view are referring to specific knowledge of historical development within the Christian community. It is not true that we have no historical records from that time. One would expect to find references in Greek, Roman, Jewish, or other sources if there was a massive emptying of graves associated with the Roman occupation in Jerusalem. Nothing of the sort is mentioned.

[5] Notice that Ephesians 1:3 establishes that we have every spiritual blessing, yet verses 13-14 indicate that the Holy Spirit is a down payment on us receiving the fullness of our inheritance which we have yet to possess. The full inheritance is the completion of our redemption in glorification.

[6] N.T. Wright, “Resurrection of the Son of God”, especially chapters 3–4.

[7] N.T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem.

Bodily Resurrection: Part 1 (Old Testament)

Among the central tenants of orthodox Christianity is the hope of the physical bodily resurrection of believers. The blessed hope that we shall be brought back from the dead as whole persons is a theme that weaves its way throughout both the Old and New Testaments. Unlike the idea which became particularly popular in ancient Greece, where life after death was a spiritual existence freed from the prison of a physical body, the Bible presents the separation of the body and the soul as an unnatural condition brought on by sin and death. The defeat of sin and death in Christ therefore ultimately involves the redemption of both our bodies and our souls. This is a foundational doctrine of the Christian faith.

I recently became aware that certain Bible study groups in my area, having come under the influence of a type of full-preterism, have been questioning if the resurrection will be physical. As I understand it, they believe Paul’s comment, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” (1 Cor. 15:50) implies a denial that the resurrection is physical. In this series of posts, I would like to show that the Bible teaches physical resurrection. In this post, I would like to show that the hope of the physical resurrection can be found in the Old Testament. In Part 2 I will show that the New Testament clearly teaches a physical resurrection. In Part 3 I will explore the theological significance of this truth for the Christian faith.

The Hope of Physical Resurrection in the Old Testament:

The teaching of a physical resurrection is found in the Old Testament although not nearly as clearly as in the New Testament. Indeed, it was a topic of debate among Jews at the time of Christ (Acts 23:8). However, it was apparently not something so difficult to see that only scholars embraced it. For example, Lazarus’ sister Martha expressed her hope, presumably derived from her understanding of the Old Testament, in a future resurrection (Jn. 11:24).

In any case, the apostle Paul makes it clear that the Old Testament without question teaches a twofold doctrine of the resurrection. When he is before Felix at Caesarea Paul says, “…I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.” (Acts 24:14-15). Jesus also confirms that resurrection is an Old Testament teaching in his dispute with the Sadducees (Mt. 22:31-32).

I should point out here that the 1^st Century debate within Judaism was regarding a physical bodily resurrection. These statements by Jesus and Paul must be understood within the context of that doctrinal debate. This alone is sufficient to settle the question regarding the teaching of the Old Testament on the matter. They also have interpretive significance for us because they indicate conclusively that we should expect to find Old Testament passages that address the question.

Implied Old Testament References:

There are a number of Old Testament texts that are at least pointers toward resurrection such as Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac. As Abraham is preparing to sacrifice Isaac in obedience to God, he says to his men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you.” (Gen. 22:5). The author of Hebrews explains, “He considered that God was able even to raise him [Isaac] from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.”  

There are other possible types and figures such as Joseph, etc. in the Old Testament as well as three people who actually were physically brought back from the dead (1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:35, 13:21).

Of course, these texts are not conclusive. Abraham’s circumstances are unique and these other people died again. None of these definitively demonstrates a future hope of bodily resurrection. They do, however, establish a certain pattern that is consistent throughout the Bible. God’s power is frequently demonstrated through the raising of the dead. These signs generally accompany further revelation about God’s redemptive purposes and it is not altogether unfounded to see them as closely connected.

Beyond these, there are many Old Testament texts that contextually imply a hope in a physical resurrection even if they do not directly state it. The Bible commonly uses words in resurrection contexts such as awake, live, rise, to stand up, etc. For example, when David says, “As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness; when I awake, I shall be satisfied with your likeness.”  (Psalm 17:15) his phrase “when I awake” is best understood as a reference to his confidence that this promise will be fulfilled after his death, that is in the resurrection. Most of the Old Testament texts related to resurrection are of this type. They do not directly spell out the hope of the resurrection but rather assume it. Thankfully, there are a few Old Testament passages that more clearly indicate a hope in a physical resurrection.

Clear Old Testament References:

Job, for example, expresses his confidence that in the end he will see his redeemer in the flesh, even should he die when he says, “For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God…” (Job 19:25-26 ESV)

Likewise, Isaiah includes physical resurrection as part of the hope of the deliverance of the Lord, “Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!          For your dew is a dew of light, and the earth will give birth to the dead.” (Isaiah 26:19 ESV)

The prophet Daniel also discusses physical resurrection as part of the events associated with the time of the end, “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Daniel 12:2 ESV)

Conclusion:

When we combine these prophesies with the implied texts and the general connection between the imagery of redemption and resurrection (like we see in places like Ezekiel 37 etc.) we can better understand Martha’s confidence. If we look carefully, in the Old Testament we see a glimpse of the hope of physical resurrection which becomes far more explicit in the New Testament. This combined with the confirmation of Paul and Christ assures us that this is a doctrine found in both Testaments. Paul tells us that it is through the coming of Christ and the Gospel that light has been shed on immortality (2 Tim. 1:10). I hope to show in Part 2 that this doctrine which is revealed dimly in the Old Testament is undeniably bright and clear in the New Testament.

Ezekiel's Daniel

The book of Ezekiel mentions the name Daniel three times. I was recently asked if I could clarify the chronology to explain how those to whom Ezekiel was prophesying would know about Daniel since Daniel is younger than Ezekiel. I commend the brother for paying such close attention to his biblical timelines! In this article, I will attempt to briefly examine the major issues around Ezekiel’s reference and explain why I think this is a reference to the prophet Daniel.

The question has long been debated by critical scholars. The traditional view is that Ezekiel’s Daniel is the same person as the prophet Daniel who was his younger contemporary. Critical scholars, however, often raise several arguments against the traditional view.[1] First, they doubt the younger Daniel could have gained a sufficient reputation to be named by the older prophet, especially along with Job and Noah.

They also point out that the spelling of the name in Ezekiel דנאל (dn'l or Danel) is different from the spelling used elsewhere to refer to the prophet Daniel דניאל (dny'l or Daniel). Historically, those who rejected the traditional view often argued that the reference was to a mythic figure of the same name.[2] In the 1930’s, however, scholars began translating ancient Canaanite texts and the argument that Danel was a mythic figure became strengthened because one of the ancient tales from Ugarit, known as the Tale of Aqhat features a wise man named Danel. This discovery of an ancient Canaanite “hero” using the same name led to a general consensus among critical scholars that this was the probable background for Ezekiel’s reference.

First, let us take a look at the actual references. The first two occur in the 14^th chapter of Ezekiel, both within the context of the coming judgment of God:

“…even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 14:14 ESV)

“…even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, they would deliver neither son nor daughter. They would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness.” (Ezekiel 14:20 ESV)

In both of these cases, Daniel is pointed out for his righteousness alongside Noah and Job. The point is that even the intercession of these righteous men would not be enough to restrain God’s judgment. In this context Daniel is an example of the highest standard of righteousness.

The next reference to Daniel comes in chapter 28 within the context of God’s oracle of coming judgment against the King of Tyre:

“…you are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you;” (Ezekiel 28:3 ESV)

The reference here is God mockingly judging the king for his pride and arrogance with Daniel as an example of a very wise man.

The first question we will address is the spelling difference. Spelling variations are common in the Old Testament and are not by themselves significant. In this case, the un-pointed Hebrew names are exactly the same and even most critical scholars accept that the names may have both been pronounced Daniel. The spelling variation is therefore interesting, but inconclusive. What makes this argument interesting is the reference to the Canaanite figure of the same name, to which we will return shortly.

Second, we must answer is how likely is it that Ezekiel and his audience would have known about Daniel as an example of righteousness and wisdom? This is further complicated by the third reference because in order for those who received Ezekiel’s prophesy to understand the reference, the fame of Daniel had to have spread beyond the Jewish community. Would Daniel be famous enough to be mentioned in the same category as Job and Noah, and to be considered an example of wisdom at such a young age to both Jews and non-Jews? While admittedly remarkable, it is not impossible.

Daniel would have likely been no older than his early 30’s when Ezekiel was called but was already in Babylon for over a decade. Daniel was taken captive in the 3^rd year of Jehoiakim’s reign (Dan. 1:1-6). Jehoiakim reigned for 11 years, then his son, Jehoiachin replaced him and reigned for 3 months before being exiled (2 Kings 24:8[3]). Ezekiel begins his prophetic ministry in the 5^th year of Jehoiachin’s exile. Therefore, Daniel would have been in Babylon for 12 or 13 years when Ezekiel was called. It is possible that another 10 to 20 years may have passed before this specific prophesy was given.

Therefore, although Daniel is younger than Ezekiel it is reasonable that his reputation may have spread by the time Ezekiel is active. The first two chapters of the book of Daniel indicate that Daniel became an important advisor in the court of Nebuchadnezzar very soon after arriving in Babylon and may very well have been famous after only being there a couple of years. The early events of his life, if well known, would have made him famous for precisely the attributes mentioned by Ezekiel, namely his piety and his wisdom, specifically the wisdom to see secret or hidden things (Dan. 2:27-28).

Those arguing for a non-biblical Daniel sometimes point out that neither Noah nor Job are Jewish and argue the inclusion of a famously wise Canaanite would better fit with the other examples. They also submit that a Canaanite reference makes more sense in an oracle to Tyre than does a Jewish prophet. These arguments, however, are not very strong. Although Daniel is Jewish, he is an example of faithfulness lived out in a pagan context and thus complements the others because all three are examples of righteous men who did not live in the Promised Land. It is also not clear that Ezekiel intends any particular significance to the selection of his examples beyond their usefulness as examples of righteousness.

The most persuasive argument to my mind, however, is the overall context of the Ezekiel references. While the Tale of Aqhat depicts the Canaanite Danel as wise, he is not presented as an outstanding example of righteousness. Noah and Job are not Jewish but both worship Yahweh. The Canaanite hero Danel is a polytheist and an idol worshiper. H. H. P. Dressler makes the point clear that it simply makes no sense for Ezekiel to appeal to an idolater who worships false Gods as an example to encourage his people to forsake idolatry. Rather, Daniel is a perfect example of godly wisdom in contrast to the idolatry and false wisdom of Ezekiel’s audience.

Ezekiel’s references to Daniel are not without some difficulty but they involve no logical inconsistency. The most natural reading and the best interpretation, in my opinion, is that by the time Ezekiel is writing the prophet Daniel is already well known for his righteousness and wisdom. When we consider the things the Lord did through him, it is not all that surprising that his reputation would have spread quickly. I suspect the strongest underlying motive of many critical scholars in rejecting the prophet Daniel as the reference is because if Ezekiel’s is talking about Daniel he helps establish the early date of the book of Daniel. That would involve recognizing the supernatural element in Daniel’s prophecies, something that most critical scholars are not eager to accept.

---

[1] The actual critical arguments (and the responses to them) are rather sophisticated. My goal here is to give the general idea. For those who are interested in a more thorough review of the issue I recommend the Bible.org article by Dan Wallace as a good place to start: https://bible.org/article/who-ezekiels-daniel

[2] Part of the reason why many were reluctant to accept this as a reference to biblical Daniel is because they insisted the book of Daniel was actually written much later.

[3] 2 Kings recounts that Jehoiachin is 18 years old at the time he becomes king but 2 Chronicles records him as being 8 but both confirm that he reigned around 3 months. The discrepancy is possibly a copyist error, the 18 year figure seems more likely given the events in the text although some have argued that both are correct based on possible regency years, etc.

The Structure of Jude

One of the more difficult things for beginners to grasp when using the inductive method is the ability to identify structure in the text. It is important not to get discouraged by this. It gets easier with practice. It is also important not to worry about making every detail “fit” into a structure. If you do that, you will likely begin to see things that may not be there. Although the structure can have a significant impact on our interpretation, if a given structure is really there, other indicators will support the resulting interpretation. For example, we do not need to know that Psalm 119 is an acrostic poem to recognize it has a unified theme and was intended to be memorized or meditated upon.

One of the more common structures students are likely to encounter is Chiasm. Chiasmus is a literary structure where ideas are mirrored or paralleled in such a way that they are either reversed or reflect back on themselves. The word comes from the Greek letter Chi which looks like our English X which itself exhibits a similar mirroring effect.

One of the most famous chiasms in English is Kennedy’s famous statement, “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” You will notice that the ideas within the statement reverse and the second half reflects back on the first half. When these kinds of structures are extended over larger sections of a text they are often called inverted parallelism. When it is a longer section of text involved, often the parallels will build to and from an emphasized central point.[1]

I am working through an introduction to inductive study with a group using the book of Jude. Recently, the question came up as to if Jude has this kind of structure. Since there were several in the group who missed the discussion, I thought it might be helpful to post something on the subject.

I think Jude has what I might call a “loose” chiastic structure. I would not push the significance of it too far or insist that we can discern exactly Jude’s intention in using it but I think elements of it are clearly there. Notice the following repetition of elements in the book [followed by the verse number]:

 A.  Address to the Beloved [3]

       B.  Ungodly people have come in (long ago designated…) [4]

             C. “I want to remind you…” [5]

                 D. The Lord & judgment [5]

                      E. He has “kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness” [6]

                          F. These people blaspheme [8]

                              G. Michael did not blaspheme against the devil but appealed to                                                God’s Word [9]

                           F. These people blaspheme [10]

                       E. “The gloom of utter darkness has been reserved” for them [13]

                 D. The Lord & judgment [14]

             C. “You must remember” [17]

        B. It was predicted ungodly people would come in [17-18]

A.  Address to the beloved [20]

Why would the illustration of Michael and the devil be central to the parallel? The men who have crept in are not submitting to the Word or the Church, they are criticizing the church, and they are twisting the grace of God to serve their own ends. They are rejecting God’s authority. They ultimately put themselves in a place of judgement over God and His people.

Their rejection of authority and their blasphemies are contrasted to Michael’s submission to God’s authority. Despite his high position, Michael does not even speak against the devil as boldly as these men speak. Even the archangel does not presume to exercise his own judgment or authority as do these men. The centrality of Christ and  His authority are therefore emphasized by Michael's example of pronouncing God's Word rather than speaking from His own authority. This is precisely what these men fail to do and why they will be judged.

[1] Chiasmus and inverted parallelism can be helpful to the interpreter but they can also be tricky. There are some people who see it everywhere and then try to cram every text into a chiastic structure. As I mentioned, we don’t want to impose structures upon the text that are not there. Scholars often argue for enormous, complex, and subtle, structures in various texts that even if present, probably would not have been apparent to those to whom they were writing.

Why Did Esther Not Have Mercy on Haman?

One of the most heroic figures in the Old Testament is the Hebrew maiden Hadassah who becomes the Persian queen Esther. Esther demonstrates great courage and intercedes to save her people from a high-ranking official named Haman who was determined to kill all of the Jews. Near the end of the story, the tables are turned and Haman is sentenced to death by hanging (likely impaled) on a pole he had prepared for Esther’s cousin Mordecai. While we celebrate her courage in stopping a potential genocide, many commentators are bothered that Esther did not intercede to save Haman. They argue she would have been a more admirable figure had she demonstrated mercy to her enemy. Why does Esther not try to save Haman’s life?

Like all of the Old Testament characters, Esther is imperfect, just like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Peter, Paul and every other character other than Jesus Christ. In the case of Haman, however, it is possible that that author actually intends her lack of mercy to highlight her covenant faithfulness. There is a dynamic in the narrative that many people do not pay much attention to that might explain her actions and the way the author intends us to think about her.

Early in the story we learn that Haman is an Agagite (Esther 3:1). This is a fact that the author mentions 5 times at key points throughout the book. This means that Haman is a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag. The Amalekites were a historical enemy of the Jews having opposed them as they came out of Egypt. From that time forward, the two nations were in constant opposition to one another. This is probably why Esther’s cousin Mordecai refuses to bow down to him. It may also be why Mordecai’s refusal leads Haman to plan to kill all the Jews rather than just Mordecai. The history between the two people was one of constant strife and Haman’s desire to have people essentially worship him would have been particularly repulsive to Mordecai and all other faithful Jews.

Haman, however, is not just an Amalekite; he is an Agagite, a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag. This is a very significant detail and helps explain how we should understand Esther not interceding to save him. Back in 1 Samuel chapter 15, the Jews were preparing to battle the Amalekites and God commanded that they not spare any of the Amalekites or their animals (1 Sam. 15:3). The armies of Israel were victorious but Saul failed to obey God and spared the life of king Agag and some of the animals. When the prophet Samuel confronted Saul, he tried to justify his actions rather than repenting of his sinful disobedience. Samuel killed Agag himself and informed Saul that because of his unfaithfulness, God would strip the kingdom from him and give it to another.

The name Agag is therefore associated with failure to keep the covenant and disobedience. Saul was a monarch from the tribe of Benjamin who ignored the command of God by showing mercy to Agag. As a result, he failed to keep the covenant, failed to protect his people the way God intended, and lost the monarchy from the tribe of Benjamin. What is interesting in the book of Esther is that we have a second encounter between a monarch from the tribe of Benjamin and an Amalekite from the family of Agag (Esther 2:5, 2:7).

The Bible does not include random details and it seems almost certain that the pairing of royalty from Benjamin with the name Agag is intended to recall the story from 1 Samuel. Saul relied on his own strength rather than obeying God. By contrast, Esther throws herself upon the providence of God regardless of the outcome for her (Esther 4:16).

Although Esther only becomes queen because she married a pagan king she ends up fulfilling the monarchial covenant requirement that King Saul failed to keep. Esther displays sacrificial leadership, protects her people, and destroys their enemies. Although in exile, Esther is doing what we would expect from any faithful Jewish monarch. Some may assume that Esther should have tried to save Haman but it is likely that the author intends us to recognize the parallels to Saul in a way that is favorable to Esther. Ultimately, God is the hero of the story and Esther is an instrument of God’s providence. 

Painted Fire: The Bible and Spiritual Experience

“For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So, also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 2:11-13 ESV)

It is becoming increasingly common for people wanting a deeper experience of God in their lives to seek it in mystical or emotional experiences rather than through the Bible. The irony is that the Bible helps believers experience God in a way far deeper than mystical or emotional experiences can provide. Christ redeems the whole person, not just the intellect or emotions. In Biblical faith our minds are transformed and so are our deepest desires. In Christianity, our “spiritual” experience is crucial but it is never separated from the Wisdom and Truth of God. We achieve the most powerful spiritual experience in our union with Christ through the Word.

The apostle Paul explains us why in the verses quoted at the beginning of this article. Notice first that Paul establishes the transcendence of God. It is not possible for anyone to comprehend the thoughts except the Spirit of God. This fatally undermines the philosophical method of knowing God. Philosophers attempt to know God through a rational analysis of what they observe about the world and the mind. Paul, however, tells us that only the Spirit of God comprehends the thoughts of God. The philosophical method is therefore ultimately doomed to fail. Knowing God is not achievable based upon a purely rational or intellectual method. Does this mean the mystics are correct? No, it does not.

Paul says what is understood is “freely given by God”. The Apostles have received the Spirit of God so that they are able to understand what God wishes to reveal to them. This is a crucial point because it establishes revelation as the source of Divine knowledge. The apostles did not receive their doctrine from men. It was not the result of philosophical speculation or insight. Neither was it the result of religious discipline. It came from the Spirit of God who freely gave it. Since the Apostles experienced direct revelation, it might appear that we might come to know God through a similar mystical experience but what Paul says next is as devastating to mysticism as his earlier comments were to rationalism.

 Paul says “And we impart this in words”. The “this” he refers to are the things freely given, namely the thoughts of God. This is significant because if the Apostles communicate God’s thoughts in words then they are contained in statements that are either true of false (propositions). The revelation of God is therefore rational and must be understood using reason. It also means that we have access to the very thoughts of God through the words of the Apostles, which is the Bible. Through the Word, we have access to a pure knowledge of God because it contains His very thoughts.  

Paul says that the words are not the result of human wisdom but are “taught by the Spirit.” Not only does the Spirit give these truths but also interprets them for those who are “spiritual”. We see therefore that the work of the Holy Spirit is required both in the giving of Scripture and in the spiritual rebirth of the believer who receives the Word. The Spirit prepares the minds of the believer to receive His Word. We therefore have a subjective (new birth) and objective (Bible) component of our experience of God. Biblical Christianity therefore rejects both pure mysticism and pure philosophy as legitimate ways to know or experience God. Both experience and reason are required, neither is autonomous, both are subjected to the rule of Christ.

This is an amazing thing to consider. When we read or hear a statement from the Bible what happens? Our physical sensations of the scribbles on the paper or the sound waves are transformed into a thought in our minds. Remarkably, Paul tells us that this thought, to the extent that it actually conforms to the Word of God, is also a thought in the eternal mind of the transcendent God. This is why Paul can make the bold claim a few verses later “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).

By meditating on the Word, we experience within same action the combination of intimate communion with God and rational, conscious activity. It is a remarkable thing to claim that Sprit, working through the Word, transfers the very thoughts of God to our minds. The New Testament frequently discusses the mystical union of the believer with Christ as an objective reality. It is, however, something we can experience in a special way through our meditation upon His Word. Philosophy and mysticism can never elevate beyond our creaturely mind and feelings. The Bible, however, provides access to the mind of the Creator.

I cannot imagine a deeper or more satisfying experience of God than what Paul describes. The Word of God is what deepens and sustains our experience of God as we live out the Christian life. The Puritan Thomas Manton put it this way, “he that labors must have his meals, otherwise he will faint.” Adding, “Painted fire needs no fuel.” There are many who appear to be on fire for Christ but if their zeal is not fueled by the Word of God, then I fear it will either soon burn out, or it is merely painted fire that provides no true light or heat.

Are Adam and Eve in Heaven?

A few weeks ago, I preached on the first Gospel promise in Genesis 3. My emphasis was on God’s faithfulness to this promise in our lives and its development throughout scripture. Later, someone asked me if I thought Adam and Eve were in heaven. I gave a short answer but wanted to develop it a bit more. I hope to do that in this post.

It is important to point out that the Bible does not specifically state whether God saved them or not. However, if we pay careful attention to what the Bible does say, I think we can have some level of confidence that Adam and Eve are in heaven. The question is raised (I think) primarily because throughout the Bible Adam and Eve are used as the example par excellence of human sinfulness, failure, and rebellion (Hosea 6:7; Rom. 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 15:21-22; 2 Cor. 11:3). If, however, we remember that the Bible is the record of God’s plan (and work) in redemption then we quickly realize that the emphasis on the fact that Adam and Eve did not deserve salvation serves to glorify God who graciously saves sinners and deserves all the praise and honor for their salvation (Rom. 5:19-20). Adam and Eve are therefore not just examples of human sinfulness but also of salvation by grace through faith.

Before God even pronounces curses upon the people and land, he curses the serpent. It is clear that this is not merely a snake and later in scripture, it becomes clear that the serpent is Satan. Involved in that curse is the first Gospel promise. It has implications not only for some future time but also immediately for them. The second part of the curse on the serpent is:

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (Genesis 3:15 ESV)

Christian readers immediately focus on the prophesy of the work of Christ and the Gospel contained in the verse. Notice, however, that God declares not only that He will put enmity (opposition) between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, but also between the woman and the serpent. When Adam and Eve chose to believe the word of Satan instead of the word of God, they aligned themselves with the Devil and made themselves enemies of God. In a sense, they put enmity between themselves and the holy God. Satan may have thought his rebellion was succeeding but God declared that He would create opposition between the woman and Satan. The destruction of Satan’s power will result from the offspring of this woman whom he deceived. This is the plan of God and is a declaration of His sovereign grace in redemption.

The curse on the serpent in verses 16-19 is followed by curses on both the man and the woman that end with the curse of death “… you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Remarkably, the next words recorded are “The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” (Gen. 3:20)

God declares that they will die and then Adam calls her the mother of the living! Clearly, Adam is expressing faith in the promise of redemption given a few verses earlier that God will restore life to his creation and overcome the adversary through the descendants of Eve. Theologians have developed many complex descriptions of saving faith, but in its most basic form, it is simply trusting in the promises of God. When we consider the particular promise Adam is trusting in we see that it is none other than the Gospel. The promise involved in the curse of the Serpent is that God will provide a redeemer descended from Eve, born of the seed of a woman, who will conquer Satan but be wounded in the process, and opposition will be placed between humankind and Satan.

Eve also shows faith in the promise. The promise in chapter 3 entails offspring and in chapter 4 when Eve gives birth to Cain, she says, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord” (Gen. 4:1). It is possible that Eve thought that Cain would be the fulfillment of the promise since the name Cain indicates that she “got” him from God. Ironically, Cain is not among the faithful seed and kills his brother. The result is that Eve essentially loses both sons but we see her faith again when she gives birth to Seth. The name Seth means “placed” or “appointed” and Eve declares concerning him, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.” (Gen. 4:25). This time she is blessed and it is through Seth that the promise is fulfilled. Her comments and the names of her children indicate that Eve retained her confidence in God’s word.

We also find another clue back in Genesis 3. Just after Adam calls his wife the “mother of all living” the following detail is recorded:

“And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.” (Gen. 3:21) This may sound like a practical detail but its significance is profound. I do not have the room here to explore it in detail but this is the first time in the Bible that blood is shed to provide a covering. Fallen man failed at his attempt to cover himself but God provides a covering through a death (Gen. 3:7,21). This theme of sacrifice as a covering related to sin continues throughout the Bible and finds is ultimate expression in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary. This is another demonstration of the grace of God in dealing with his fallen creatures, is a typological symbol, and foreshadow of atonement. It is not specific stated as the case here, but this action is consistent with God’s care for the faithful that we see throughout scripture. If it is, then it is likely that Adam and Eve are included in the family of faith.

Finally, there are hints in some of the genealogies and lists. Some have pointed out that the list of the faithful in Hebrews 11 does not contain Adam and Eve even though it extends back to their lifetime. That is an interesting observation because the purpose of the list is precisely to highlight the persistent hope of the faithful in the promises of God. Their absence, however, is not conclusive and there may be other reasons why the list begins with Abel. First, the list moves very quickly from Abel to Abraham and there are many believers not mentioned. Indeed, the only ones mentioned are those who had some sort of profound demonstration or confirmation of their faith. It may also be, as John Gill suggested that Hebrews speaks only of those who had received the promise in faith through the testimony of the faithful.

Hebrews 11 is not the only list to look at. Other New Testament lists may also provide insight into the question. Matthew, emphasizing Jesus as the Jewish Messiah understandably begins with Abraham, but Luke whose work emphasizes the inclusion of the Gentiles into the promises begins his genealogy of Christ with Adam. It is likely that Luke is emphasizing Jesus as the fulfillment of the promise and the hope of all people. In structuring his genealogy this way, Luke is connecting the coming of Christ with an anticipation that extends back to the very beginning of human history. It seems likely to me that the implied connection is Genesis 3:15 and that Adam (and Eve) were waiting for Christ.

Although the Bible does not explicitly say that Adam and Eve are in heaven, I think we have enough information in the scripture to think they are. I believe the biblical clues we have indicate that although they had less information that we have, they were trusting in the same Gospel promise.